Frank Herbert's Dune (2000)

I'd seen parts of the David Lynch Dune movie and it was decent, and when I heard that the Sci Fi Channel was doing a miniseries based on the original Frank Herbert novel, I was excited. Maybe it would do more justice than the movie. Turns out it was actually pretty darn good.They brought in a lot of foreign actors, and not just American ones, and William Hurt was good as the father of Paul Atreides. But some of the acting was a little stiff and some might think that the guy playing Paul was a little too old. Maybe a twenty-something-year-old would have been nice. But the visuals were pleasing and the technology looked well done. I've only seen the miniseries once, and I wouldn't mind seeing it again. At least the Baron didn't look too revolting. And the sandworms were definitely formidable. The ornithopters could have been more exotic-looking but they were decent and were much better than the ones in the David Lynch movie.Bottom line: If you were put off by the movie and want something a little more accurate and exotic, this should be on your to-do list. If it were me, I'd keep both for comparison. That way we don't have to fight. And it's not a contest. Just try to enjoy one or the other, or even both, okay?

Certainly it is hard to convey the complexities of Frank Herbert's magnificent story in film - even while just about anything seems possible in today's cinema; who'd have imagined Lord of the Rings faithfully rendered in anything but animation format? But we are talking about the beginning of the new millennium, so I give the production kudos for a rendering that is vastly superior to the Lynch film and went on to produce the equally excellent Children of Dune sequels.

I first read Dune by Frank Herbert when I was 14 years old and considered it the best book sci-fi or otherwise I'd ever read, 40 years later and after many re-reads it's still in my top 5. I've never really bothered about a feature film of it when after all the best film of any book you read is usually in your head, and the dire 1984 attempt didn't help me either. So with mixed feelings I finally saw this TV mini-series.Thousands of years in the future thanks to interplanetary high politics and a feud the ruling Atreides family get moved from their lush planet Caladan to govern the desert planet Arrakis but which is rich in the vital drug Spice. The battle is immediately on to retain then regain their position, the young Duke Paul Muad'dib eventually attaining messianic status amongst the aborigines. As you can perhaps guess it's a helluva lot more complicated than that and virtually impossible to make sense of it in a synopsis, or drop a spoiler for that matter! With many shortcomings due to running time (a hopelessly inadequate 273 minutes) the film screenplay played fairly faithful to the novel, the atmosphere and the sets were spot on, the acting OK, crowd scenes so-so, however some of the cgi cartoonery for action scenes was done on the cheap and let it down slightly. Favourite bits: The banquet; the delicate glassy sets for the Bene Gesserit and Imperial scenes; the relationship between mother Jessica and her son Paul; Alia's glee at people's discomfort; the atmospheric enhanced colourings. Pity Thufir Hawat's role was reduced though.This is probably one of the very few films that it's almost essential to have read the book first – this was a nice try and even though I wasn't entirely ecstatic about it at least it all made sense to me. If you watch this first you may still enjoy it but I think you'll wonder what all the fuss is about. Overall: enjoyed it now to press delete as it takes up too much space.

Now I must say that both the 1984 and the 2000 versions have their flaws. I of course like the book best but I'll just review the 2000 interpretation.Paul Atreides: I prefer him over the 1984 Paul, he is just far more relatable. The 1984 Paul was harsh and cold, he has emotion and just has a great look.Duke Leto: Once again, he is preferable. He looks cooler, acts better, has far more screen time and is more meaningful to the story. He was one of my fav characters and his death scene was 100 times better than the crap I saw on the 1984 version. He has charisma and strength.Thufir Hawat: WHAT?!! One of the best characters of the book has been totally ruined here!! He is terribly underused, he has no charisma(MASTER OF ASSASAINS) and he wears a ridicuolus top hat! I find myself missing Freddie Jones's fantastic performance.Piter De Vries: Forgettable. That's the best way of saying it. Like Thufir, he wears a stupid hat. And he is just entirely forgettable. The contrast between him and Thufir that was so clear in the 1984 version is gone entirely and all I got was that he's an annoying adviser guy.Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: Here is where things get interesting. McNeice was a frickin' masterpiece. Gone is the ugly psycho-Baron from 1984. McNeice followed the book to the letter and brought his own style to the role. I kept hoping to see Harkonnen scenes more than Atreides scenes.Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen: My first reaction to him was: "Why isn't his hair ginger?". Looking back, I must say he makes a better Feyd than Sting did, he was just more... Feyd-ish. He was of course arrogant, but also had style, something that the 1984 Feyd(who wore the same suit for 2 years) lacked entirely.Rabban Harkonnen: His first name is not Glossu. It was said in the original book by Gurney himself: "Rabban Harkonnen". Anyway, I liked him better here, he was intimidating and if you'd been his prisoner, you would know straight away you're doomed. The 1984 Rabban was a buffoon.Duncan Idaho: While I enjoy Duncan having more screen time here, the 1984 Duncan was far better. This Duncan just wasn't... familiar. I dunno how to say it.Gurney Halleck: I think this is one of the few characters whom I like equally in all versions. The 2000 Gurney is sort of a cross between the rough ugly Gurney from the book and the Captain Picard from 1984.Lady Jessica: Like with Gurney, I like her equally in both versions. Of course, there's no denial that the 2000 Jessica is more beautiful.Shaddam IV: Personally, I liked the 1984 one far more. He immediately gave away a feeling of justice and security. He was an Emperor whom you would want to join. The 2000 version just kept annoying me with his attitude(it is sad that the new Herbert/Anderson books depict this Shaddam). Frank's original Shaddam seemed to be a cross between the 1984 and 2000 ones.Chani: Better here.Liet-Kynes: While the 1984 version had much more charisma, he lacked four things. First of all, I never knew he was Liet. Secondly, I never knew he was Chani's father. Thirdly, he didn't have his *I am a desert creature* death scene. Fourthly, it was never mentioned that he was behind the ecological reformation of Arrakis. Irulan: This Irulan was much better than the pointless 1984 Irulan. That's all I have to say.Sorry if the comparison bored you.I really liked this miniseries, it kept closer to the tone of the book. Unlike the 1984 version, it had warmth. The Fremen felt more adapted to the ways of the desert, the sandworms were clearly better.