Review of Dune

Dune (2000)
4/10
Could have been better, could have been worse...
4 February 2006
In all accounts, I feel that the 2000 version was seriously lacking... Costumes are bad, acting is stale, and graphics were pretty bad.

I honestly prefer the original. It's not that the Sci-Fi channel's version is bad, it's just that it doesn't have the feel of the book or the Lynch film.

Story- I can agree that the new version is a bit more loyal to the book, but it tends to be cryptic, and doesn't convey the intrigue or depth that Herbert was intending.

Graphics- All I can say is that they are cheesy... Unlike the original film, the 2000 version was unrealistic. And the Worms were more like snakes in this film than sand worms. The original worms were true to the book, and in terms of reality, they were suited to living in the deep sands. I can't say the same for this version. And I honestly feel they should have spent an extra amount of money just to drive out into the desert just get the reality that wasn't there in this version. The backgrounds were obviously fake, and 3D graphics were overused. (they might as well have made the whole bloody thing animated instead)

Costumes- Looked like something out of a modern cartoon instead of something out of a militaristic, intergalactic, empire. 'Nough said.

Cast/Crew- Left much to be desired. They could have taken a bit more time choosing their cast and crew in this one. The director lacks understanding of Frank Herbert's vision, the cast was mediocre at best, and editors reused scenes too often. They showed the destruction of one village over and over in the context that they were different places every time.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed