ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Armand not a surprise. only new proof about wonderful art. because it is little more than an adaptation. it is a translation of ideas and force of an universe with best tools. like many sci-fi works, it is a fairy-tale. and this virtue is important in this exploration of nuances and demonstration of great performance. high technique is only tool. the costumes are only pieces of game. essence - the spirit of novel in a precious skin. and the measure as guide in a fragile world. it is a very interesting series. and inspired way to novel. because Frank Herbert remains creator not only of a special universe but source of a magnificent series.

Elswet While this is not Dune itself but a continuation thereof, I believe that this is the closest so far, to capture the real feel of Herbert's source material. The meat has not been bastardized, and the spices are not absent.I still cannot say this is definitive, but we're getting closer to a genuine Herbert movie. Even though this expounds on the tale instead of retelling it, it is a more than worthy sequel to the two preceding attempts, and is far superior in virtually every way. The story missing from the first attempt is present, and the effects missing from the second attempt are present, yet it still lacks, though not by much.Here's hoping Peter Berg's 2010 Dune lives up to this work. Dare we even hope it will surpass it? It would not be nice to have the made for TV sequel shine above a more technologically adept remade original. ;)All in all? I love this, although it does feel overly long and has more than its share of wasted film. This is not Friday/Saturday night viewing, as it IS too long for that, but it's perfect for a snow/rainy day activity. Give a little of the Baby Boomer culture to the grandkids.This is a worthy sequel which surpasses a classic cult sci-fi juggernaut and as such, rates an 8.8/10 on the M4TV scale from...the Fiend :.

hvendelbo The Dune 2000 TV Series was quite good. Occasionally it is obvious that it is not a blockbuster budget, but on the whole it really works.Why the director was changed for this series is beyond me. The attention to detail and layering is gone. Take Alias fight with the 11 robot blades. The actor does a very good gymnastics show, but it just doesn't look like any sort of fighting scene. Camera angles and cutting could have made it look like a fight rather than a gymnastics choreography. And afterwards she is coy and playful. Where is the proud,ambitious,harsh,confused Alia.Still a good watch though, even if it could have been so much more.

elgrego Totally Flawed!Sci Fi's Battle Star Galactica, with no great source material shows that with a TV budget you can make decent Sci Fi drama. This just misses in almost every way, and is much, much, much worse than the (couple of years earlier) Sci Fi's Dune.(And my put on the David Lynch Dune of 1984--wonderful stuff, it just was too short, which made reading the book first almost mandatory to "get it".)Firstly one has to preface this with the "fact" (or at least almost universal agreement) that while Dune (the book) was a science fiction/fantasy work that transcended the genre, his later books were more of a muddle. It just was not clear what they were really about. The source material for this movie was particularly so. In it Frank Herbert essentially said, "Oh, the whole moral, religious, and ecological basis of the the original book were all a big mistake." It is still good sci-fi, but it made the book much less universal. (And the subsequent books and especially most of the ghost written books by his son (supposed to be based on Franks notes) are more so. Some to the point of silliness.)So the very long source material is more problematic than in the original very long Dune book.OK, that out of the way . . .This is just very, very, very made for TV Movie. Poorly acted. OK Alia was not so bad (Daniella Amavia), but her psychotic episodes got pretty tedious, and it was very small. In the source material Alia was a goddess, here she is just crazy mean bitch. Julie Cox as Princess Irulan gave a better than average performance; but as noted by many here and for the first Sci Fi channel, she was a minor character in the source material (the books). It seems pointless to expand characters when your already cannot fit the source material into the movie. I also agree that Alec Newman playing Paul has learned how to act between Dune and Children of Dune. He was tolerable here.This is not a comic book kind of story. Susan Sarandon made it so. She was not scary, she was silly. She if a phenomenal actress, which makes me believe that the direction is mainly at fault. Like William Hurt (also an academy award winner) in the Sci Fi channel's Dune it is a fairly small part. They paid for a name who apparently came in for a day or two of quick shooting. (Funny Hurt was kind of wooden when he should have been charismatic. They took Sarandon exactly the opposite way.)The other acceptable performance was in the Baron Harkonan part, Ian McNiece. He was OK, but not close to the how the book's character as a total moral abomination. Big Star Trek fans will like Alice Krige. She has a real physical presence but the acting is just OK.For the rest (to quote from the original books and movies), "nothing". The twins were apparently extracted from some mediocre daytime soap opera. Very pretty blonds who smile constantly.Dialogue has been partially updated but dumb.-- Story: You just don't care. In the book, even though it isn't close to the the original Dune in quality, you really do. There is mystery. There confusion (in a good way). There is a premise (even if it is opposite of the first book). Gone.I'm not going to go into the relationship to time and place and religion of the 1960's that produced Frank Herbert's original material. Just will say, this is not about anything. A good movie needs to be about something, or have a riveting plot, or have great (or OK) acting. This is just a movie that is sort-of about the book. -- Special effects: Good special effects alone don't make for a good movie, they make for a very good video game. You need the rest for a good movie. That being said. These are not good special effects. I watch it and think, O, I could do that on my Mac at home with Apple's software. Which is what I think they mainly did. Lots of it doesn't get there. And those stupid tigers---so video game-ish. CGI characters just aren't there yet (for movies), and these are not good ones.And what is with the racing across the desert lots and lots and lots. And lots. And lots. BFD.---And the absolute worst: The costumes and overall look and feel. Lots of velvet Jester's hats. Dark clothing for the desert. Green jungle camouflage stillsuits. Hello? Jungle? Really distracting. Cheap. They do not drape properly. Wigs look like they are made of yarn. The human species is supposed to be diverging, there is not attempt at representing this. The "reverend mother's" head pieces barely stay on their heads and seem to be made out of rice paper. Oh, and the Bene Gesserit are not supposed to age, so the actresses are just too old (except for Susan Sarandon who is just too silly).---And the final resolution between the women . . . Huh? Dumb. Stupid. A comedy's ending, not a drama of a thousand worlds.