That was an excellent one.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

I don't often write reviews but I had to... having loved the first movie by David Lynch since I was a kid and just finished the book I had to write!This rendition is the truest to the book out of the two movies and it's hard not to compare this to David Lynch's version. However huge liberties were taken by the writers and imho it dumbed the story line and made it somewhat ridiculous turning one of the best sci fi books written to an almost comic book level. The emperor is made to seem naive and the princess irulan a genius... not sure how that works, as the emperor wouldn't be naive.. and certainly wasn't in the books. Irulan shouldn't have had such a grandiose story line... clearly they wanted to give her more lines.Gurney Halleck is played by PH Moriarty and was appalling and not remotely believable. Chani played by Barbora Kodetova, again not remotely believable and should never have been given such a powerful role. The baron Harkonnen played by Ian Mcneice had flashed of genius but very limited and over acted... he's a cold calculating character who thinks he if far smarter than he is, was a disappointment overall.The set design and costumes were garish and looked like something out of the 80's it would have been better to have spent their budget on decent outdoor sand scenes. Saskia Reeves I think did a fair job, clearly she had a great grasp of who Jessica is meant to be. Alec Newman was badly cast in my opinion, Paul Atredies is meant to be 15-16 and Alec was not only too old to play him but did a shocking job... wooden and two dimensional and doesn't remotely inspire an audience let alone a legion of fremen warriors.That all being said, the script kept some important scenes that David Lynch's version didn't and was all the richer for it. The weirding way was much better shown, although I like the ideas of the weirding module in David Lynch's version. The scene with the reverend mother and Jessica and the water of life I think was quite well done and the introduction of Alia and her as a child was very good.All in all I gave it 4 due to the content being more accurate, but deducted 6 for the shocking acting and writer liberties. The book is good enough as it is, it doesn't need rewriting by writers that think they know better. I would just like to see a clever, well acted, try to the book version...

This is the Sci-Fi channel I miss and loved. A time when you'd finish watching this and a show like Lex would come on. The story itself is really solid and with its length is able to explore Dune as it was meant to be. But unlike its predecessor from 1984, the graphics do not hold up. I can easily get lost in the visual imagery from the 1984 version to this day... but this adaptation?I recall being much more wowed when it first aired. I think some of that has to do with the time. When this was released, there weren't a lot of shows that were so extravagant in the set pieces. Star Trek being an exception along with Farscape. If I were to equate the set pieces / costume, I'd put it more in line with Flash Gordon.I've not read the book, so whether this is an accurate representation to the source material is unknown to me. I still really enjoy it for what it is on its own. If you're looking for an epic mini-series, you could do worse... say, Langoliers kind of worse.

Based on Frank Herbert's classic science fiction novel, this is a 3 part TV miniseries for Sci-fi channel. It is a fair attempt at the epic material. The obvious comparison is to the 1984 David Lynch version.First the easy comparison is the special effects. This version does a lot of green screen work. It's early CGI done competently for the times. It looks good enough, but the 1984 has the amazing visual style. This feels very much like a low resolution copy. It's got to be expected. I certainly wouldn't deduct any marks for it.The 1984 version was a complete mess storywise. I never read the books. This version is much more clearer. The 4 hours running times have a lot to do with that. It flows a lot better.The acting is there for the big roles in this movie. Alec Newman does a good job as the Muad'Dib. He feels like a young hero type. Backing him up, there are some great actors like William Hurt, Saskia Reeves, and Ian McNeice. The acting for the '84 version is much deeper. Overall, they're both flawed presentations of a complicated epic sci-fi series.

Of the three adaptations(to knowledge) of the Dune book franchise, the best is the mini-series Children of Dune. It is not perfect, it has Susan Sarandon's overacting and occasionally can feel cartoonish, stilted and incomplete, but it is wonderful visually, has the best music score of the three adaptations, has good acting on the whole and is easy to follow at least. David Lynch's film, apart from a couple of good performances here and there and the amazing visuals, was severely lacking, starting with an underdeveloped and not always cohesive story, even at 3 hours the film felt too short(a 5 or 6 hour mini-series is better for Dune), there is some really bad, cheesy scripting and there is the feeling of Lynch being the wrong director for it. This mini-series is far from great, but it is a marginal improvement over Lynch's film but Children of Dune, while not perfect either, eclipses them both.Generally Dune(2000) does look good. The sets are so sumptuous in colour and beautifully rendered and the costumes are a creatively bizarre mix of styles that suit the characters very well. The photography on the whole is clean, clear and not too distracting. The special effects are mixed in quality, at times they are well-proportioned, textured and fit well within the story, but at others they have a cheap look(cartoonish and cardboard). The music is also excellent, a component that like with Children of Dune is done much better than in Lynch's film. With the music here there is the right amount of the moody and the majestic. The dialogue really doesn't come across very well, very cheesy often and far too casual, very little of Frank Herbert's intelligent prose comes through.Dune(2000) has a more suitable length than the Lynch film, is easier to follow and doesn't try to rush things through. It doesn't quite come off successfully. John Harrison deserves credit for bringing his own style while trying to respect some of Herbert's details, and doing things at a leisurely pace to give time to breathe was a good decision. There were times though where the pacing came across as too leisurely and too many parts were under-explained or left more questions than answers. The cast are a mixed bag. The best performance comes from Ian McNiece who is funny and menacing. William Hurt is very good, meaningful and charismatic not to mention cool, in his expanded character role and Saskia Reeves makes for a Jessica that is sweet and calculating. Sadly there is also PH Moriaty, whose Gurney is bland and over-compensated, Barbara Kodetova who is annoying and especially Alec Newman who is very ill at ease and too sullen. The more minor roles are not memorable and not enunciated enough.Of the characters, the only ones who are developed reasonably enough are Duke Leto(the expansion really does help), Baron and Lady Jessica, everybody else are underwritten ciphers really and some like Piter and Thufir who are criminally underused and forgettably performed. In conclusion, very mixed feelings on this mini-series. 5/10 Bethany Cox