Azsorious I came into this with mild expectations, having seen Lynch's Dune and then reading the entire book series. Needless to say I was disappointed at best.Paul is unrecognizable in this series, gone is the noble yet immature Atreides. Instead we have a spoiled, impudent brat. They insert pointless dialogue which never occurs in the books or movie for the sake of comic relief supposedly, something which detracts from the high-stakes nature of this epic. Unforgivably they also cut crucial sections out of the production (struggle in the ornathopter after Leto's death) and replace it with an ornathopter chase! The re-unification of Paul and Gerney is also woefully unemotional contrasted with Lynch's rendition.TL;DR: Unnecessary additions, criminal subtractions, bad acting/casting (outside of the Baron and perhaps Irulan), action-movie-esque kitsch, gawdy set design, cringeworthy CGI.Unless you are a die-hard Dune connoisseur avoid this mini-series. Watch the director's cut of Lynch's Dune and Children of Dune but avoid this miserable rendition like the plague.

WakenPayne After reading the Frank Herbert novel I watched both versions you can get of the David Lynch movie and the Theatrical cut was horrible, the extended cut was a guilty pleasure of mine. So I also decided to watch the Dune mini series as well because I think that 4½ hours could have actually told the story better then the Lynch movie and suffice to say, it did but there are still some problems.The plot is that Duke Leto Atreides and his son Paul are on a desert planet called Arrakis to sort out the production of a spice which is also the most valuable resource in the universe. But it's a plot by the Emperor of the known universe to have the rivals to the Atreides, the Harkonnens to attack and kill them because the Emperor felt Leto was getting more popular then him. This causes Paul and his mother to go on the run into the Desert where the natives of Arrakis are in order to rise up against the unfair rule the Harkonnens are enforcing.While this does tell the story better then the David Lynch movie there are still some things that aren't explained. It isn't enough to throw you off guard for the entire movie like Lynch's movie but there are still some things that aren't explained. I would say that and some of the acting and special effects get hokey at times, some of the costume design is just ridiculous to the point of never being able to take them seriously for the entire time they're wearing it.Aside from that this is better then the David Lynch movie in almost every regard. While there are still some problems with the narrative at least enough was told so there is some semblance of character development in there and while I did say the acting was hokey at times for the most part it holds up and in some cases the choices here were better then the ones in the David Lynch movie.All in all while it isn't a perfect adaptation this is actually worthwhile. This has some problems, I'll admit that but it's probably the best adaptation of the original Dune novel out there.

SnoopyStyle 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.

reginald-anselm 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.