I know you don’t care, but I’ll share my thoughts anyway, mostly for others.
I watched it as a kid… in French with no subtitles - and I didn’t speak French at the time. Even with all the confusion I thought it was great. Then I watched the English version and thought it was awesome. Then I read the novel as a teen and thought “hmm, the film kinda sucks in comparison”.
I still have a soft spot for it. The music is amazing, the cinematography is great. The way they handled all the internal monologues was pretty good. The acting was good considering how wooden some of the dialogue is.
But compared to the novels or even the Villeneuve films… I don’t think it stands up very well on an objective level. The ending alone is just so rushed and disappointing.
of all the many dozens of movie versions of books i’ve seen, there’s been exactly one, imo, where the movie outdid the book (jurassic park). “the book is always better” isn’t just a hollow saying. also, yea we all love villeneuve–his dune is great, but everything about lynch’s dune just resonates with me more.
I read a history of Dune called A Masterpiece in Disarray and, yeah, it feels rushed because the studio ruthlessly edited it to get it under two hours. Around an hour and a half was cut.
Apparently, De Laurentiis wanted the next Star Wars, and as much as I love this version of Dune, pairing Lynch with Dune was kinda always guaranteed to be to opposite.
Last time I watched it I watched the TV edition which is 3h long and it still feels rushed, so even that version could’ve used another hour. The TV show “Frank Herbert’s Dune” from 2000 is around 4,5h long and I think it’s the best adaptation and doesn’t feel rushed.
lynch’s dune was the best. i don’t care what anyone says
I know you don’t care, but I’ll share my thoughts anyway, mostly for others.
I watched it as a kid… in French with no subtitles - and I didn’t speak French at the time. Even with all the confusion I thought it was great. Then I watched the English version and thought it was awesome. Then I read the novel as a teen and thought “hmm, the film kinda sucks in comparison”.
I still have a soft spot for it. The music is amazing, the cinematography is great. The way they handled all the internal monologues was pretty good. The acting was good considering how wooden some of the dialogue is.
But compared to the novels or even the Villeneuve films… I don’t think it stands up very well on an objective level. The ending alone is just so rushed and disappointing.
of all the many dozens of movie versions of books i’ve seen, there’s been exactly one, imo, where the movie outdid the book (jurassic park). “the book is always better” isn’t just a hollow saying. also, yea we all love villeneuve–his dune is great, but everything about lynch’s dune just resonates with me more.
I’ll throw in just about every Philip K Dick adaptation to film. PKD had amazing ideas, but horrible execution IMO.
It felt a little too fast paced, could’ve used another hour or so.
I read a history of Dune called A Masterpiece in Disarray and, yeah, it feels rushed because the studio ruthlessly edited it to get it under two hours. Around an hour and a half was cut.
Apparently, De Laurentiis wanted the next Star Wars, and as much as I love this version of Dune, pairing Lynch with Dune was kinda always guaranteed to be to opposite.
Last time I watched it I watched the TV edition which is 3h long and it still feels rushed, so even that version could’ve used another hour. The TV show “Frank Herbert’s Dune” from 2000 is around 4,5h long and I think it’s the best adaptation and doesn’t feel rushed.
I love it. The pageantry, half naked sting, the cure that was a rat taped to a cat that had to be milked