MovieChat Forums > Dune (2000) Discussion > I'll get raked over the coals for this

I'll get raked over the coals for this

posted 11 years ago by Lady Cole
8 replies | jump to latest

But after finally buying the miniseries and watching it....I almost feel like the film version is Casablanca by comparison! The one good thing I could say about the SF Channel's version is that it is a bit more faithful to the books. However, in terms of production, it's just awful. the costume design is mediocre, the set design is bland, and the acting is embarrassing. And it also has that overall cheap, tacky look that a lot of SF's films that had been produced in the Eastern European countries tended to have. None of the scenes set on the actual planet of Arrakis look anywhere even approaching realistic; one major strength that the film has is that Arrakis looked and felt like a real planet because most of it was actually shot on location rather than in very fake-looking sets. Even the special effects and CGI weren't very good. I have Children of Dune as well, but I'm not even sure if I want to watch it!

We are Mods! We are Mods! We are, we are, we are Mods!

[–] dani101 11 years ago

I sooo agree with you about this version of Dune !

I have Children of Dune as well, but I'm not even sure if I want to watch it!

From my POV the Dune Messiah and Children of Dune are way better- give them a try.:) The music is really great- there are a few minor changes from the book, but they are created to make the story better.

Maybe that could convince you (spoilers for Children of Dune)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WOmvJBB2eI

___
Doctor Who: Human beings. You always manage to find the boring alternative, don't you?

[–] pope_duke 11 years ago

You are spot-on.

It is more faithful in some regards and it allows us to explore more of the story since it has more time.

The acting, the sets, the costumes, so laughable, really, and I deplored Irulan's expanded role.

Children of Dune is much better.

[–] MyDarkStar 10 years ago

I hated this as well and stopped watching halfway through. If Children of Dune is much better I might watch it. Would I need to finish this before I watch Children in order to understand what's going on ?

[–] dani101 10 years ago

Would I need to finish this before I watch Children in order to understand what's going on ?

As far as I remember, you don't have to watch " Dune" in order to understand "Children of Dune".

___
Doctor Who: Human beings. You always manage to find the boring alternative, don't you?

[–] jetgraphics 10 years ago

Sad you disliked it.
Glad I liked it.
Entertained, I was. Annoyed I wasn't. Overall, that's a win-win.

"Arthropodocracy - voting for the lesser of two weevils."

[–] racy1285 10 years ago

I thought some of the acting was pretty good. Especially from William Hurt and Julie Cox. But the acting for the main cast was pretty bad. Especially Alec Newman as Paul, he was one of the worst. Paul is suppose to be a charismatic leader but Newman was a charisma free dead zone. Nobody in their right mind would follow him. The other culprit was Matt Kessler as Feyd. He had a smaller role but he was equally bad. Feyd is a sadistic psycho but Kessler displayed none of that. He look like the nicest guy in the world even when he was suppose to be menacing. I have no idea how the miniseries could lure proven acting talent like William Hurt and Giancarlo Ganni but cast complete duds in these two important roles.

[–] Ehrgeiz 10 years ago

I would nearly agree except that Hurt really phoned it in here. Just look at his better takes, like the side role he did in "History of Violence". But you are right, much of the acting in the whole series was abysmal. I just liked the actors who played Kynes, Jessica and Stilgar. All others seemingly did not care much. And you are right, the casting choices for Paul and Feyd were especially bad. Sting at least looked a bit ferocious in the movie, and Kyle MacLachlan is a good actor, anyway.

[–] Ite 9 years ago

I agree Dune 1984 is far far superior.