(Thread) May have spoilers, for what it is worth, not sure this is one of those films where spoilers matter. It is more of an experience than a story, perhaps.
After a long time (over a decade surely?), i saw Dune again. I am a big fan of Dune, i've read the book more times than i can count, and i was a fan already so long ago. I will have to be honest, i had some nostalgia coloring my view of the film, i was rather young when i saw it, so it was rather impressive in a way.
Interesting film. In many ways, it is very faithful to the novel, getting a lot of details, even small ones, right. Yet it takes great liberties, some of which are very interesting in themselves if not part of real Dune, some are taken to make it easier to adapt. And some... well, many things do not make any sense whatsoever.
The plot generally follows that of the novel though after half-way the film starts to break down, becoming incoherent (not that the first half is without issues). Cuts become worse as well, along with almost everything else. There are obviously many scenes missing.
The film tries to explain some things that are important in the novel but fails. Visions, spice, stuff like that. (If i recall correctly, the later miniseries downplays those and explains what is left better.)
Actor performances bounce between good (?), terrible, funny-but-nonsensical, and wooden. Half of the cast acts like they're stoned or something (and i would not be surprised if that was actually the case).
The Baron Harkonnen is memorable in his insanity. And is nothing alike with the book!Baron. (The later miniseries has really good acting for the Baron. Hammy but great.)
Everyone knows about Sting in speedos.
And exposition via spoken thoughts and such is odd, and probably not generally accepted in film-making. Guess Lynch and his crew couldn't figure out how to show things... admittedly Dune has a lot of things that are difficult to show.
Visually, the film is both impressive and an utter failure.
Some locations, matte paintings, costumes, styles, architecture, things like that are really impressive and well thought out, if not necessarily faithful to the novel though that is not necessarily a bad thing. Giving factions and such their own visual identity is a good idea, at least i think so. The Harkonnen's industrial look contrasts nicely to the Emperor's militarism and extravagance, and the Atreides more... conservative and reasonable style.
Special effects are, of course, dated but here they look that. Star Wars, for example, has a lot of special effects that are good even today. Dune's are not really. and some composite scenes are really awkward.
Perhaps the best thing the film is its quite good soundtrack (by Toto). Really powerful, and experimenting.
Admittedly also odd at times, but fits the film's general weirdness well.
The film has some legacy, Westwoods/EA's Dune video games like Dune 2(000) and Emperor: Battle For Dune owe nearly everything to the film when it comes to visual style. And if nothing else, i love the film for giving its looks to the great games.
Also, Frank Herbert's later Dune novels have things whose descriptions match things from the film well. For example, the 5th book, Heretics of Dune, has description of a city on the Giedi Prime, a city that looks rather similar to the Harkonnen city in the film. Guess he was inspired by the film, even if he did disagree with at times.
I wonder, am i odd when i write about this weird film?
And... any thoughts? Do people like the film? Hate it?
After a long time (over a decade surely?), i saw Dune again. I am a big fan of Dune, i've read the book more times than i can count, and i was a fan already so long ago. I will have to be honest, i had some nostalgia coloring my view of the film, i was rather young when i saw it, so it was rather impressive in a way.
Interesting film. In many ways, it is very faithful to the novel, getting a lot of details, even small ones, right. Yet it takes great liberties, some of which are very interesting in themselves if not part of real Dune, some are taken to make it easier to adapt. And some... well, many things do not make any sense whatsoever.
The plot generally follows that of the novel though after half-way the film starts to break down, becoming incoherent (not that the first half is without issues). Cuts become worse as well, along with almost everything else. There are obviously many scenes missing.
The film tries to explain some things that are important in the novel but fails. Visions, spice, stuff like that. (If i recall correctly, the later miniseries downplays those and explains what is left better.)
Actor performances bounce between good (?), terrible, funny-but-nonsensical, and wooden. Half of the cast acts like they're stoned or something (and i would not be surprised if that was actually the case).
The Baron Harkonnen is memorable in his insanity. And is nothing alike with the book!Baron. (The later miniseries has really good acting for the Baron. Hammy but great.)
Everyone knows about Sting in speedos.
And exposition via spoken thoughts and such is odd, and probably not generally accepted in film-making. Guess Lynch and his crew couldn't figure out how to show things... admittedly Dune has a lot of things that are difficult to show.
Visually, the film is both impressive and an utter failure.
Some locations, matte paintings, costumes, styles, architecture, things like that are really impressive and well thought out, if not necessarily faithful to the novel though that is not necessarily a bad thing. Giving factions and such their own visual identity is a good idea, at least i think so. The Harkonnen's industrial look contrasts nicely to the Emperor's militarism and extravagance, and the Atreides more... conservative and reasonable style.
Special effects are, of course, dated but here they look that. Star Wars, for example, has a lot of special effects that are good even today. Dune's are not really. and some composite scenes are really awkward.
Perhaps the best thing the film is its quite good soundtrack (by Toto). Really powerful, and experimenting.
Admittedly also odd at times, but fits the film's general weirdness well.
The film has some legacy, Westwoods/EA's Dune video games like Dune 2(000) and Emperor: Battle For Dune owe nearly everything to the film when it comes to visual style. And if nothing else, i love the film for giving its looks to the great games.
Also, Frank Herbert's later Dune novels have things whose descriptions match things from the film well. For example, the 5th book, Heretics of Dune, has description of a city on the Giedi Prime, a city that looks rather similar to the Harkonnen city in the film. Guess he was inspired by the film, even if he did disagree with at times.
I wonder, am i odd when i write about this weird film?
And... any thoughts? Do people like the film? Hate it?
)
