5 ms·
Highly recommended to read Book 1 before the movie comes out. There is just so much more depth and context in the book that was not reflected in 1st part of the
by hrpnk 3y ago
Highly recommended to read Book 1 before the movie comes out. There is just so much more depth and context in the book that was not reflected in 1st part of the film.
- vitiral 3y agoI almost think it's impossible to enjoy the movie at all without having read the book. The movie was more like visual candy for a universe similar to the book.
- hulitu 3y agoI would say, David Lynch did a pretty good job.
- jmorenoamor 3y agoI strangely love Lynch's Dune, the atmosphere captivated me as a kid, and the feeling has stayed there. The Harkonen were disgusting, repulsive, and Irulan at the intro was a teen crush for me. I also love Villeneuve's version, the design is amazing and has very clever ideas, I enjoyed it a lot! But Lynch's Dune has a special place for me.
- prepend 3y agoThere’s a cool book about the making of Dune84 called A Masterpiece in Disarray by Evry, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/126132210 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/126132210 The author does a good job of interviewing pretty much everyone in the cast and crew and gave me a good sense of what it must have been like to make the film.
- dredmorbius 3y agoI saw it at the time, having read the books (through Heretics, with Chapterhouse being published after the 1984 film). I've yet to see any of the subsequent or current production(s) absent online clips. The biggest problem with Lynch version (I think of it as the De Laurentiis version, as his name eclipsed Lynch's in the promotions at the time, and Lynch hadn't yet risen in stature with Twin Peaks) is that the story is simply too vast to be told in a single film, let alone one of < 140 minutes running time. Other than that ... the De Laurentiis version was very uneven. Parts of it were excellent. Kyle McLaughlin as Paul was excellently cast, and there were several other notable players and performances (many of whom I wouldn't appreciate until much later), and when the sandworms appeared on screen, I believed. Other effects and editing ... not so much. Critics overwhelmingly panned the film, and it performed quite poorly at the box office. The clips I've seen of Harrison's 3-part miniseries by John Harrison, and the current Villeneuve production, look considerably stronger.
- hulitu 3y agoI liked that Lynch somehow preserved the mythology. In contrast, the new Dune, looks like an action movie.
- dredmorbius 3y agoThat's a legit assessment, though I didn't feel as if De Laurentiis had in fact preserved the mythology. Again: far more time would have been required. Checking, it appears that among the longest-running mainstream films of all time were Cleopatra (243 minutes, or 4h8m), Gone With the Wind (238 minutes, or 3h58m), Lawrence of Arabia (222 minutes), and Ben Hur (217 minutes). Gandhi, which I recall being remarkable at the time and including an intermission, ran only 191 minutes, or 3h11m. The full Lord of the Rings trilogy runs 9h17m. <https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/the-top-15-longest-hollywood-movies/ https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/the-top-15-longest-holly...>