"
I consider it a “beautiful failure”.
CC
I still remember sitting in the theater and cringing as I watched Lynch’s monstrosity unfold. As a sci-fi fan, it was very disappointing. But I could have been wrong. Lynch might have been way ahead of his time. I probably need to rewatch it.
Remember going to it with my brother and they theater handed out a page with definitions from the book on it that was (IIRC) front and back. My brother, who was not a reader, was like WTF is this? LOL
Not nearly as bad as its reputation. It’s actually pretty fun. Kinda stupid. But fun.
The remake/part2 of Dune .. sucks! The insanity in Hollyweird insists on redoing what was already done right. The only remake that was a true success was “The Maltese Falcon”, which was a redo of a 1930s film with a different name. I can’t think of any other remake that was worth watching.
The costumes and sets (and soundtrack) of Lynch’s dune is vastly superior to the modern version which is kind of drab. Though I’d say the two new movies are probably better overall films.
One thing for sure.....if you didn’t read the book you had a hard time following the movie.
Cuz I didn’t read the book and I spent the whole movie scratching my head. Lol!
I had to watch this several times years ago on HBO to figure out who was what.
When shown on Commercial TV a 15 minute prologue was added to inform the watchers of who was what.
Have no desire to watch it again or even the new version. Never understood the popularity of the books.
Awful film. Sting in particular was the most awful.
I much prefer Lynch’s version.
I saw first then read the books.
Talk about cringe!
The one really old memory of the movie that as Paul and the sand worms attack, the Pasha’s general were sitting on some kind of merry go round thing with periscopes aiming and firing their weapons.
It was odd that these leaders and not subordinates were shooting .
Their uniforms were so garish only third word dictators would think they were “stylish”!
Barron Harhkonnon was spot on and terrifying!
Sting was silly!
I enjoyed it. It was very understandable for people who had read the book. Probably didn’t make much sense to people who hadn’t.
It was flawed but I liked it then, and still find it entertaining when I watched it for old time sake after seeing the new Dune movies.
I much preferred Lynch’s effort ...
The 1984 Dune film is a masterpiece in sci-fi visuals, especially the 3 hour version. I’ve seen this film at least 15 times just to see the lovely Virginia Madsen as Princess Irulan.
as a Frank Herbert Dune fan, i thought the original Dune movie brilliantly captured the mood of the novels, and was amazed that Lynch managed to extract the essentials of such a complex story in a stylish and relatively coherent movie, especially since CGI hadn’t taken over the entire movie world yet ... i still consider that movie to be a science fiction classic ...
i just finished watching part 1 of the new two part remake. i enjoyed the part 1 and its CGI depiction of the Dune worlds, i really didn’t see anything new or wonderfully different in the story telling from the original movie. nonetheless, i realized that the basic story was much easier to follow for those who had not first read the novels ...
I read the books and still could barely follow along with the 1984 version. Just really weird. And I hated the internal thought monologues throughout the movie.
Fantastic movie!
Lynch’s movies and TV series have always been somewhat of a fever dream.
He’s an interesting and talented artist.
Sometimes stories need to be told in a less abstract way to be the most effective they can be.
The modern version of Dune is still fairly abstract, but there is enough information given to the audience for the story to at least make sense.
Whether a story is told in a concrete, real-world way or is very abstract is not as important, in my opinion, as whether the story universe it is contained in follows its own rules.
In other words, a perfect hero with no weaknesses or flaws is boring. Superman must have his kryptonite and his Lois Lane. There has to be at least the possibility of failure for his success to be meaningful.
Some of Christopher Nolan’s movies struggle in a similar way as Lynch’s. But it’s not from their being surreal. It’s due to the complexity of the story elements. Some of his films need several viewings to be understood. At least by mere mortals.
For Lynch, his movies cannot be fully understood because he does not fully understand his own art. And that’s how he likes it. He does not explain his art for this reason. It’s meaning is ultimately shaped by the audience.