Dune Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x544 | 6688.67 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x292 | 1358.78 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x240 | 705.93 MiB | divx | |
|
320x128 | 295.19 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
A spectacular journey through the wonders of space and the mysteries of time, from the boundaries of the incredible to the borders of the impossible.
A world where the mighty, the mad, and the magical will have their final battle.
You are about to enter a world where the unexpected, the unknown, and the unbelievable meet.
You are about to enter a world where kingdoms are built on earth that moves, and skies are filled with fire.
A world that holds creation's greatest treasure...and greatest terrors.
A world beyond your experience, beyond your imagination.
A place beyond your dreams, A movie beyond your imagination.
The Motion Picture Event For 1984
In the far future, a duke and his family are sent by the Emperor to a sand world from which comes a spice that is essential for interstellar travel. The move is designed to destroy the duke and his family, but his son escapes and seeks revenge as he uses the world's ecology as one of his weapons.
| Francesca Annis | Lady Jessica |
| Leonardo Cimino | The Baron's Doctor |
| Brad Dourif | Piter De Vries |
| José Ferrer | Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV |
| Linda Hunt | Shadout Mapes |
| Freddie Jones | Thufir Hawat |
| Richard Jordan | Duncan Idaho |
| Kyle MacLachlan | Paul Usul Muad'Dib Atreides |
| Virginia Madsen | Princess Irulan |
| Silvana Mangano | Rev. Mother Ramallo |
| Everett McGill | Stilgar |
| Kenneth McMillan | Baron Vladimir Harkonnen |
| Jack Nance | Capt. Iakin Nefud |
| Siân Phillips | Rev. Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam |
| Jürgen Prochnow | Duke Leto Atreides |
| David Lynch |
6.40 out of 10 (24120 votes)
Visitor Reviews
What FH thought of it all
posted on 12 Aug 2009I was in the process of having Frank Herbert autograph several of the books, when I suddenly recalled that the film was probably in post-production. Since there was no else attending (which I thought a bit strange), I took the opportunity to query him about his reaction/thoughts about the film.First and foremost was that he said he was happy with the way David Lynch had brought it to the screen. He said he thought they'd done a tremendous job with the effects and really brought the feeling of Arrakis to the viewer. While one would not necessarily expect the author to bad mouth his own work (tho some have asked to have their names removed), he was so clearly enthusiastic about the whole business, that I can't believe he was trying to talk up a failure to one lone fan.
Lisan Al Gaib
posted on 16 Jul 2009I felt that the sets and costumes for this film adaption were great. David Lynch's strangeness give just the right feel for the plot within plot material that Frank Herbert produced. The soundtrack also contributed a great deal to the internal monologue that the actors had to give. All in all this was a great job done in only 2 hours and 17 minutes when 10 hours were really needed, i feel that the sci-fi version pales in comparasion( I know, I known I am a heretic). My recomendation is to go out and read the books by Frank Herbert ( 5 in all and two more by his son) and then watch the movie. Then pressure the big studios to get David Lynch to do another Dune movie.
Candidate for the absolute worst sci-fi movie adaptation of a GREAT book!!
posted on 13 Jul 2009The book "Dune" was a sci-fi classic - impeccably written, with a huge amount of background details, a first-rate plot and no shortage of VERY well developed characters. It ranks right up there with the Foundation Trilogy (Asimov), and is well worth reading several times. In contrast, the movie this wonderful book inspired is incoherent, with poor character development, cheesy special effects (the shower scene with the Baron and/or Sting was almost obscene, for example!!) and so many reprehensible deviations from the book that it was, for folks who had read and appreciated the original literature at least, a complete and absolute abomination. The philosophical elements were nearly completely lacking - in the book, for example, the "weirding" way" of fighting was centered on absolute control of mind and body, and complete awareness of their limitations and abilities at all time: absolute focus and rigorous training being key to success. In the movie, they substituted a silly "weirding weapon" which was completely lame and and a repudiation of all the book tried to convey. If there was a "zero" rating, i would not hesitate to use it to describe this absolute bomb of a movie.
Pile of glop best left to Herbert fans
posted on 01 Jul 2009Maybe it's just me, but someone has to put a stop to people who adapt long novels into movies. More often than not the adaptation leaves out entire chapters, whole characters, all in the name of brevity and coherence. I give you as evidence most of the Stephen King oeuvre - the nuances of characterizations are lost in most cases. The movie adaptation of Frank Herbert's "Dune" is a little different, though. It's plenty long enough for those nuances to show up, but its underlying problem is that it's just plain incomprehensible. Maybe the book's better, maybe not, but I had problems figuring out the story at all. I know the thing's set about 8,000 years into the future, (which, if I were suddenly transported there, would be very confusing to me anyway) but even at the very begining, while the story's being set up, one gets the feeling one stepped into the middle of a long tale. And if you're confused right off the bat, folks, chances are pretty good things won't be cleared up for you later on. Really, though, I was watching this movie and it was so confusing it was as if they were speaking a different language. Sure, I know it's David Lynch, and he's made a career out of strange movies, but dull and leaden pacing isn't strange, it's boring. So imagine sitting in your doctor's waiting room, waiting to be called for your appointment. You're reading magazine after magazine, bored out of your mind. That's what watching "Dune" is like.
Excellent.
posted on 16 Jun 2009Dune is an absolute masterpiece which follows the book very closely. The effects are excellent for the time (One must consider that CGI was not accessable back then). It is well acted by all especially Kyle who is perfect as Paul Atreides. To all who bag this film David Lynch is laughing all the way to the bank.
"Desert-Planted"...
posted on 13 Jun 2009Much like the books of J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, Frank Herbert's series garnered a sizeable and feverishly dedicated audience from the very beginning. When I heard that it was finally about to be made into a film, I ran out and got the first book. It took me about a week to read, and another to digest it all. The richly detailed, heady scenario of strange people, weird flora and fauna and terrestrial similarities to Earth set in a far distant future, completely captured and astounded me.But not nearly enough as the very idea that someone would be crazy or ballsy enough to dream of turning it into a movie. Take a science fiction/fantasy series, whose first novel alone is large enough to cause blunt-force trauma if you dropped it on someone's head, and cram every nuance of Herbert's epic tome of geopolitical and theological intrigue, betrayal, corruption and redemption into TWO HOURS? Good freakin' LUCK. It would never work.And for ten years after its initial publication, directors of every stripe from Alejandro Jodorowsky (EL TOPO) to Ridley Scott (ALIEN), as much as they admired and obsessed over the project, all finally admitted defeat. It would require a six hour movie at least to take a MODERATELY satisfactory stab at a project, whose end product could never truly satisfy all of the meticulous fans who were members of the DUNE cult.But then came expansive producer of the mega-blockbuster, Dino De Laurentiis. And with him, everyone's favorite geek-auteur, David Lynch.Did they truly succeed in taming the wild Herbert-born beast? Yes and no. Yes, in that not only did they get the blessing of the late author as the laborious, protracted work began on pre-production, but they did manage to get the damn thing off the ground, which others had never managed to do.And no, in that Lynch still did not capture all of the odd splendor and power of the tale, mostly because he wasn't allowed to, if you know of the famously antagonistic relationship that he and De Laurentiis shared with the studio backing the movie, Universal. Like THE HOBBIT and THE RINGS TRILOGY, it certainly helps a lot more if you have read the source material. Even so, you still feel at times like you need to keep a glossary of terms and a cheat sheet handy, just as insurance against getting lost in all the myriad details.For those who have no intention of ever going near DUNE, CHILDREN OF DUNE or any of the many sequels, a quick guide for getting "desert-planted." This is not a Tale of Two Cities, but of four planets:Planet Caladan, home to the "good guys" of House Atreides: Duke Leto (Jurgen Prochnow), his longtime concubine and companion, the Lady Jessica (the radiant Francesca Annis), his son, Paul (Lynch's alter-ego Kyle MacLachlan) and the Duke's most trusted advisors, Thufir Hawat (Freddie Jones), a "mentat" or trained human computer who can figure out all sorts of complex equations just by intense concentration; Guerney Halleck (a much younger Patrick Stewart) and Duncan Idaho (the late, great and underused Richard Jordan).Next is Planet Giedi Prime, home to the really, REALLY bad guys in House Harkonnen: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (a pestilently, OTT Kenneth McMillan); his own mentat, Piter De Vries (Brad Dourif), and his unctuous nephews Beast Rabban (Paul Smith) and Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen (Sting).Planet Kaitan is the home of the ruling emperor, Shaddam IV (Jose Ferrer) where he resides with his daughter, Princess Irulan (Virginia Madsen). In order to maintain a controlling grip over the two houses constantly at odds with each other, the Emperor keeps a reluctant alliance going with several duplicitous, interested groups, among them the Bene Gesserit, a mysterious and ominous order of psychically powerful nuns, presided over by the imperious Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, (Sian Phillips.) But the main source of all the drama and turmoil lies on the Planet Arrakis, aka DUNE, the "desert planet." The entire universe practically runs on what Dune offers - the precious mineral known as "spice" or "melange." As you will hear often, "he who controls the spice, controls the universe," and that is what everyone, from the Emperor to the warring Houses to the Bene Gesserit, is after. And not surprisingly, Dune holds yet another internationally diverse cast of characters determined to stop them.And then it gets even more complicated than that, what with a strange prophecy that may or may not be a myth, about a "One True Being" (sound familiar?) who can unlock the mystery of where spice comes from, and by doing so, bring unity to all the fractured worlds.So you can see how any director, let alone Lynch, would have their work cut out for them. To his credit, he masterfully achieves with DUNE exactly what any movie is supposed to do - transport the audience to another world for two hours, (and DUNE is almost three in its original form). But be warned: Lynch has taken his own liberties with details and story lines, adding his own quirky and unique touches in the places where a lot of Herbert's concepts either couldn't be used, or had to be excised for time constraints.Part of the reason that DUNE has gotten such a bad rap over the years, is because like the book, the audience actually has to PAY ATTENTION, which is more of a European than an American philosophy for making movies. But if you give it half a chance, and you're not a die-hard Herbert purist, you will find that making an investment in this film is surprisingly more rewarding than you would ever expect.And yes, that's even with a score by Toto (with assists by Marty Paich, Allyn Ferguson, Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois), which isn't half as bad as you might think - exactly like the film itself.
A Very Underrated Sci-Fi epic
posted on 11 May 2009In my personal opinion, I feel that the 1984 David Lynch version of Frank Herbet's Dune is a very underrated sci-fi film that has not recieved the proper credit it deserves.Despite some sloppy plot structure and character development caused by numerous scenes, that I thought were very important to the story, being cut I think the film has great special effects,costumes,sets, and one heck of a music score by the rock band Toto.In closing, I think sci-fi movie fans who hate this film should give this film another chance, in fact see it several times, in order to truly enjoy it. Also I think this film would have done much better at the box office if David Lynch had kept in all the cut scenes and released the film in two parts. I feel this would have allowed viewers to follow the story more easily than they did with the 137 minute version.P.S. - I am still hoping, like many other people on this site, that Dune will one day get a proper special edition DVD release with a massive deleted scenes section as well as the extras that are currently on the UK special edition DVD.
This movie is awesome...
posted on 23 Apr 2009...at being horrible! This movie is the worst strip of film I've ever seen. If you like Dune, go kill yourself. You shouldn't be living. All the movie made me want to do was gouge my eyes out with toothpicks. 2 hours and 17 fricken minutes of total donkey raping crap. Lower than crap. It's a horrible movie, seriously. After I saw it, I could not sleep. I lied awake, angry that I just wasted over two hours of my life. I was watching it with someone else, that's why I didn't stop it 2 minutes into the movie. I was sitting there watching Dune, fantasizing about not watching Dune. Seriously. Go rent The Rocky Horror Picture Show instead.
BOOK IS SOOOO MUCH BETTER!
posted on 20 Apr 2009The book is much much much better than the film, the film jumps around and I was really disappointed at how key characters in the book made small appearances in the film. Also they just kind of pieced together the key elements of the book and pasted the scenes together jumping through the whole book in two hours.. whew! The movie just doesn't do the book justice, but I thought what scenes they did do were pretty ok. Except for the rain scene at the end of the movie, that was not in the book!
Not great but surprisingly good
posted on 17 Apr 2009Dune sucked me in. I was channel surfing when I came upon the movie and couldn't change the channel. Admittedly it was over-complicated, but it made a noble effort to be true to the book. I couldn't always understand it, but it was interesting throughout (though the effects look a bit dated). The acting was generally good as well.Dune succeeded hugely in one sense - I greatly wanted to read the book after seeing it, which is probably a good reflection on the movie.
Characters: Perfect Story: Argh.
posted on 30 Mar 2009David Lynch's screen versions of Herbert's beautifully written characters are terrific, as are the sets. Who else but Lynch would give us the far-flung future in late 19th century wood and metalwork? Brilliant.But that *plot*! Whoo... Admittedly, anyone would be hard pressed to make the entire novel of Dune work in two hours. Maybe this ought to have been two or three movies. Come to think of it, the book "Dune" was broken into three parts -- maybe it *could* have been three movies, a la Star Wars.
A wonderful rendition of a classic novel.
posted on 21 Mar 2009I myself am a fan of science fiction and by far the greatest science fiction novel of all time is Dune. In many cases, the movie rarely portrays the book appropriately. I am happy to report that in this case it does. With a script that faithfully follows the book and a cast that brings the characters to life in a way that no one else could, this movie delivers every aspect of the book to the silver screen in glorious, life-like, reality. This movie is definitely a ten as is the novel. I highly recommend it.
Terrible movie
posted on 21 Mar 2009This movie is terrible, perhaps one of the worst movies I've ever seen not starring Billy Baldwin. I remember seeing this movie when it first opened in the 80's and disliking it then because it was incredibly plodding and confusing. This was on the heels of Jedi and other popular sci-fi movies of the time and just couldn't compare. After not seeing it for 20 years and still hearing the sci-fi fan boys rave about the Herbert novels, I finally decided to read the novel myself and then watch the movie. The novel is okay -- it has it's own plodding pace but at least you understand why things are happening. Then watching the movie, I hated it more than when I originally saw it -- the movie does a complete disservice to the book. If you watch the movie as a standalone, you have no idea how the plot points advance so suddenly and conveniently. The storyline will advance and unless you have the back-story supplied by the book, the events of the movie seem like a series of convenient points strung together. Save three hours of your life and stay away.
really disappointed
posted on 15 Mar 2009Now here is a film that could be greatly improved by the addition of Jar-Jar Binks. No, that's really a cheap shot. I loved the books, and the first is a true classic, not just of sci-fi. In my opinion the story is unfilmable, and Lynch should have known it. I think the story was turned into a cartoon, the villains were portrayed as one dimensional buffoons, Paul was too old, and 'weirding modules' as an invention of the writers, make the plot more incomprehensible than it was already. I don't want to trash the people who thought well of the movie. It might be possible to enjoy if you haven't read the book, and to judge from some of the other comments, even if you have. Personal tastes vary, every- one is entitled to his or her opinion, but I agree with a previous reviewer who stated that the only thing this movie would have been good for was MST3K.
Visually perfect, but too short to understand the plot.
posted on 03 Mar 2009Dune doesn't work as a two hour film because there so much little detail in the book that has to be told so that the story is given the credits it has deserved. There are still some good points where Lynch has succeeded such as the visual image and some of the characters and also the casting. This story should have been a trilogy like the forthcoming lord of the rings, but I guess the maximum rates of the films made weren't very high in 1984. If Lynch would've had the freedom to do whatever he wished without minding the producers, I think the result would've been something incredible. The film still has lots of good qualities from the book and it still works, but I think Lynch should think about making a director's cut from the movie!!!
Sooo Disappointing
posted on 22 Feb 2009If I ever got the chance to remake any one movie...it would be Dune, because i felt that the film was such a pathetic waste of the rights to Frank Herbert's classic book. That book was perhaps the greatest piece of writing this century, and a wonderful example of subtle political commentary, interwoven with an epic, yet minutely detailed plot. It was beautiful. David Lynch's hairy film, on the other hand, was a childish misinterpretation of the whole POINT of the book (in that the hero is made, not herbert's man playing God, but some kind of miracle-worker). It displayed all the hallmarks of a de laurentiis production: miscast actors (who are all in themselves good)directed in such a way as to appear terribly wooden, made to speak awful lines, against a background of terrible effects, purely so that the location filming can be done in some impressive landscape. (anyone remember Conan The Barbarian?). If only they had chosen something less intelligent to make this movie about, it would be fairly fun, in a cheap & cheerful way. Unfortunately, it will always be to me, a terrible waste of celluloid.
2001 it ain't; but I'd watch it over Star Wars any day.
posted on 22 Feb 2009I imagine I'll get bitten for that.Suggesting that Lynch's debated cult classic is better than the world love, world renowned media point that IS Star Wars?How dare I.However, I have simple reasoning; Dune is a movie that I put in a league
closer to 2001; not the same, but closer than Star Wars. I love to sit down and be entertained by a movie, however, not as much as I love to sit down and get into a movie like Dune or 2001. These films make you think more, and too me, are more inspirational.So while perhaps the special effects are not on par (say 2 for Dune and 4 out of five for Star Wars) the acting (4 for Dune, what can I say, but Jurgen Prochnow is one of my favorite actors!) and a 3 for Star Wars). Plot, a 2 for Star Wars (even though I loved the plot, and the expansions its taken), and a 4 for Dune.So, if you're a cult movie fan like me, go rent this film. Understand its a melodramatic, operatic film, but it's a good one, and definitely worth a look. However, if you're a Star Wars fan, I don't advise it.
An excellent film
posted on 19 Feb 2009This film doesn't get enough credit. Sure they left things out, but that's expected in a two-hour adaptation. They did an excellent job of portraying the medieval aspect of the civilization created by Herbert, including the feeling of antiquity, the feudal political atmosphere, and the dependency on mysticism. This was accomplished through art and architecture (eg. the Gothic appearance of the guild ships; the castle-like palace on Caladan, etc.), costumes, music, and lighting (very dark). Some viewers take issue with the quantity of mental monologue in the film, but my reading of the novel is that it was an extremely psychological, introspective book and that was portrayed well in the movie. I don't judge a film by its special effects and while these are a little outdated and may have even been less than cutting-edge at the time the film was made, they are adequate and sufficiently believable to prevent me from losing my belief in the story. Overall a very persuasive adaptation.
Excellent Film
posted on 13 Feb 2009This film was one of the best novel adaptations of the sci-fi genre. If you grew up with classics like Blade Runner and Alien, this is a movie you should consider making a part of your collection. I ended up reading the book after I saw the movie which is often the case for me, but it also piqued my interest in other David Lynch films.Since I picked up the DVD this year with the theatrical and television release, I can see why David Lynch was repulsed by the television version (continuity/editing and picture quality were poor). If you haven't seen it yet, go rent it. Other than that, I am surprised there were so few comments on this film.
Epic Science Fiction.
posted on 24 Aug 2009This movie is one of the few epic science fiction movies ever made. Full of wondrous imagery, good performances, and an astounding music score. The action is also terrific. I first saw this movie sometime in January, 1996. I then got the book from the library, read it, loved it, bought a copy of both movie and book. I hope they will release an uncut 4 hour version of this film sometime.