Search - Dune (1984) [HD DVD] on HD DVD

Why does it say David Lynch then Alan Smithee? I'll tell ya!

SharpX13 | Warwick, NY United States | 02/18/2003

(5 out of 5 stars)

"A beginning is a very delicate time. In 1984, the long awaited film version of Frank Herbert's epic novel Dune came to the silver screen. What happened next? The worst box office disaster in history! Sad to say it, but mostly everyone who saw Dune hated it except for the few who actually read the book! I've always loved this movie but if I ever said that in public I was usually beaten with large rocks or a baseball bat. This review isn't really about the story of the film or it's direction. Its about the confusing truth of their actually being two editions of the 1984 film version of dune.Now here is where the entire true purpose to this review comes in. Many may wonder, "why was I watching this on Sci-Fi channel and the director was Alan Smithee instead of David Lynch?" Well little Jimmy, the answer is complicated. David Lynch knew when he made Dune he was in trouble and cut the film down incredibly to make it fit the desired time limit. Lynch was slightly pleased with this cut of the film and hoped that that would be the last he would have to do with it... Wrong!A few years when Dune finally was on TV, a special edition version was prepared containing an HOUR of extra footage. A new narration covers the film and practically spells out every bit of information to the audience this time. The studios were ready to show it when suddenly David Lynch says "Woa woa, I liked it the way it was!" and refuses to have credit for this new longer version. The studio then takes out Lynch's name and replaces it with the fake Alan Smithee who doesn't exist. With me so far?The version of Dune available on DVD and VHS is the David Lynch version which in my opinion actually works better than the longer version. It cuts to the chase and doesn't drag as badly as Smithee's version does. For those of you who have never seen the Alan Smithee version, its not available to buy but it's shown on the Sci-Fi channel twice a year so there you go!So, even though critics bombed it, audiences hated it, and David Lynch disowned the longer version, I still love this movie for some mysterious reason! If you're the type who likes weird artistic movies like 12 Monkeys, 2001, or Blade Runner, you will probably enjoy this. Also anime fans, this is right up your alley! For all you other people, get the hell out of here!p.s. Toto's score is a masterpiece! Yea... of all bands... Toto..."

THERE'S GOOD NEWS, AND THERE'S BAD NEWS...

stryper | Canada | 01/25/2006

(3 out of 5 stars)

"The good news is that both the theatrical and extended versions of this film are in the proper aspect ratio of 2.35:1, and from what I can tell, the extended cut is true widescreen and not just a cropped version of the 1.33:1 TV format (I have an advance copy of the DVD).

Also, the colours are pretty good for the extra scenes, although for the most part noticeable when they're inserted into the film, but aren't as noticeable as the bootleg versions of the extended cut.

And now for the BAD NEWS..., oh sure, it is the extended cut all right, the one from TV, you know, the one with new scenes added, and questionable scenes removed, for the over sensitive viewing audience...!!!

Yeppers, so what we get here is the version missing the baron's psycho flight about the room, covered in what looks like oil, just before pulling the young boys heart plug...

So, I guess I'll have to hold onto the bootleg copy of the fully UNCUT extended version of this movie (even if it is in pan and scan)

Drats, drats, and double DRATS!!!

Oh, and the 3 star rating is for the edited extended cut, and NOT for the movie, which I think is GREAT, being both a visual and mentally stimulating, treat for the senesce."

Dune: the sleeper has awaken.

aelwen | 12/10/1999

(5 out of 5 stars)

"David Lynch's (Eraserhead, Twin Peaks) adaptation of Frank Herbert's defining saga 'DUNE' may very well be, if truth be told, the most epic enterprise, and in many ways the most rewarding, of Lynch's work thus far.Dune is a difficult movie to review, if only because there is no easy (or maybe I should say simple) way to look at it. At its core though DUNE tells the story of Paul Atreides, a young man whose destiny as a Messiah of worlds echoes that of such classics like Brazil or Spartacus, where seemingly ordinary men become extraordinary beings. This however is an over-simplification, DUNE is built from a collection of stories and legends that form a unique whole -perfectly captured by Lynch.Make no mistake, this movies begs to be seen in its original 2,35:1 widescreen format. Freddie Francis' photography of the barren Dune world is simply amazing, and even though some of the special effects may seem old when compared to today's standards, the amazing designs by Anthony Masters will simply take your breath away. The DVD edition, while not anamorphic, is very well presented, sporting a very high quality video transfer and excellent sound. A brief, if yet interesting, collection of production notes are also included, as well as cast and crew bios and the original theatrical trailer in widescreen format.DUNE seems slow at times and it may not be for everyone -but then that's always been the trademark of Lynch's work, I think. Still, DUNE is an excellent example of how a complex story can make a Sci-Fi movie be truly epic. Couple that with the amazing designs and the beautiful photography and you got a winner here. Highly recommended."

An Incredible, Underrated Masterpiece

Doc Sarvis | 10/07/2000

(5 out of 5 stars)

"This movie was panned by audiences and critics alike when its highly-anticipated release occurred in 1984, and since then it has become one of the legendary "bad films" of Hollywood (think "Heaven's Gate" or "Ishtar"). But the fact remains, DUNE simply doesn't deserve this treatment, as evidenced by its steadily growing popularity over the years. Misunderstood in 1984, DUNE is more and more being appreciated for the magnificent film that it is. It was ahead of its time, but its time has come.Why was this movie so despised? I believe that it's because it tried to be all things to all people. This movie disappointed the "typical" moviegoer who expected to see "Star Wars" but instead got a gothic, Shakespearian epic tale of political intrigue and messianic destiny. Hard-core fans of Herbert's fabulous novels were disappointed by the relatively underdeveloped characters and key omitted sequences, not to mention the un-Herbertian presence of David Lynch's stylistic elements (for example, the "heart plugs"). Hence, no one was pleased...and the movie bombed.But DUNE bombed undeservedly. Any objective eye in either of the camps mentioned above will realize that DUNE does a yeoman's job of compressing a far-reaching epic into two and a half hours (try filming War and Peace in under three hours), providing a taste for the epic tale. The medium of film simply does not provide good translations of great books in most cases (with a few exception), so DUNE the movie needs to be appreciated for its own sake. As to those who found this movie too complex, well, don't be offended, but maybe this kind of thing is above your head intellectually.This is the version to see (in my opinion the "Smithee" version(s) are so poorly edited that they aren't worth watching (although the added scenes are fascinating, especially as they relate to Patrick Stewart's portrayal of Halleck and the Fremen sequences). Hopefully, Mr. Lynch will realize what a great work he created with DUNE and return to produce a real expanded Director's Cut. Until then, though, this is your best bet...and by the way, consider investigating the books, both Frank Herbert's original six volumes and the new Brian Herbert-Anderson "prequel" series. All excellent."