Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

bmemoret Unbearable to watch if you've read the book and vastly inferior to the classic David Lynch movie. I won't describe how this adaptation betrays the book time after time, not so much in terms of the action, but in terms of the characters -- hardly any is recognizable. After all, many may watch the series who have not read the book. I will say a few things about the differences between David Lynch's flawed masterpiece (1984) and this adaptation: the acting, the cinematography, and the technology. The actors are all vastly inferior to those in the 1984 movie, even Paul Atreides, who was the main failure in David Lynch' movie. Baron Harkonnen is supposed to be gross (he is certainly is in both versions), but also smart and sinister -- the 2000 version is just gross. His nephew Feyd Rautha is supposed to be handsome, courtly, but deeply twisted, though lacking his uncle's brains and craftiness; Sting was a perfect Feyd Rautha in the Lynch movie; this one is just giong through the moves, but leaves no lasting impression. Jessica is both a mother, an accomplished politician and administrator, and a viciously effective warrior, but here she has all the charm and presence of a pouting teenager, whereas she was just about perfect in the Lynch movie. The list goes on and on -- the imperial ecologist was a stunning, if somewhat ephemeral presence in the Lynch version, but is another forgettable character here. The Lynch version suffered at the hands of the producer, but Lynch is one of the great directors and the cinematography is stunning. The three planets (Harkonnen, Atreides, and Dune) are magnificently rendered and the sandworms on Dune have to be seen to be believed, this in spite of much more primitive movie technology in 1984. (This is another of my complaints: the special effects and background scenery in this 2000 version are laughably bad -- no realism, but no poetry and inspiration either; they do not convey any sense of space, harshness or fertility, menace or pollution; they just look like 1950ss B-movie painted backdrops.) This 2000 version has no imagination and no artistry; it provides more details (e.g., the face masks are lovingly detailed) , but they add nothing -- just like the much longer running time of the three episodes (compared to the relatively short Lynch movie) covers much more ground, but does not tell the story nearly as well. I'll take the flawed gem over the plodding, unimaginative, literal new version any time, for better storytelling, for infinitely better casting and scenery, and for overall artistry.

blrnani Certainly it is hard to convey the complexities of Frank Herbert's magnificent story in film - even while just about anything seems possible in today's cinema; who'd have imagined Lord of the Rings faithfully rendered in anything but animation format? But we are talking about the beginning of the new millennium, so I give the production kudos for a rendering that is vastly superior to the Lynch film and went on to produce the equally excellent Children of Dune sequels.

Claudio Carvalho David Lynch's "Dune" is a cult sci-fi, and the 2000 remake is a long but also good movie. "Children of Dune" was released in Brazil in three DVDs, and I have just watched the first one - "Children of Dune – The Empire of Harkonnen". I did not like this first part, since the story is very confused and has elements of soap-opera. The cinematography, the visual and sound effects are great, but there are too many characters without previous development, and betrayals, plots and subplots for a 93 minutes running time, and in the end I was completely lost of who is who in the story. My vote is five.Title (Brazil: "Filhos de Duna – O Império de Harkonnen" ("Children of Dune – The Empire of Harkonnen")

david-sarkies Somebody has suggested that what would be really good is if we could splice David Lynch's Dune with this Dune because if we were able to do that then we would have one awesome movie. Actually, the more I think about it, there are only a few things that I would want to take from this film and put it into Lynch's film, and that pretty much has to do with some of the effects, and even then some of the effects in this telemovie seem to be a little dry anyway.I would probably not consider this to be a remake of the Lynch film because, well, the Lynch film really does not need to be remade, and even then there were a lot of things that were in the Lynch film (such as the Wierding Way) which does not appear in this film, which I feel destroys the integrity of the original novel. However, the ornithopters were much better, and so were the effects for the interstellar ships, though ironically we do not meet any of the spacers (though when we do meet them in the sequel, they do look pretty cool).When I began to watch this I felt that there were a lot of aspects in this film that may have related to the political situation of the time (being 1965, when the book was first written). Basically you had a struggle between two superpowers, represented by the houses Artreides and Harkonan, and you have an overarching body like the UN who is represented by the Landsraat, ruled by the emperor. The most interesting aspect though is how the struggle is played out on the planet Arakis, a desert planet that holds the key to interstellar travel, and without the spice that is produced on the planet then civilisation will collapse.It is also interesting how there are other factions as well, such as the Bene-Geserit, which represents the church; the Mentat, which represent the scientific community; and the spacers, which represent the corporate powers that play the super powers up against each other. However, we also have the Fremin, to which Paul Artreides runs to and joins, which in a sense is representative of the Arabs, particularly the Bedouin. There seem to also be some elements of Lawrence of Arabia in this film as well, which is probably one of the scenarios around with Herbert based his work.I feel that aspects of this film seem to draw out the political machinations of the book much better than the original Lynch film does, however the Lynch film seems to be much more operatic than does this film, where the political struggles come to the forefront. Some have suggested that Herbert did to science-fiction what Tolkein did to fantasy, however what has come out of both writers, and what is generally available today, generally does not do either author justice (and anyway Asimov was writing space opera much earlier than was Herbert).