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")

SnoopyStyle Based on Frank Herbert's classic science fiction novel, this is a 3 part TV miniseries for Sci-fi channel. It is a fair attempt at the epic material. The obvious comparison is to the 1984 David Lynch version.First the easy comparison is the special effects. This version does a lot of green screen work. It's early CGI done competently for the times. It looks good enough, but the 1984 has the amazing visual style. This feels very much like a low resolution copy. It's got to be expected. I certainly wouldn't deduct any marks for it.The 1984 version was a complete mess storywise. I never read the books. This version is much more clearer. The 4 hours running times have a lot to do with that. It flows a lot better.The acting is there for the big roles in this movie. Alec Newman does a good job as the Muad'Dib. He feels like a young hero type. Backing him up, there are some great actors like William Hurt, Saskia Reeves, and Ian McNeice. The acting for the '84 version is much deeper. Overall, they're both flawed presentations of a complicated epic sci-fi series.

sciencevessel I was immediately disappointed early in the series when I realized how they had poorly cast Paul, who is a central character holding the entire movie together. Paul is calm, collected, prescient with razor-sharp perceptive skills; mature ahead of his time. In the series, Paul is petulant, arrogant, rash and almost childish. He lacks much of the presence that he needs to project. The cast around him is decent (e.g. William Hurt as Leto Atriedes), the special effects good for its time, but it still falls sadly short. It won't stop Dune fans from watching it, but I leave the film feeling dissatisfied and a sense of the waste.