User Reviews

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

For all of it's flaws I still feel this was the best genuine attempt at capturing Herbert's vision. The art come to life and the grand cinematic scope of this project can't be understated. Remember - "The spice extends life. The spice expands consciousness. The spice is vital to space travel."

Greetings from Lithuania. "Dune" (1984) is a perfect example of a movie, that tries and fails to adapt an epic story into a 2 h 10 min flick. First time i watched this film only in 2025, after seeing Denis Villeneuve's Part 1 and Part 2 multiple times. This 1984 adaptation has one core issue that sinks the whole movie down - its run time. There is no way in the world that they could have possible adapted this epic story in a any good way within 2 hours film. It's like making Lord Of The Rings adaptation with 1 h 45 min run time. "Dune" (1984) has great costumes, good set design, desert scenes do look impressive. I watched this movie in 4K UHD presentation so i won't tell how many times i saw wires holding the Baron up in the air. Acting was decent enough for this kind of movie. But its writing and storytelling that do not work. It's the bizarre scenes involving milking of cat, or Sting in his underwear that do not work. Nearly all scenes involving Baron are bizarrely weird - not menacing. The overvoices explaining the plot were necessary to make this film even slightly understandable for people who didn't read "Dune". Overall, "Dune" simply isn't an entertaining movie. It is fun movie to look at, but not very much to admire. Story scope wasn't filmable in 2 hours run time, and they failed to make a good movie. But, it is not the worst film even and i did mildly enjoyed it, i can not lie.

Not bad but they shoved way too much content into this movie. This movie needs every second it gets and yet it isn’t enough.

Oh boy the acting is generally bad. The sets look cheap, special effects look bad and it deivates from the book with combat with that neck device. Compared to 1977 Star Wars this 1992 film, oof! Which is funny and ironic that Dune the book is one inspirations for Star Wars. I love Flash Gordan the movie, but that tone doesn't fit Dune and Dune does have that kinda tone at times. Still better than modern Dune Film and it keeps the relationships and threat levels of the books unlike modern Dune which ruins them.

I had seen an old special edition DVD of this film a long time, it had a haunting standoffish and dream-like quality that resulted in all three of us falling asleep. And I never revisited it, mostly because of the butchery this film underwent, I rarely had a fancy to go back and indulge in an unfinished and adulterated vision. But a chance to see it at a packed house, with a pal who loves it, at the Prince Charles I couldn't pass up and I was greatfully surprised at the film and slightly surprised at how much of a campy, guffawing audience we had; it's a silly movie, it's cheesy and it is camp, but it's not that bad. I think the first half of the film won me over. As a fan of the book it's a remarkably faithful translation and shares many hallmarks with Villeneuve's modern duology. The first half has remarkable physical effects, sets and design, digital effects ahead of its time, very strong directing, edgy creative choices, a really mature and ugly visual style that now feels like a modern video game, a spectacular soundtrack and a really very strong cast. The middle sags and I did feel the familiar pang that dreamlike science-fantasy delivers as it tried to pull me to sleep, but the final third is so mired in montage, desperate to cram everything that the book held (and missing much of the satire and commentary) and also so full of bonkers ideas and imagery that I couldn't help be repulsed and engaged by. This is where the camp lies and the film is a comical, rushed jumble until the end. But overall I really love campy, cheesy sci-fi-fantasy that really tries something weird and po-faced and bold, and this film hits all of that. Also I love their tan uniforms and non-binary Military.

Фильм основан на одноименной книге Фрэнка Герберта «Дюна». Что встречает так это серьезный саунд при представления названия (так же он будет играть в значимые ситуации, подчеркивая их значимость). После музыкального сопровождения мне захотелось отметить декорации, костюмы — красиво, благородно и конечно же голливудский подбор актеров, практически все полностью меня устроили. И что меня удивило, 1984 года на технологии был довольно неплох, почти всё выглядит потрясно даже сейчас, за исключением поля Хольцмана (но там уже как могли, так и выкручивались). Давно смотрел этот фильм и помнил смутно только первую часть фильма, и, соответственно, после пересмотра других экранизаций скажу, что мне нравится эта атмосфера мрачности. Есть мысли, что эта экранизация наиболее близка к книге, так как участвовал непосредственно автор, но это разбивается об то, что тут подобавляли то, чего не было, и вообще меняет отношение к этому, те же голосовые модули как по мне лишнее. Потом, по сравнению с фильмом «Дюна 2» Вильнёва, концовка незакончена что ли, а между тем у Вильнёва мне этот момент очень понравился. И всё-таки подход 2000-го года сериала был лучше, тут же в середине фильма сократили некую часть событий, пересказав события последних 2 лет.Итог: в каждой экранизации, есть свои сильные стороны, и смотря другую экранизацию я узнаю что то новое, а что знал мне не сказали, но зная это я все понимаю ибо видел это в пред. фильмах.Смотрел в озвучке: СТС

Même après toutes ces années, on est encore surpris de la qualité du scénario (entièrement écrit par le réalisateur lui-même) d’une grande fidélité au livre d’Herbert, plus fidèle sur nombre d’aspects que les films de Villeneuve, c’est dire ! en deux heures et quart, il a tout résumé, tout plié, extrait la substantifique moëlle de Dune, ses affabulations, son mysticisme de pacotille et j’en passe (oui, je parle du livre, résolument perfectible et… baroque !). David Lynch délivre une réalisation classique et solide, insistant sur les côtés décadents (et kitschs) de l’oeuvre d’origine. Les effets spéciaux sont tout aussi kitschs, une façon élégante de dire qu’ils sentent vraiment le poisson… d’ailleurs, pour moins les ‘voir’, pour moins être ‘choqué’ , il vaut mieux visionner le dévédé un peu pourravenaze, histoire de noyer ce fatras d’effets suspects sous une bonne couche de flou (on ne conseillera pas la VHS, ça deviendrait insupportable -encore pire que la « boîte »‘ !). Cela étant, on apprécie tout de même des décors intéressants et créatifs et certains accoutrements (qui peuvent faire sourire !) ainsi qu’une certaine ironie… et bien entendu une excellente distribution : on a -pour cette époque- que des pointures ou presque, non pas des ‘triple A’ certes, mais des comédiens et comédiennes toujours judicieusement choisis, y compris parmi les figurants, ce qui tranche très agréablement de la distribution discutable des Dune de Villeneuve, les ‘Dune : Woke Edition’ ! En définitive, avec ce Dune 1984, on est en présence d’un nanar plus ou moins haut de gamme et pourtant toujours aussi fascinant malgré son allure de navet fatigué ! il y a dans ce film quelque chose de plus, de supérieur à la somme de toutes les parties qui le composent, c’est ce ‘quelque chose’ qui lui confère un statut à part, celui de ‘classique’ en somme, envers et contre tous !

It's more cartoonish, colorful, surreal an grotesque take on Dune, but Lynch did his best to pack as many plot points into his film in limited run time. I have good memories despite the departure from the source. Still very watchable! I recommend it.

This is where it's at; there was never a need for a remake. This isn't something David would have normally created, but it's such a bizarre science fiction anyhow, one that can easily bore most people. When you add the amount of color and craziness that Lynch brings, it makes for a better experience!

Um längen besser als die langweilige neuverfilmung. Klar sind die Effekte veraltet aber der rest dafür eindeutig besser.

When Frank Herbert published Dune in 1965, it was considered unfilmable for a long time. In 1984, the young and highly talented David Lynch ventured into the film adaptation. The result was a real work of art and also a masterpiece. A flop at the box office, but over time, viewers noticed the ingenuity and high artistry of the movie. A real classic, fantastically made, it convinces with its high artistic standards. It's not for everyone. In my eyes, David Lynch is an underestimated (how can it also be in Hollywood) artistic genius. The Albert Einstein and Salvador Dali of cinematic art. Too bad he couldn't make a sequel. There are still many books by the great Frank Herbert waiting to be made into fantastic movies. BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO! AWESOME!

Will always be enchanted with its weirdness, but it is definitely a mess and inferior to Villeneuve's film.

A guilty pleasure of mine. Special effects are terrible but the movie is saved by the sets and performances, in addition to a great score by Toto. Watched the 2021 version of Dune recently and I have to say I prefer Lynch's version. The 1984 version is fun, and you get the whole story, not half a story.

While David Lynch's adaptation is not without admiration and ambition, it is ultimately only accessible to those already familiar with the source material. A fantastic cast is somewhat squandered with a lack of focus on character, while the pace of the film is all over the place with a slow, exposition heavy first half and a second half that races to get to the finish line. Though, special mention goes to Kenneth McMillan as the Baron, who steals every scene he's in.

Some of the models and effects were amazing. Some were much less impressive. The print was very dirty. Some of the chroma key looked really bad. Shame that the sound was not surround. Very original and creative use of effects but not the best example of this sci-fi fantasy type. They tried to pack too much story in. It should have been a trilogy of shorter movies. An interesting story but I had real trouble following it. I liked the old-school effects but failed to connect to the story. Some interesting ideas sadly don’t make up for plot confusion.

Thought this was bad, but rewatched it after being massively disappointed in the 2021 version. It was much better than anticipated, and I feel this movie actually does the setting justice and properly explains who is who and what is going on. The characters and factions all get plenty of screentime and all have personality to them. Music is great, scenery is epic and flavorful, dialogues are good for the most part. Special effects no longer hold up, but the entire movie just has soul and unlike the new movie, the characters and the writing actually checks out. Just compare the box scene between Mohiam and Paul in both movies, and that kind of condenses why the old movie is great and the new one is soulless nonsense with terrible dialogue.

The movie is not bad: the story is great of course with a lot of details and a deep universe. The visual effects are outdated of course.

Perhaps we will never know if this version (1984) could have the same strengths as the current version (2021) were it not for the fact that director David Lynch - it was not his fault - worked on commission, with a gag and few creative freedoms. The result is a sterile monster that lacks a face and a brain, and pretended to be identical to Star Wars. No wonder the memory still gives Mr. Lynch spasms of shame.

Highly disappointed in this movie. There was absolutely no star wars in it. I thought this was set in Tatooine and was appalled to learn that that was not the case. The acting is not up to par. Would recommend that Tim Chalamet and Zendaya give attack of the clones a watch and draw inspiration from padme and annikan. No lightsabers, no clones, no r2d2, this is simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Do better.

Now compared to the remake, this adaptation seems like a jewel from the 80s. I went to see the remake with my wife and tried to explain some of the background to her... it's a disaster. And that's where the Lynch adaptation starts to shine. Apart from the possibilities of the time, the film has aged very well and the trick effects are still acceptable. But what is much more important in my eyes is the storytelling and the political background and context. Simply very good science fiction. A must see for me.

Unfortunately, the film left me disoriented and unsatisfied. Along with great panaromas comes a story so difficuously told that it becomes an inexplicable mud puddle. On a planet that has no mud puddles.

Corners are cut and a lot of background left out. This is to be expected with adapting such a huge story to a feature film. The tone of the narrative is extreme, bordering on melodrama, as can be expected from Lynch. This kind of treatment is not necessarily out of place because the story contains many themes that take things to the extreme, in particular genetic manipulation. The story suffers from the severe cutting, but comes out reasonably well, considering.

Dune. Holy war. An unusually interesting film for its time. An interesting story, but practically uninteresting characters. The entire film is based only on the character Paul Atreides. The rest of the characters are somewhere in the background. The plot is interesting, the soundtrack is 7 out of 10.

Fascinating yet messy storytelling with more exposition than action and some bizarre costume and visual effects concepts that push the boundaries of what was possible in 1984. Seems a bit of a missed opportunity as if they had dialled it back a notch this could've found commercial success rather than its niche cult slot. Very entertaining for fans of sci fi fantasy movies.

Dune really trying to be another Star Wars, and it fail so badly, instead of an exciting film, Dune is boring, weak, and lazy, this is the first time as i remember while wrote this review that i hate the hero of the movie, it's either because of the actor or the character, Dune is not a movie that Lynch should made, it's not for him, in the other way, Dune succeed on the making of the costume and the giant sandworms that looks absolutely terrifying yet incredible, TOTO beautiful original music, and probably couple of scene, there is no amazing performance in the film, everybody is just ok, overall Dune was a complete failure and surprisingly Lynch worst movie so far.

Although the visuals were interesting, this is an excellent lesson of what can go wrong when you try to create too close an adaptation between two different mediums. The movie tried to copy the famous sci-fi book it's based on very closely, and this resulted in scenes that were oddly paced and dialogue that was unnatural. A movie is not a book and, and you need to make adjustments to make something work from one medium to the next. The writers and directors didn't bother to do this and the result was a slow, boring film with unnatural sounding characters.

Don't be fooled by the cult classic status. On the whole this is obviously not a good movie. I've just finished the novel, which I enjoyed. Frank Herbert built a fascinating and convincing world and, as any great author, understood the importance and art of gradually setting up points of interest and later resolving them. The screenplay here does the opposite, and starts by narrating a ham-fisted and pointless information dump. One illustrative example: the Spacing Guild. In the novel they are a secretive organisation whose involvement and motivations slowly unfold throughout the story. And the Guild members themselves, rumoured to have strayed from human form, are never seen; they only do business by means of human agents. They are glimpsed only once, through a vision of Paul's, and he does not disclose what he saw. This is effective, engaging storytelling. In this movie, within the first ten minutes, a Guild member is placed directly before the Emperor. (Oh yes, you also immediately see the Emperor and are told his motives.) The Guild member is a big scary monster. Whoo. It then tells the Emperor that the Guild are in charge and that the Emperor must kill Paul Atreides because he's going to destroy the spice, which is essential to the Guild. Okay then. This kind of boneheaded obviousness is all over, and as a result the story is flat and boring. At several points it's downright cringe-inducing. "I'm going to miss Caladan so much!", Lady Jessica shouts at Duke Leto, as they prepare to leave their homeworld. Great, thanks for explaining. Most of the performances are bad, due to the bad writing, bad casting, and plain bad acting. Sometimes it's difficult to watch. Kyle MacLachlan does his best as Paul but is miscast and too old. Sting actually provides the best performance here as Feyd-Rautha -- take from that what you will. Baron Harkonnen is written ridiculously but Kenneth McMillan just about pulls it off. Many characters are changed for the worse. The Lady Jesscia is an excellent female character in the book -- strong, cunning, magical. In the film she is useless and sometimes hysterical, serving only as mother to Paul. Other female characters receive similarly poor treatment. There appears to be only a single woman amongst the Fremen, and her only role is as Paul's lover. Also rather baffling is that every character is white. The cosmopolitanism of Frank Herbert's novel was an essential ingredient, drawing from many cultures, religions and races, so this is a real disservice to the source material. Dr Yueh should obviously be of asian descent. Thufir Hawat is described as "dark skinned" -- in the film he looks like he should be wearing a smoking jacket and holding a glass of port. Fremen culture is clearly derived from the Middle East, and they've lived for thousands of years in a scorching desert! In the film they don't even have a tan. Visually the film is a mixed bag. Some of the sets and costumes are good. Some are bad. There are a few interesting abstract sequences. The design of the worms is pretty good. But the execution of the special effects ranges from okay to bad. This was released seven years after Star Wars; it looks much worse. Most of the score is by Toto for some reason, and it gets pretty bad when the electric guitars start playing. There's one track written by Brian Eno which is an absolute stand out and sounds just how the book felt. If only the rest of the film were as successful.

i just saw the fanedit of this by spicediver, available on youtube. It was amazing, like Lawrence of Arabia with worms.

While it has strangely some appeal it is a below average movie and an awful adaption. There are some questionable production choices and the director had to force the whole story into one movie while also being denied of creative freedom. Lets start with the compression of the story. If you did not have seen the book it is pretty thick and some will claim it would stop a bullet ;-). It is almost like wanting to make The Lord of the Rings into two or even one extra long movie. The characters are also compressed into baseline forms or outright changed. Then there is the awkward choice to display inner monologues or though with voices while zooming in on the characters faces. It is irritating, awkward and makes you think WTF did they think or what did I just see. There are also questionable character designs that could fit into horror movies and destroyed the immersion. I will not hit on the special effects. Some look really good for its time but there are also exceptions. The actors deliver a decent to good job but are limited or sometimes even destroyed by the script and decisions. I think the term “Development Hell” or “Destined to Fail” are good descriptions. With the great cast it is a pity because I think that there is not one weak actor in the movie. I will not describe what was changed because there are countless rants or videos on the internet and it would be to much to list here in 5000 words. Remark: I even found a list on Wikipedia (Strangely only in the German article). Fans of the book will be up in arms to rip this movie a new one. The story has of cause a lot of plot holes and the compression of the story leaves you often wondering why, how or what happened. However I must admit that it has a strange appeal to me. The overall story, lore and world building makes me want to see more of the world and read trough all books of the saga. The concepts and ideas are brilliant but much is not explained. For example: Do you know what makes Paul even special? Overall this is even a good attempt given the limitations. While it is defiantly neither a good adaptation nor movie I respect what they did.

This film is for me one of the best science fiction films. I like this atmosphere on the border of the strange. The Midle Eastern inspired sets add a touch of originality and strangeness to this film. The actors are equiped with the necessary thickness for this great intergalactic epic. It doesn't matter that this film doesn't not fully conform to Franck Herbert's story (I have not read). For me, David Lynch made a really great movie, which have not to be ashamed in front of Star Wars or Blade runner.

Dune is arguably one of the worst written films of all time. It was the equivalent of trying to cram the Lord of the Rings into 2 films rather than 3. There was just too much going on to warrant this being a single movie when it should have been broken up into two. Or they should have trimmed the story to focus more on certain characters over others. Either way, It's still a nightmare of a script with way too many awful looking special effects and makeup designs that just don't work.

great actors, great stories, great SF, great text, great worms, great movie !

Dune has clumsy special effects and fight scenes, some motivations are questionable but Lynch shows his versatility, his surreal trademark is latent and story is at least interesting.

I don't know what happened to Lynch when he directed this movie. This is full of **** I somehow completed watching this movie. I would rather kill myself than watch this movie again.

Depth: 2/2 Importance: 2/2 Relevance: 2/2 Artistry: 2/2 Imagination: 2/2 Total: 10/10