TodayPK.video
Download Your Favorite Videos & Music From Youtube
VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
4.9
star
1.68M reviews
100M+
Downloads
10+
Rated for 10+question
Download
VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
Install
logo
VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
Download

Dune (1984)

GENRESAction,Adventure,Sci-Fi
LANGEnglish
ACTOR
Kyle MacLachlanVirginia MadsenFrancesca AnnisLeonardo Cimino
DIRECTOR
David Lynch

SYNOPSICS

Dune (1984) is a English movie. David Lynch has directed this movie. Kyle MacLachlan,Virginia Madsen,Francesca Annis,Leonardo Cimino are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1984. Dune (1984) is considered one of the best Action,Adventure,Sci-Fi movie in India and around the world.

In the distant year of 10191, all the planets of the known Universe are under the control of Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV and the most important commodity in the Universe is a substance called the spice "MELANGE" which is said to have the power of extending life, expanding the consciousness and even to "fold space" ; being able to travel to any distance without physically moving. This spice "MELANGE" is said to only be produced in the desert planet of Arrakis, where the FREMEN people have the prophecy of a man who will lead them to true freedom. This "desert planet"of Arrakis is also known as DUNE. A secret report of the space "GUILD" talks about some circumstances and plans that could jeopardize the production of "SPICE" with four planets involved: ARRAKIS, CALADAN, GIEDI PRIME and KAITAIN, a world at least visually very alike to Earth and house of the Emperor of the known Universe. The "GUILD" sends a third stage navigator to KAITAIN to ask details from the Emperor and to demand him ...

Dune (1984) Reviews

  • Dune

    InspectorColumbo2004-09-14

    First of all I've read Herberts Dune saga and I loved the first book (the one the movie is about) and liked the rest. Second there is a difference between the cinema version (137 min) and the TV version (190 min often referred also "special edition") which should also not be confused with the new version from 2000 (Frank Herbert's Dune). To keep it short the 137 version is great and the 190 min version sucks. The TV version was split up to fill 2 evenings. For that they added about an hour of additional material not seen in the original version. While some of it is quite good like the prologue which went a little bit deeper into the Dune universe (Butlers Djihad) but most of it just destroys the atmosphere and the flow of the movie. On the technical side there is to note that the whole movie was Pan-Scanned which never is a good idea. Compared to the original version the quality really blows. Now to the good one: The movie is pretty much faithful to the book. There are things that were cut out from the book or it shows stuff that wasn't there, but what you see is CLEARLY Herbert's book which I thought is nearly impossible to translate into a (good) movie. It translates the "feel" of the book very well to the screen. The most notable differences is that in the book Paul is at the age of 15 (at least at the beginning) while McLachlan more looks like 20 but I can live with that. The rest are minor things (like these sound modules) and some differences in continuity (the navigators needing the spice to well... navigate is revealed at the beginning). The all actors give a solid performances. Notable are Kenneth McMillan (Baron Harkonnen) Patrick "Captain Picard" Steward (Gurney Halleck) and Sting as Feyd Rautha which really add to the movie. The special effects range from crappy to good. The movie shines where it 's most important namely the sand worms which look fairly convincing. Personally I prefer (well done) miniature shots over those Episode 1/2 CGI effects which make especially environments look like plastic. I think everybody who calls himself a Science-Fiction fan should have seen this movie which is a jewel under all those mediocre films that were spawned by Star Wars at that time. All the fans of the book should see it as what it is: A movie based on Dune. If you want the book word by word, don't watch the movie and read the book again.

  • Why does Lynch hate this one?

    Starbuck-131999-04-15

    To begin with, I have to say that I saw the movie first, and read the book years later. This seems to be important: Nearly everybody who read the book first hates the movie, but most of those who saw the movie first seem to like it. Now, why is this so? I cannot really understand it because, in comparition to other movies based on existing literature, what we have here is a film which stays very close to the original story and does not add many new elements. When I read the book, I could see the movie in front of me in nearly every chapter. So I really don't understand what Herbert-Fans had expected from this movie... I for my part like it a lot. It has a very mystical atmosphere about it and the story develops nicely. Of course there are some elements which are simply not explained and are therefore very confusing, but somehow this seems to be a thing Lynch tends to do in every of his movies, so what? I like some simple scenes like the opening monologue a whole lot. I LOVE the music (which played in my mind all the time while I read the book), and I think the characters are very strong and (for example Letho Atreides) sometimes full of tragedy. The part I like the most though is the worm-part. I think the special effects are not always brilliant, but seeing the scenes with the worms, I am really awestruck because they are so impressing. All in all, I think this is one of the more underrated movies in Science Fiction history. It may be because the director himself was not happy with it, or because fans expected too much from a simple two hour movie. I always enjoy watching this film and listening to the soundtrack. And I would love to see a Director's Cut version.

  • Ambitious but flawed attempt

    jamesrupert20142018-10-12

    There are some good parts in David Lynch's much maligned version of Frank Herbert's famous novel but they are few and far between. The main score is generally excellent (except when it pointlessly switches to dated '80's guitar rock), some of the images of the endless deserts of Arrakis are quite well done, and, although primitive and simplistic by modern standards, the early use of CGI in the shielded fight scenes should be lauded. Unfortunately these plusses are greatly outweighed by the film's deficits. The producers seemed to have little faith in the actors, so almost every action is accompanied by an explanatory voice representing of the person's thoughts. Some of the acting, especially the various villainous Harkonnens, is awful. The novelty-casting of Sting as Feyd-Rautha doesn't help: he spends too much time trying to look evil by smirking and fiddling with a knife but whatever menace he establishes is quickly undone when he steps out of the steam-bath in leather pampers. Kyle MacLachlan, who plays the central character Paul Atreides, generally looks uncomfortable and out of place, which is not helped by the constant melodramatic voiceovers. Patrick Stewart's Gurney Halleck is good (although why he has to carry the little dog is beyond me), as is Max von Sydow who plays Kynes, the exobiologist and honorary Freman who introduces Paul to the desert planet. The special-effects set pieces (especially the sand-worms and the climactic battle) have not aged well and despite some nice 'steam punk' stylings, the film still looks like an overproduced 1980's Italian vision of the future. Lynch has essentially disowned the film as have many fans of the book. I didn't like "Dune" when I first saw it 34 years ago and a recent rewatch on Netflix didn't do much to change my overall opinion. There are rumours that Denis Villeneuve will soon direct a remake and, as there have been some great successes in filming 'unfilmable' books ("The Lord of the Rings" being an obvious example), perhaps the next film will better capture Herbert's stark and lofty vision.

  • A very good effort.

    Chris-7422004-04-12

    Every time I see this film I like it more, yet can see why people would dislike this movie, and I can sum up it's shortcoming this way: Not close enough to the book to humour the people who have read the book, to confusing for people who have not. Thus Lynch managed to get a lot of bad press about this near masterpiece. It is very difficult to fit the plot of Herbert's masterpiece into 130 minutes, but I think Lynch did a good job, sadly he added som stuff that was not in the book. Where Lynch does excel is in setting the mood. To help him he had probably the best possible cast for such a movie and the best musical score ever. The acting overall is excellent (except possibly Maclachlan and Jones) and for me who read the book before seeing the film, it is hard not to see Stewart as Halleck. The timing of the acting and events is almost perfect. If Lynch had had help by a better scriptwriter to curb some of his wilder additions and flesh out the plot a bit and this could have been one of the best sci-fi movies ever. As is, it is very good, but somewhat flawed.

  • One of the few movies with a style of its own

    earnes2005-12-14

    Seriously, I do not understand why so many people dislike this movie. I think you have to take a couple of things into account. First: It is a 2 hour movie telling a story that spans several hundred pages in a book - so certain losses are just natural. Second: Compared to three times recycled multi-million-dollar-trash like the new Star Wars Episodes, this movie offers something really unique: A style of its own. The mixture between scifi elements, medieval setting and the culture of the the Middle East is excellent and Lynch welded them together into one solid piece of art... even though he seems to disagree today. Within this setting the lack of non-stop-action or overwhelming SFX never bothered me. On the contrary, this movie gives you time to watch... and many scenes are worth a second look. Third: I loved the actors, who were just as stiff, ugly, arrogant, noble or nice like the characters they tried to represent. In the end it is a question of taste if you like this movie or not. But for me, it will always have a place in my DVD-shelf...

Hot Search