“Dune (1984)” Review

Kyle MacLaughlin stars in “Dune (1984)” as Paul Atreides, a young man who must become the savior of a harsh desert planet.

When it comes to science fiction literature, there is no book as beloved as Frank Herbert’s “Dune.” What “Lord of the Rings” did for fantasy, “Dune” did for science fiction and, for the longest time, both works were considered to be unfilmable. With Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation set to come out October 8 and initial reports from the Venice Film Festival suggesting that it may be the best science fiction film in years, I believe that, as a huge fan of the book, it’s time to finally take a look at the first adaptation of “Dune” from 1984 which is incredibly divisive among filmgoers and hated by fans of the novel.

Set nearly 20,000 years in the future, humanity has mastered space travel and now has control over much of the known universe, but has also become a monarchy with an emperor ruling all and noble houses controlling planets. The fuel of this society is the powdery “spice” which can only be found on the desert planet Arrakis, also called Dune, and allows humanity to live longer, experience heightened consciousness and also allows ships to travel quickly through space. As the powerful Atreides family, which controls Dune, is decimated by the barbaric Harkonnen family, Paul (Kyle MacLaughlin), the heir to House Atreides, becomes a messianic figure to the natives of Dune and must use his gifts to defeat the evil Harkonnens.

If that plot summary seemed too dense for you, now you know how I felt watching this film. Unlike the 500 page book, which took its time explaining the complex world and establishing characters, “Dune (1984)” suffers from an incredibly rushed story that tries to tell a story that ought to be either a single, epic film that is four hours long like “Lawrence of Arabia” or split into two parts like what Denis Villeneuve plans to do. Writer/director David Lynch, one of the most unique minds in cinema, originally wanted his cut of the film to be three hours long, but Universal Pictures wanted the film to be two hours and took away final cut privileges from Lynch.

Lynch was so displeased with the film the studio cut together that he wanted his name to be entirely taken off the film. It’s difficult to get him to even talk about the film, much like David Fincher and “Alien 3,” and he has called not being given complete control “dying the death.” However, I’m not sure that Lynch was the best choice to direct. While I love a lot of his films like “Eraserhead,” “The Elephant Man,” “The Straight Story,” “Mulholland Drive” and “Blue Velvet,” the lattermost being one of my favorite films of all time, none of them scream big budget science fiction.  

Lynch had also never read the book or even been interested in science fiction which isn’t exactly the mindset to have when adapting one of the greatest science fiction novels of all time. Lynch will always be one of the best filmmakers ever because of how unique he is, but “Dune” is the one film of his that both he and his fans would love to forget. 

Writer/director David Lynch has expressed disgust with his treatment by Universal during the making of “Dune (1984)” and has repeatedly disowned the film after he wasn’t given final cut of the film.

Before I continue trashing “Dune (1984),” it’s important to address some of the film’s more positive attributes. Some of the film’s acting is outstanding with Francesca Annis, Brad Dourif, Patrick Stewart, Sean Young, Max Von Sydow and Kyle MacLaughlin all giving good performances as Lady Jessica, Piter De Vries, Gurney Halleck, Chani, Doctor Kynes and Paul respectively. Some of these actors are big names in science fiction and their performances reinforce why they are so beloved. 

The film also looks incredible. If you were to ask me what I thought Arrakis would look like after first reading the books as well as the costumes, this would be right on the money. In fact, despite this film being so hated by fans, Denis Villeneuve has said that this film influenced some of the designs that will be seen in the upcoming adaptation of “Dune.” 

The film’s musical score, composed by Toto, also sounds amazing and is easily one of the best parts of the film. Along with Brian Eno’s “Prophecy Theme,” the music really creates a sense of atmosphere and was obviously meant for a more epic film than what we got in the end. 

But going back to what doesn’t work, the film feels like an insult to the themes of the original novel and changes elements of the book that are essential to the story. Instead of being a teenager, Paul is now played by a man in his late 20s which drastically changes the arc of the character. Imagine if Harry Potter was 21-years-old in “The Sorcerer's Stone” instead of an 11-year-old, there’s just a fundamental difference in the way the story will play out. While Kyle MacLaughlin does a good job in “Dune (1984)” and this film was the first of a long line of collaborations with Lynch including “Blue Velvet,” “Twin Peaks” and “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me,” he just wasn’t right for the role.

The film also undermines the main theme of the book surrounding Paul’s character. In the book, Paul isn’t actually a Messiah and doesn’t consider himself one, despite having a powerful sense of precognition, but when the native Fremen of Arrakis proclaim him to be their Messiah, giving him the name Muad’dib, Paul must wrestle with this responsibility of leadership. In the film, he’s just a straight-up messiah and even makes it rain on the desert planet which not only doesn’t happen in the book, but also would doom the production of spice. 

Despite having good production values, the special effects of the film are atrocious with the personal shields the characters have, which make guns useless and result in combat being hand-to-hand, looking like something you’d see in a 1980s Nintendo game, a really crappy one. To put this in perspective, preceding “Dune (1984)” was “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), The Original “Star Wars” Trilogy (1977-1983), “Alien” (1979) and two “Star Trek” films (1979 and 1982). There’s simply no excuse for effects like these when the film was made for $40 million. 

Most of the other awful elements of the film are because of how much the book is condensed. Instead of spending time to create a powerful sense of atmosphere, there’s an over-reliance on voice-over narration to explain the characters’ emotions and the workings of the world and it’s all bizarrely whispered. Some of my favorite characters in the book like Paul’s love interest Chani (Sean Young) and badass swordmaster Duncan Idaho (Richard Jordan) are given far less character development which was really anger-inducing. 

Denis Villeneuve’s upcoming adaptation of “Dune” has already been getting positive reviews from the Venice Film Festival as has Timothee Chalamet’s portrayal of Paul. The film will be released in theaters Oct. 22 and covers the first half of the novel with a second film already being planned.

If you hadn’t even read the book, watching this film might feel like you’re attending a really dull lecture where occasionally something interesting will happen. I don’t care how many awesome giant sandworms come my way, if I don’t have a good reason to care for these characters or have a sense of what this world is like, I’m not going to be invested. 

Along with some really hammy acting from Kenneth McMillan, Paul Smith and Sting (in a role I’m sure he doesn’t regret) and just a lack of strong pacing, “Dune (1984)” is easily one of the worst adaptations I’ve ever seen. It’s not that it completely strays from the book or doesn’t have cool moments, but it’s obvious that the studio didn’t understand the book or filmmaking enough to let David Lynch tell the story he wanted to tell. I can’t promise that Lynch’s vision would have been great, but at least it would have been better than this watered down version. Universal wanted the next “Star Wars” but instead they made just another bland science fiction mess.

However, not only has David Lynch put this mess behind him and made some of the best cinema and television ever, but we’re getting the first of a two-part adaptation this Oct. and it promises to live up to the book and is being helmed by one of the best science fiction filmmakers of the past 20 years. Which is good because I need something to wash the bad taste of “Dune (1984)” out of my mouth.