Dune (2 Stars)

I watched David Lynch's version of "Dune" many years ago. I still have the DVD in my cellar, but I doubt I'll watch it again. It wasn't like his other films. It was too conventional, if you know what I mean, but even as a conventional science fiction film I didn't like it. 

I like the new adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel even less. It's an epic film that rushes straight into the story without taking time to introduce the characters or their backgrounds. We pick up details along the way, but everything still seems rushed. I would have preferred the film if it had been an hour longer, with extra scenes at the beginning.

Maybe these extra scenes aren't in the book? The director Denis Villeneuve has taken great pains to keep close to the book in order not to offend the fans. After the film one of my friends told me that I'd appreciate the film more if I'd read the book. I can understand that. In a chaotic film with lots of characters, knowledge of the book would give the missing background knowledge. However, that's not an excuse. A good film should be enjoyable by everyone, whether they've read the book or not. I don't intend to read it. The only science fiction books I read are the ones written by Michael Moorcock.

The book was previously considered unfilmable. Maybe that's the problem. Denis Villeneuve has taken on an impossible task. He was destined to fail. He should tackle an easier project, like Michael Moorcock's "Dancers at the End of Time" trilogy. Maybe even a new adaptation of "The Final Programme" which doesn't omit as much from the book. Leave "Dune" alone.