The Bowdoin Orient

February 2, 2001
Volume CXXXII, Number 14

Simon tells his big secret

by SIMON MANGIARACINA - COLUMNIST

I have a confession to make. I have been going out of my way to rent bad movies for this column each and every week. That's right, I know before hand that these movies will be bad. I have been continuously judging videos by their cover, if you will, and I have consistently been proving myself right. Don't think for a second that I might actually think that Leprechaun in the Hood might be a fine film, worthy of further investigation. Quite the contrary, I'm banking on it being awful. Why do I subject myself to such torture each week, you may ask? For you. As Brian Adams would say, "Everything I do, I do it for you." By renting low budget pieces of crap, and simply re-telling their ludicrous plot, I can make you laugh. Cheap laughs.
But it makes me happy. Is this fine writing or probing criticism? I think not. So, I'm going to try something a little different this week. I'm going to review a film that I suspected was good and that I've actually been wanting to see. I am still staying within my format, since this film was a straight to video release, and yes there are a few decent direct to video releases out there, although quite seldom.
But do not worry, this new approach is for this week and this week only. To ensure I do not lose some of my beloved audience I offer a brief preview of next week's film: It is called Whatever It Takes, and stars Andrew Dice Clay as an undercover detective investigating steroid use in the seedy world of female body-building. When you combine two such revolting subjects, like Andrew Dice Clay and female body-builders, well, we know we are dealing with something really special.
The "good" film in question for this week is Dune, a new adaptation of Frank Herbert's brilliant science-fiction masterpiece. If you can't tell, I really liked the book. Some fifteen or so years ago, director David Lynch (Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks) made a huge-budget big screen motion picture of the book. It sucked. While visually interesting, the story was impossible to follow, and anyone who hadn't read the book was pretty much left in the dark. And it starred Sting.
When I heard about the new version of Dune, I was pretty intrigued. The film premiered on the Sci-Fi Channel (which helped fund the movie, thus increasing its budget) some months back and was fairly well received. But who watches the Sci-Fi Channel? Dorks with cable who have read the book (like myself, but without the cable), and what do they know? Now that Dune is out on tape, I had to see if it was any good.
The answer is no, it was not good. It was somewhat decent. By direct-to-video standards, it's incredible. But, unfortunately, in order to fully understand what's going on, you need to have read the book. The acting is stiff and unemotional, save a scant few characters, and the special effects are mediocre. Lastly, IT'S FOUR AND A HALF HOURS LONG. Best of all, because it is straight to video, Artisan Entertainment is too cheap to put it on two tapes. Instead, the tape is on ridiculously long mode, which lends for piss-poor picture quality.
The long running time is a plus for fans of the book, but for the average Joe, it's a big turn off. So what's Dune all about? Well here is a "brief" synopsis. The story takes place in another galaxy, and in this galaxy there is an emperor who presides over several ruling families, each with their own planet to control.
Two of the families are at war with each other, the Atredies (good guys) and the Harkonens (very bad guys). The Atredies have been kicked off their planet by the emperor and been reassigned to rule the desert world of Arrakis, otherwise known as Dune. Little do the Atredies know, the Harkonens (with the help of the emperor) have set a trap in order to kill off their family line and take control of the planet.
I must add that the planet itself is incredibly important, since it is the sole source of spice within the galaxy. Spice is an addictive drug, which gives vision and clairvoyance to everyone in the galaxy. Once the trap is in motion, the Duke of the Atredies (William Hurt) is captured and killed, but his concubine and son escape into the wilds of the desert. They are soon taken in by the hardened religious tribes of Dune's native people, the freemen.
Under the influence of the spice drug, the Duke's son fulfils his destiny (which is built up throughout the entire story in the form of dreams and visions) to become the Messiah of the freemen, leading them to revolution and war.The story is far more complex than just that, and spans the course of a few years. Where the film really falls short is the lack of emotion in most of its key characters, as well as its many straight-forward camera angles, which gives the majority of the production the feel of a stage play. Lines like, "This vast organization we call humanity is about to reinvent itself from the ashes of its own complacency" don't read well in monotone.
David Lynch's rendition really has the upper hand when it comes to the environment and mood of the story, as well as the casting. I really missed Kyle McLoughlin, who portrayed Paul Mau'dib, son of the Duke, with dark creepiness that was so appropriate for his transformation. The guy who plays Paul in this version remains flat throughout the whole film. In terms of faithfulness to the original story, this new version comes through fairly well.
The real shame here is that Dune was not picked up for a major theatrical release, due to its long running time, which in turn killed the budget for good actors and special effects. If the average movie-going public had attention spans slightly longer than that of a gnat, Dune may have had a chance. With that said, the straight-to-video release of Dune is incredibly ambitious, although I would only recommend it to fans of the book. If any of you are intrigued by any of this, read the book. The final word: Dune gets a B-.