.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to arktouros.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="arktouros:979891"]No doubt it's the greatest sci-fi story ever. We have David Lynch's Dune, and the excellent SciFi Channel miniseries which is more direct from the book. I just picked up the uncut miniseries, and I'm really digging it but I still prefer the Lynch version. Lynch's Paul Atreides isn't the Skywalker-esque whiny bastard that's portrayed in the miniseries, but both are acted out very well. Of course you can't beat Lynch's cinematography and trippy imagery, and coupled with the more Shakespearean acting in it (Kyle McLaughlin and Patrick Stewart) it gives it a more epic, grand atmosphere than the miniseries I think. Both have excellent special effects for the times they came out, but Lynch's are more creative. Some of the victorious 80's metal guitar riffs in the otherwise excellent soundtrack are laughable (the end character credits are ridiculously cheesy) but riding the worm next to Muad'Dib while on LSD was fucking fantastic. If you've never seen/read Dune, get on it, unless you're a little slow/don't like scifi. Which do you guys prefer? [IMG]http://filmjournal.net/dave1975/files/2006/09/kyle_maclachlan_dune.jpg[/IMG] vs. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/Paulatreides.JPG/170px-Paulatreides.JPG[/IMG][/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][