answer: the special effects are terrible
paragraph_question: question: How was its effect?, context: Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom. 
sentence: The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible , even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions.
paragraph: Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom. 
sentence_answer: The story is choppy and confusing; <hl> the special effects are terrible <hl> , even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions.
paragraph_answer: Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; <hl> the special effects are terrible <hl>, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom. 
paragraph_sentence: Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. <hl> The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible , even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. <hl> What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom.