Honestly, it's probably the worst of the three versions. The syfy version has some hokey costumes and the effects really haven't aged well, but from what I remember the first episode tells the same portion of the story as this one, more lucidly, and is an hour shorter. The Lynch version is weird enough to have some kind of personality. I'm not convinced this new one actually does a better job of explaining the story than the Lynch version does, it just feels less confusing because it's slow. I'd be curious to know what people who haven't read the book though.
Something I just realize after typing that last paragraph: I heard that this one was going to change the word "jihad" to "crusade," but neither word is mentioned in the movie. They don't mention the Butlerian Jihad, and consequently the very fleeting mention of why spice is important has no context or explanation. Did they cut it out to further avoid controversy?
Btw, were they planning to make this into two movies, or three? I thought it was going to be two, but this was only 1/3 of the book (even though the director acted like it was some massive effort to find the right spot to end the movie), and it's 2.5 hours long. I already didn't want to watch the sequel before I realized that it was going to be five hours long.
I'm sorry to be a grouch. I love Dune, the novel. I liked the Blade Runner sequel alot. And I like the Lord of the Rings movies, so it's not as though I can't enjoy a commercially compromised adaption of a sf epic. IMHO, this movie is not enjoyable. But I'm curious to know what other people think.