You see, Villeneuve's Dune has a great cast, insanely great cinematography and sets, but it is also very sterile, devoid of life and has very unimaginative directing. Some scenes were direct adaptations from the book, like Gom Jabbar scene, Shadout Mapes scene, and were very confusing for people who didn't read the book. (why does that sand woman shout when Jessica says a certain word?). Paul's awakening is very bland, too. His mentats were useless. De Vries was just a sad freak who stood nearby and then died. Hawat was in three scenes where he had any lines, and in two of which he counted expenses, and offered his resignation in the third. If I didn't read the book I'd assume he's some kind of accountant.
On the other hand, Lynch's Dune also has a great cast, great music, great sets, and it also has the all-important dream-like mystic feel to it, which is completely absent in the new adaptation. Sure, it has a lot of script problems, which mostly boil down to far too short runtime, as moviegoers in 1984 weren't ready for 2 part movies, so it had to cram the second part of the book in the final 20 minutes or so. Had it been two movies, it would have been much better.
One big improvement in Villeneuve's adaptation is Momoa's Idaho, who basically saved the movie for me. Lynch's Idaho was very bland and died far too easily and non-consequentally. Other than his scenes, if I ever want to see some scene from Dune on Youtube, it'll be Lynch's (except "the Guild doesn't take your orders", if you know what I mean).