Dune: Part Two Is the Best Sci-Fi Film of the Decade

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a46885292/dune-part-two-review/

by airstrike • 2 years ago

121 180 2 years ago

JohnMakin2• 2 years ago

Historically, february is the time of the year where studios tend to offload the films they think are going to flop. Maybe that has changed.

boppo15• 2 years ago

The first was okay. I was disappointed, I really like villenueve's other work. But it was just kinda stale.

drittich• 2 years ago

I really wanted to like it, and the visuals were fantastic. But, I had no emotional reaction to the characters and feel like the plot was just flowing along without a reason for me to care. I gave it 30 minutes.

zeroCalories• 2 years ago

Well, Dune is kinda stale. It's certainly not for everyone, but I thought he did an amazing job of brining the books to life.

doc_gunthrop• 2 years ago

It suffers partially from contrived exposition. It seems whenever a Dune film is made, the filmmakers tend to try to include as much of the lore as tolerably possible. They could've just started off the first film with Paul entering a room to encounter Gaius Helen Mohiam and the audience being introduced to the box.

grilledchickenw• 2 years ago

Dune: Part Two was actually scheduled for release end of last year, but got delayed due to the writers' strike. Maybe it hasn't changed afterall.

JohnMakin2• 2 years ago

Right, but it's not like they had to release it now. My comment was more speaking to the peculiarity of releasing a potential blockbuster at this time of year. They could have made a summer or spring release as well.

RaoulP2• 2 years ago

I do hope so! I love Denis Villeneuve, but felt initially that Dune part one didn't live up to the standard I was used to from him. Mostly due to the structure and pacing.

But Villeneuve did explicitly intend this as a two-parter, and I've held on to the hope that it was all intentional and that his decisions will serve the films as a whole experience.

g-b-r7• 2 years ago

Nope

rolobio• 2 years ago

I absolutely loved the first film. I am very excited for the second part. I enjoy long movies, so having two parts is good.

One part of the first movie that sticks out to me is seeing their space ships for the first time. It was such a different style of space ship that it (plus the music) really struck me in the moment and stayed with me.

onion2k3• 2 years ago

There haven't been many good sci-fi films in the past decade though, especially if you think the Marvel cinematic universe is boring. Competition is thin.

subsubzero3• 2 years ago

agree, Dune for me was one, Inception being another. I liked Moon(small budget but excellent), interstellar was ok. And thats about it.

airstrike• 2 years ago

Moon was truly excellent

erellsworth2• 2 years ago

I'd put Everything Everywhere All at Once on that list, depending how you define sci-fi. One of the best films of the decade, in my opinion.

haunter• 2 years ago

Ones I liked are Arrival, Interstellar, Her, and Pacific Rim

litheslytherin• 2 years ago

The first one was good enough for me to see 2/3 times in IMAX :)

The director literally made some of his other movies to prep for Dune.

Movies with dozens of Millions in budget were his practice for this next flick, so hey, I'm ready to give my money and be blown away!

boppo15• 2 years ago

The director literally made some of his other movies to prep for Dune.

You're saying BR2047 was practice? Because it was way better than DP1

justin662• 2 years ago

That’s ironic, considering how much better Arrival and the Blade Runner sequel were than Dune.

bostik2• 2 years ago

Arrival is an incredible film. (And sure enough, as is the story it's based on.) That's even with the discounting factor of the useless rogue bombers subplot.

Blade runner 2049 is an interesting film. Visually gorgeous. Ana de Armas doing one of the best stone-cold scenes I have ever seen. And the whole film having the guts to tell a small story in a big world. Commendable. But I also find myself cringing at how it took a well constructed universe and pretty much dismantled it. So I'm rather torn over what I should think of the film.

Of course, story telling wise the Dune mini-series was far above the first new film. But that didn't make the new film bad, it just made it ... different. And too packed. Dune's story is fundamentally big, sweeping and slow. Squeezing it into a film format will cripple it.

jamager3• 2 years ago

Even better than the first film

The first part left me quite underwhelmed, tbh. Maybe I had too high expectations given the director, but while the visuals are amazing, the characterization of some characters (like lady Jessica or Thufir Hawat) are very far from how the books depicts them, and I don't think is an interpretation thing.

I understand that Dune is too big of a masterpiece for a simple 2 part movie (it should be a 6-8 session series at least), but I think for instance that the graphic novels do a way better job of conveying the essentials.

I'll watch this anyways, I am still a Dune fan.

kramerger• 2 years ago

Really? I was very impressed with Rebecca Ferguson as lady Jessica. The first 10 minutes was worthy of an Oscar.

reactordev4• 2 years ago

For that 6-8 part series, you’re looking for the SyFy Channels version that was done early 2000s. Fantastic. Frank Herbert’s Dune. Had William Hurt in it.

khazhoux4• 2 years ago

That series was such a treat. Highly recommended!!

snapcaster3• 2 years ago

never heard about this before! thanks for the tip will check this out

7thaccount• 2 years ago

Also easily my favorite. I saw the first episode the night it came out (before I read the book) and remember being blown away. I've liked the other versions too, but not nearly as much.

richie_adler2• 2 years ago

Hurt was the worst part of it. I swear, I still cringe when I remember his unemotional delivery of "Desert. Power." Damn he was bad.

exe34• 2 years ago

The first film was half a reboot.

stronglikedan• 2 years ago

the characterization of some characters... are very far from how the books depicts them

But that's how it always is, because the target audience for the movie is much wider than the target audience for the book, so characters always get the "screen treatment" to make them more palatable to a wider audience.

jamager3• 2 years ago

Nah, SicFi is so mainstream that that is not a valid argument anymore. Plus, they clearly made it for fans. It is barely comprehensible without having read the original.

khazhoux4• 2 years ago

Which graphic novels?

jamager3• 2 years ago

Adaptation from Brian Herbert & Kevin Anderson, illustrated by Raúl Allén and Patricia Martín. Highly recommend.

hyggetrold• 2 years ago

I understand that Dune is too big of a masterpiece for a simple 2 part movie (it should be a 6-8 session series at least)

I am a massive Dune fan as well and share this sentiment. Same for Lord of the Rings. On some level those books are simply unadaptable if the goal is to be totally true to the original text.

For myself, I am always happy to see adaptations since it will always lead someone to the books who would otherwise not have been exposed to them. And if some folks don't like the books and only enjoy the movies, that's fine too. Better to have any exposure than none. :)

hamandcheese• 2 years ago

The LOTR movies are masterpieces in their own right, IMO. I can't say the same for Dune (part 1, at least).

nullindividual2• 2 years ago

To be fair, the audience for movies and books simply aren't the same. If you tried to fully faithfully adapt LotR, you'd have Alex Jones proclaiming the frogs got to Tom Bombadil and turned him into a dirty liberal hippie.

It would just be too confusing/weird for on-screen.

I'd watch it on repeat until I turned into that skeleton waiting meme.

skywhopper• 2 years ago

I do think it's inevitable that a film adaptation will let down any major fan of the original book. There's simply a barrier between media that cannot be reconciled, certainly not for any story as complex and expansive as Dune.

(Sounds like this movie is at least three parts, for what it's worth.)

mcphage• 2 years ago

I do think it's inevitable that a film adaptation will let down any major fan of the original book. There's simply a barrier between media that cannot be reconciled, certainly not for any story as complex and expansive as Dune.

I don't think this is true. I agree that they are different media, and any adaptation will inherently be an adaptation. But that shouldn't lead to disappointment. You can appreciate both for their differences, as long as they each succeed in their own approach.

reddit_clone• 2 years ago

Not to mention so much internal dialog. Hard to translate into film.

GeekyBear2• 2 years ago

The first part left me quite underwhelmed

The books are chock full of the various character's internal dialog, and when you make the choice to leave that aspect out, there is quite a bit of richness missing.

This version went the "show, don't tell" route. Visually, its amazing, but so much additional information from the book to help you understand the characters, the groups they belong to, and their motivations was left out.

I think the Sci Fi channel Dune miniseries did the best job of putting across the full richness of the book, albeit with a made for TV budget.

queuebert2• 2 years ago

The Sci-Fi channel Children of Dune miniseries is highly underrated as well.

hax0ron32• 2 years ago

I don't know why so many people hate the whispery Lynch Dune voiceovers. I think they work great to convey both extra content and the mysterious, intrigue-laden mood of the book.

magicalhippo• 2 years ago

This version went the "show, don't tell" route.

While I agree it makes it difficult to understand motives, on the other hand I love that they don't over-explain stuff. So many movies ruined by not trusting the audience with half a brain.

bee_rider2• 2 years ago

I didn’t see the first one but I’m under the impression that neither of the remakes feature Sting so I’m not sure why people are watching them.

nullindividual2• 2 years ago

I was too young when it was released, but wasn't it Sting's diaper that got everyone into the theater?

Crontab2• 2 years ago

The first part left me quite underwhelmed, tbh.

I get that. I felt the same was at first. But after watching it multiple times on HBOMax I have come to really appreciate the film. I think maybe my initial expectations were just too high.

mFixman• 2 years ago

I read the Dune books after seeing Part 1, and I was slightly disappointed at how _little_ characterisation most characters have. Most of them have no history or relationships outside of the ones present in the book and very broad "Paul's doctor came from the secret society of very good doctors".

IMO Dune a good piece of literature, but the lackluster worldbuilding makes the Universe feel small and empty. Nothing interesting happened in the prior 10k years to anybody who's not a protagonist.

avalys2• 2 years ago

Fully agreed on this. The books give you no sensation of a galactic empire of trillions of people and all the complexity that would arise from it. The society has no more depth than a small European nation - a few corporations, a few universities, some guilds, an aristocracy, etc.

hax0ron32• 2 years ago

Yeah, I don't remember Jessica being nearly as overtly emotional in the book as she is in Part 1.

I enjoyed Part 1 while watching it, but somehow it's just not memorable to me. It's a much more faithful book adaptation than Lynch's Dune, but Lynch's Dune is full of moments that stick with me and has an iconic soundtrack. To be fair, I first saw Lynch's Dune when I was very young so that might explain part of why I find it so memorable. I dunno. To me Villenueve's Dune just kind of seems... flat, by-the-numbers, gray and dull. Weird thing is, I love Blade Runner: 2049 and I find it to be very memorable and vivid. But then, Villeneuve had a chance to make his own story with that one, which might explain the difference.

Lynch's Dune is, I think, a significantly better movie than Villeneuve's, but it is so different from the book that I'm not even sure I am willing to call it an adaptation - and that might have made Lynch's job easier. For example, Lynch's Dune fully just goes with the classical "hero's journey" approach to Paul, with no hint of the devastation that he will be responsible for. It also goes full on into mysticism, which I enjoy, but which is quite different from the book's skeptical and cynical approach to spirituality. Nonetheless, it is a better movie just as a movie. I have not seen Villenueve's Part 2 yet, but I hope that it makes up for some of the things that I find dull about Part 1.

at_a_remove• 2 years ago

Lynch understood what the problems of a direct adaptation would be. An example would be the Weirding Way. One would have to invent a martial art that both looked fresh on the screen (new, different) and was also simultaneously overwhelmingly powerful. This is perhaps nigh-insurmountable (I dunno, clone Bruce Lee, but also raise him with a lot of cinematography experience, then have him design another Jeet Kune Do which looked impressive through a lens). Lynch opted for the Weirding Modules, which still provided this surprise advantage against the Sardukar terror troops and tied back, thematically, to Paul being the fulfillment of prophecy.

He understood that millennia of feudalism would make for a psychically claustrophobic atmosphere, that the avoidance of the thinking machines would necessarily birth the creation of humans who might have visibly different traits ("... the lips acquire stains ...") from the strain of being human computers. He understood that voiceovers were appropriate because, to survive in such an environment, you must constantly be thinking about what other minds are thinking, to remain steps ahead.

Finally, Lynch understood that the dialogue must be larger than life. I heard a trailer for the recent one and I swear, some of the dialogue between Paul and Chiani sounded like Avengers-era quippy Whedon output.

JohnBooty• 2 years ago

    Lynch's Dune is, I think, a significantly better movie than Villeneuve's

Yeah. Ultimately I think Villeneuve's movie commits the worst sin of all which is being kind of boring. (Though as a Dune "veteran" I realize my perspective is highly skewed!)

Lynch's movie is kind of a mess maybe, but there is a sense of wonder there that I just don't get from Villeneuve's beautiful-but-sterile version.

aqme28• 2 years ago

I've probably seen Dune 1984 too many times to have an objective opinion, but I feel like the acting in Dune Part 1 is comparitively very very muted. All the characters (minus Duncan) seem bored the whole time, which is disappointing in relation to the bombastic Shakespearean performances in the Lynch film.

Jtsummers• 2 years ago

All the characters (minus Duncan) seem bored the whole time

This is how I've felt about most Villeneuve movies I've seen. The main (or at least major) characters look like they're walking knowingly, resignedly towards some destiny they can't control (Arrival at least this kind of makes sense, and Paul for parts of Dune) with an absurdly flat affect most of the time. It's like we're watching them watching themselves go through the motions of life without being able to direct or control it.

Very pretty movies, interesting soundtracks, with strangely flat acting from people who can do much better.

yaky• 2 years ago

IMO the visuals were just... bland. Everyone wears grey and lives in dark grey dwellings. The color balance is so bad that Atreides flag that is green on Caladan becomes cyan on Dune. This greyness also ruined the supposedly-awesome scene with the worm where it was just a dark blob on a grey background. And it was unintentionally funny when the camera pans over a featureless grey desert, and someone says "you can tell the spice by the color of the sand".

avalys2• 2 years ago

Perhaps there was something wrong with whatever setup you watched the first one on. The colors were all pretty warm and...sand-colored, definitely not anything I'd call "grey".

wiseowise8• 2 years ago

Where did you watch it?

duxup• 2 years ago

I liked the first 2/3 of the first film. It had some fun takes on events and scenes. But after that it felt like it was on auto pilot plowing through plot bits. The events that close that film are really uninteresting / don't feel very climatic.

I get it's a two part film but I do expect a given part to feel somewhat complete, but I felt like it was more of a "to be continued" ending and I was less than entertained by that point.

I do like that there's such a variety of Dune films and content (the sci-fi miniseries including children of dune being my favorites). It's fun to see a different take on things. I really have never felt any of them were "wrong" or fundamentally "bad" just different approaches.

I wish every great sci-fi content could get lots of versions / interpretations.

fakedang2• 2 years ago

Exactly. I can easily recollect the first half of the first movie, but after Paul meeting the Fremen, I barely remember anything out of the movie.

nick238• 2 years ago

Didn't they meet, Paul fought Jamis, then that was basically the end? I thought that was maybe the last fifth of the movie, not half.

mring336212• 2 years ago

yeah the fremen in part 1 are kinda boring.

but after re-watching it recently, i think part 1 overall is pretty great

bkishan3• 2 years ago

I just came back from the theater. Every word of this article rings true. The movie is a piece of art, the best of star wars with the grandeur of Game of Thrones. Its very rare to get movies like this these days.

RaoulP2• 2 years ago

What were your feelings about part one, if you saw that back when it came out?

bkishan3• 2 years ago

Watched the part one on day 1 as well. It was definitely more intriguing than enjoyable. The visuals and soundtrack really carried it despite the pacing. Imo, part one was just a great setup for this masterpiece.

Crontab2• 2 years ago

Glad to hear it. I'm leaving to go see it 45 minutes from now.

azemetre4• 2 years ago

Makes me regret I didn't take PTO to watch it, half my team are. :D

zvmaz• 2 years ago

I could not stand the first part of the movie Dune. I'm sorry for the fans, but it was amongst the worst movies I have ever (partially) watched.

Slow and incomprehensible for me.

P.S. I have not read the book.

SimbaOnSteroids• 2 years ago

Then it was extremely true to the books.

khazhoux4• 2 years ago

I can’t imagine trying to understand the movie if I hadn’t read the book. As you say, it would be absolutely incomprehensible.

soulofmischief2• 2 years ago

One might argue that means that the movie failed to properly execute.

brightball• 2 years ago

Dune has always been a really difficult adaptation because there is so much internal monologue. It's a great story but a very challenging film.

itronitron• 2 years ago

> Slow and incomprehensible for me.

Interesting take. I remember thinking, when I first saw it, in one of the movie's last fight scenes, 'hmm, we must be at the halfway point'

apitman• 2 years ago

My anecdata with Dune part 1 is that people who haven't read at least the first book are far more likely to not love the movie. For me, the movie isn't so much an adaptation as it is a window into the world. As someone already familiar with that world, I think the movie is incredible.

anotherevan2• 2 years ago

Have read the first book multiple times, and hard disagree. See [0] for my thoughts on why.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39555931

subsubzero3• 2 years ago

I'm really excited about this movie, its f/x and renderings of the buildings, world and technology are the stuff of sci-fi dreams. And I am saying this as die hard fan and lover of the books and also a fan of the David Lynch movie. I didn't really like the mini series they made for TV. That being said the only issue I have is with the cast, I feel like the biggest misses were Baron Harkonnen and Paul Atreides. David Lynch cast both perfectly but its a minor nit and overall really enjoyed part one immensely.

duringmath• 2 years ago

Eh, they kept all the silly stuff from the book, the atomic bombs, the boring desert sections, way too much exposition, the insurgency and holy war aspects that barely seem like fiction considering recent world events, and like all movies nowadays it's way too long.

foobarian• 2 years ago

I'm sure it seemed even less like fiction during the OPEC oil crisis in the 70s. Or the Libya Khadaffi thing in the 80s. Or the Kuwait invasion in the 90s. You get the idea :-)

c22• 2 years ago

I think movies these days struggle to compete with serialized television shows which can run very long, allowing a lot more opportunity for character and plot development. Dune also just has a lot to cover. See the Lynch adaptation for what happens when you start to push against the inherent runtime limitations of film.

wiseowise8• 2 years ago

and like all movies nowadays it's way too long.

If I wanted a TV show, I would watch Netflix.

snapcaster3• 2 years ago

I'm so excited to see this tomorrow! I'm so pleasantly surprised it seems to be popular. I expected the first movie to flop massively but at least weirdos like me would get to enjoy it. Here's hoping it keeps staying popular and they can even make it to the super weird later books!

hammock• 2 years ago

I would like to see the average age of people who prefer the new Dune movie to the old David Lynch one. Are you all Millennials and younger?

eps• 2 years ago

I'm almost 50 and I prefer the new by a mile.

rjtavares• 2 years ago

I'm 40 and think the new one is much much better.

romwell• 2 years ago

I'm a millennial, and my favorite Dune is Jodorowsky's Dune :)

trsohmers• 2 years ago

I’m right on the millenial/gen Z divide and an inner selfish purpose for me working on AI/ML is just to enable a creation of Jodorowsky’s 10 hour version of Dune with soundtrack by Pink Floyd.

Andrew_nenakhov2• 2 years ago

I'm 44 and I think Lynch'n Dune is better, because it has soul. The first movie was very sterile and lifeless. I commented about it here a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38980303

Keyframe2• 2 years ago

My brother from another mother! 43 here, maybe there's something to it.

anotherevan2• 2 years ago

Mid-50's here and really didn't like Lynch's version that much, but was quite underwhelmed with Part 1.

That said, I think you nailed the two movies in two sentences.

Of Lynch's version I often quip that it was both good and original - however the parts that were original were not good, and the parts that were good were not original. In short - I did not like the divergences from the source material that much. It did have a soul though.

Part 1 seemed to miss or give short-shrift to beats in the book that always stood out to me. Instead of really conveying the absolutely oppressive lack of moisture on the planet, there was what felt like an interminably long monologue about the palm trees. Mentats with inner eye-lids? Leaned into the mystical side too much for my taste. Yueh's betrayal seemed like a footnote. The end of the movie from when Paul and Jessica met the Freman felt rushed. More time spent on why Jamis was so pissed off, and reflecting on the fact that this was the first man Paul killed, and less on weird alternative time-line future WTF visions would have been time better spent. Sterile and lifeless.

Add to that, did anyone else not know that it was a part one and not a complete movie when they walked in? Definitely seemed like something that they went to lengths to conceal.

That said, I'll watch it again before watching part two, and then try and form an opinion of the complete movie and not just the first half.

gedy• 2 years ago

New is a better/watchable movie for sure, but I do think the David Lynch one really nailed the "this is 10000 years in the future" aesthetic and vibe, especially given the special effects capabilities of 1984. New one does not feel that way to me.

snapcaster3• 2 years ago

mid thirties and HATED the David Lynch one. The casting, visuals, aesthetic were all repulsive to me. I like this new one a lot

the__alchemist• 2 years ago

37. The David Lynch one was unwatchably campy.

jncfhnb3• 2 years ago

30. The David lynch film is, imo, his worst film by a wide margin.

Keyframe2• 2 years ago

Lynch's world building, Captain Picard vs Sting, rather well-acted, Toto's soundtrack, that intro (oh man, that intro).. what's not to like! I see it as completely different takes, I prefer the old one - has soul to it. Kind of same with old Blade Runner vs 2049. Newer films are technically awesome, yet kind of vapid. And, yes - tastes are different, but let's talk in 20 or so years and see which stick. Old ones already stuck. Kind of similar to how people shat on SW prequels, yet they're still with us in popular culture, new ones not very much.

soulofmischief2• 2 years ago

The worldbuilding in the prequels made up for massive deficits in other areas. A masterclass in worldbuilding for sure. Not so much for plot cohesion, characterization, motivation... Whereas the first two Star Wars releases are near-perfect enough movies to still act as templates for new filmmakers.

lowbloodsugar• 2 years ago

I love 'em both. Very different takes. Lynch took a lot of liberties but did a great job squeezing it into a single movie. I think Lynch captured the religious aspect quite well. I've read all the books. Villeneuve has made an epic series. The casting is great. The music is awesome. Cinematography stunning.

lucsky• 2 years ago

I would agree that the cinematographic qualities of each movies are debatable, but the old David Lynch one will always be vastly superior for the single fact that Toto's (and Brian Eno) soundtrack is 3.7 thousand times better (give or take) than the uninspired bland soup that Hans Zimmer has been serving.

justanotherjoe3• 2 years ago

I bet even Lynch prefer the new one since he hates his Dune so much.

ChrisArchitect2• 2 years ago

"of the Decade"? Author using that phrase again, and they're serious about writing off the next 6 years? Will see how that ages.

Would have been safe to say "of the last ten years" no?

wrsh07• 2 years ago

I think saying "of the decade" but meaning "of the [past] decade" where decade means "a period of ten years" is pretty reasonable

Quibbling with that sort of misses the point, no?

ChrisArchitect2• 2 years ago

I read the rest of the review, it's fine, I'm just questioning writing off a bunch of "future" years of movie releases seems premature. The author makes a point that they're staking that claim.

wiseowise8• 2 years ago

Author using that phrase again, and they're serious about writing off the next 6 years?

Given that nothing serious been announced yet, it’s a pretty safe bet.

rsync• 2 years ago

I was extremely impressed by and thoroughly enjoyed "part one".

However I think Blade Runner 2049 was better. [1]

I'm excited to see "part two".

[1] Stephen A Smith Hot Take: I actually think BR:2049 was better than the original - and I am a true devotee of the original.

jncfhnb3• 2 years ago

I think blade runner 2049 could be considered a superior film if you edited out most of Jared Leto’s character.

boppo15• 2 years ago

I heard that part was written for Bowie. One of the most plausible rumors I've ever heard. He would have been perfect. Instead, Jared Leto is agonizingly bad.

whalesalad• 2 years ago

I couldn’t get thru the first one. Absolute snooze fest.

vvpan3• 2 years ago

Yeah usual overdone Hollywood stuff. Yet another superhero movie basically.

ibll• 2 years ago

I find it interesting how divisive this movie is. Many of my friends thought it was immensely boring. One even fell asleep halfway thorough. I found the first movie so incredibly captivating that it immediately became my favourite movie and I've gone on to read the first few books. I've seen it I think 10 times now.

I watched Part II on the 25th. Really really good. Having read the book now there's some things I missed or thought could be better but it still just blew me away.

g-b-r7• 2 years ago

Did you see Lynch's one before it?

WXLCKNO• 2 years ago

Saw it on the 25th, what I love is how I didn't doubt the world for a single second.

I never thought to myself they're in some desert on earth, but truly that this is some far away planet far in the future.

g-b-r7• 2 years ago

Weird, I was surprised by how much it looks like normal desert.

In a scene they supposedly point to the spice, but it's plain shimmering sand, there doesn't even seem to be any effect!

The theater where I watched it was not great, but I don't think it was that

Wistar• 2 years ago

Related: here is last night's Fresh Air interview with Dune director Denis Villeneuve. It is 37 mins long. I listened to it on my drive home. It is a good interview.

NPR Fresh Air: "Storyboarding 'Dune' since he was 13, Denis Villeneuve is 'still pinching' himself"

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1234472127/dune-denis-villene...

binarymax• 2 years ago

"If I could've made movies without any dialogue, it would have been paradise" ...this is why I love his movies, the visuals and sounds are so beautiful and powerful.

retskrad• 2 years ago

I’ve noticed that the larger the scale and budget a movies get, the more vacate the film is. A small scale film like The Social Network is much bigger to me than Dune 2 which I recently saw through a friend working in the film industry. Dune 2 is one of the largest scale films ever made but its thoughts and ideas are equally small in the other direction. It’s valid to be mesmerized by the technical feat and the sheer scale of it but it’s empty calories.

boppo15• 2 years ago

Yeah I feel this. I just watched Prisoners for the first time and didn't realize it was Villanueve. It felt like a much more impactful and 'whole' film than Dune Part One.

runsfromfire• 2 years ago

The existential horror cultivated in Prisoners so laser-focused and palpable, I still regularly think about Jackman’s character and get a chill down my spine. truly excellent handling of that character’s journey. i didn’t realize it was Villanueve either!

floren• 2 years ago

It seems that reviewers like this are still on the Paul-as-hero boat. It's easy to take the first film and even the book that way, despite the premonitions of future destruction and disaster that exist in both, and I assume part 2 is going to largely continue the same way. But I really hope Villeneuve has the guts to hold true to Herbert's overall message about "heroes", where after defeating the evil Harkonnens and the bad old Emperor, Paul basically turns to the Fremen and says, "Ok, warm up the planet sterilizer weapons, the jihad begins now."

Capturing the sense of inevitability that Paul feels as his prescience leads him, one obvious next step at a time, to the killing of billions and establishment of himself as galactic despot, that's a hard thing in film.

sonicanatidae2• 2 years ago

They likely won't get to that point. I expect them to end this Dune like the 80s Dune ended or very close.

The points you bring up are really 2nd book and beyond and I suspect trying to add that in would just confuse people who don't already know the Dune story. They would also be tough to communicate in a video format, as compared to a book, as the depth will be lost.

Regardless, I'm anxious to watch part 2 of the current Dune. The first part was great, imo. I only had minor nitpicks, but otherwise fantastic!

azemetre4• 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure Denis Villeneuve has said on the record that he plans on adapting Dune Messiah if the movies are successful, which is a great bookend to Paul Atreides story.

dogma1138• 2 years ago

I wonder how they’ll deal with the genocide of billions of people that followed in his trail. Since they’ve already changed the Jihad parts I’m guessing they’ll skip over that too.

narag• 2 years ago

But I really hope Villeneuve has the guts to hold true to Herbert's overall message about "heroes"

In the first part, Paul has a vision in the tent, after Harkonnens' attack. He is horrified by a yihad extending through the galaxy like an unstoppable wildfire: "it's your fault, Bene Geseriths made me a monster"... so maybe that's the intention after all.

justanotherjoe3• 2 years ago

Paul-as-hero thing is unique challenge because, yes, it's the warning of the book. But at the same time, you have to show just how persuasive such leaders could be, and how much 'narrative sense' it makes. The audience should feel like the Fremen and empathise with their fervor. If it's not super convincing, then it misses the whole point.

hit8run• 2 years ago

I have the feeling the first part was review manipulated and therefore has the image of being good while just being mediocre and forgettable.

g-b-r7• 2 years ago

Absolutely, and it seems to be happening again...

wiseowise8• 2 years ago

Or, you know, people have different opinion.

vvpan3• 2 years ago

I loved the book but the story imo has not aged well. Too much of white savior going on and too much colonialism. I would not describe myself as "woke", I can see why the teenage me loved it, yet my adult self cringes too hard. Particularly now as multiple post-colonial wars are happening.

Also, I do not think a mega-promoted mega-budget Hollywood blockbuster needs more marketing here. "Esquire says" - so what?

g-b-r7• 2 years ago

Hmm... I think their present-day (post 9/11) problem is rather that the heroes are Arab-inspired and talk of Jihad...

wiseowise8• 2 years ago

White savior?

Did you even watch the movie?

vvpan3• 2 years ago

Yes. Why?

ralphc• 2 years ago

How is Austin Butler's character? If he can pull off this _and_ Elvis he can be one of the great actors of our time.

g-b-r7• 2 years ago

He's alright, I liked Sting much more, and to me (never having read the books) he seems too young, but in the end I guess he does pull it off

2-718-281-828• 2 years ago

the first dune was stylish and had its moments but overall i found it while entertaining rather dull and pretentious. it also didn't make much sense if i thought too much about. can't wait to watch part 2 but will do so with guarded expectations.

g-b-r7• 2 years ago

I feel like I live in a different reality to the other viewers of the new Dunes

"Best Sci-Fi of the decade"??

They're both some of the dullest sci-fi movies I've ever seen, especially compared to the Lynch one.

Disgracefully I imagine that few people saw the extended two-parts version of the Lynch movie, and were burned by the insanely shortened ending and the other cuts of the theatrical one. I recommend checking the extended version out, it will probably change a lot your idea of the movie. I was probably influenced by seeing it before the (criminal) theatrical version.

Lynch's Dune was visionary, at times disturbing and with Kyle McLachlan. Can you really beat a Kyle McLachlan movie? No, I don't think so. xD

In Villeneuve's version I was e.g. shocked by how watered down the Baron Harkonnens is; the movies are just bland and Hollywood-y.

The music is as banal and badly employed as any average Hollywood blockbuster; the actor chosen for Paul Atreides is as much insipid as Kyle McLachlan was eclectic; Zendaya is incomparable to Sean Young; a couple parts are plain stupid (Gurney's entrance...)

Despite not having the length problems that Lynch had, they managed to compress the ending again; they gave too much time to unimportant parts while compressing the ending and other important passages (the final battle lasts what, five minutes? Does he actually cross the desert??).

Some actor choices seem good (Florence Pugh, Rebecca Ferguson...), but yes not some of the most important.

And I did like a lot Blade Runner 2049, I think I liked Denis Villeneuve, but these movies made me change idea.

To be clear, it's not the worst movie I ever saw; it's simply bland, and I think it's bewildering that this version gets praise while Lynch's one is considered junk.

I should say that I never managed to read the books, though, that might play a role in these opinions.

cykros5• 2 years ago

Never heard the Lynch one called junk. But I do think some people don't value proper theatrics, and are just special effects junkies.

I'm still annoyed at how much was cut out of part 1 despite it being as long as it was. I get going for ambience but the whole banquet scene was missing. None of Duncan suspecting Lady Jessica. Duke Leto is barely developed as a character at all.

decafninja• 2 years ago

Loved part1c which I saw just last week on Netflix in preparation for this.

Honestly, I hated the Lynch movie. It has its many positives, but for me, all of it was negated and the movie completely fell flat on its face as soon as Weirding Modules came out. Totally ruined the movie for me. I’ve watched it several times, and each time I see the weirding modules I cringe.

I still don’t understand what the problem with “Kung Fu in Space” was.

fjfaase• 2 years ago

I just came back from seeing 'Dune: Part two". I feel very disappointed. In a sense, Denis Villeneuve, is like Paul. It looks like that when Villeneuve smelled success, he could not withstand the pressure and instead staying true to the book made it into an action film, of which we already have so many, and which is full of plot-holes like we are used to these kind of films. I will not even start comparing the script to the book, like I did for the first book. I feel betrayed. He squandered the legacy of Frank Herbert.

hooverd• 2 years ago

Alia walking around would have been goofy.

david38• 2 years ago

Just saw the movie.

Dune is far and away my favorite story.

The movie was absolute shit. I felt like I was watching a sterilized series of previews stitched together and called a “movie”.

I have never been so let down by a movie in memory.

wiseowise8• 2 years ago

What did you expect and why is it “absolute shit”?

wiseowise8• 2 years ago

Dune part 1 was amazing. But Dune part 2 is on a whole another level.

Definitely the best Sci-Fi movie of the decade, unless they drop Dune part 3 that is somehow better than this masterpiece.

veunes• 2 years ago

Have not seen par two yet but the irst film is a visually stunning and thematically rich adaptation that does justice to its source material.

Dune: Part Two Is the Best Sci-Fi Film of the Decade

Related Stories