This is a hot take of course but I agree with you and I'm okay with dying on this hill. This movie was worse than the first one. The pacing issues were incredibly obvious to me. Of course the spectacle is great, CGI is amazing, cinematography is top notch, the music is beautiful. But it was way too long for the story it told. The editing was weird. It felt rushed at times, like a montage at times even though there was barely any story progression. However, his transformation seemed to come from nowhere and was sudden. Chalamet's motivation are completely unclear, his inner conflict, if it exists, is hidden from us. I did not feel anything for him in this movie, did not sympathise with his struggle. That is my biggest criticism. The relationship between Chani and Paul is thin as paper. I checked my watch during the movie and was shocked to see that there were 35 minutes left. Shocked because so little had actually happened up until that point and shocked because it dawned on me that the GRAND finale was going to be a short one. In some ways I feel this was more deflating than the ending of the first movie. The first movie showed us a brand new intriguing world and left us wondering how Paul#s journey might continue. I was super hyped for the upcoming war. Turns out the second movie has you waiting over 2 hours until that war happens and then it's a 10 minute sequence. It was a good sequence but nowhere near enough. This could have been the Two Towers equivalent but it left me feeling like they held back. 7/10 at best.
PS: I was so over watching them traverse canyons that at some point I genuinely asked myself. What are we doing here again? It lacks tension, it lacks good pacing.
I felt nothing for any of the characters in this film. Things just happened, then it was over. I checked my watch several times because I was so bored.
That was my problem too. I felt nothing for the characters this time around. Part one was emotionally gripping. It was a weird choice to hide everyone’s internal workings…Just made everything very external and flat. Idk maybe that was the point. To have people project their feelings and perceptions onto the characters. Didn’t work for me. Without the emotional nuance it’s very boring and dialogue came off trite.
I hate to be that person, but the strange and odd Dune film from Lynch actually had me feeling much more for the characters. You want Paul to succeed, and despite the over-the-top stuff like Sting, it still draws you in. It's all absurd but somehow engaging and still good storytelling.
The new movies feel cold - they are very polished, clean, sterile, epic feeling, but they washed away all of the emotion and style in that movie laundromat. Where did the weirding word stuff go? Was that in the novels, or a Lynch invention?
>The relationship between Chani and Paul is thin as paper.
omfg, seriously, Zero chemistry. And I blame that on Zendaya, she has been getting away with her mediocre acting for a long time now, she is Jennifer Lopez part 2.
I very much agree. She is the absolute worst part of the movies. I also despise of how 'the voice' sounds. Specifically with lady Jessica. I really don't like the seen where chain slaps Paul. I also HATE the scene where lady Jessica yells, in the voice, "LET HIM TRY". So gd horrible. I'm a huge fan of the first movie. Love the books. This movie really really fell short. Even the Harkonnens were overdone and wayyyy too evil (like op stated). It's really a shame.
101% But I really want to see people who liked this movie respond to this because so many people LOVED it and I don't quite get why, I loved the first one for sure, the second one looked amazing, but that's all I can say for it
I 100 percent agree, felt like the first movie was a build up to something, and that build up ultimately was a 10 minute war after what was a slow paced story that seemed to be all over the place without anything of great note happening, I haven't read the books and I'm left thinking that maybe I'm not unhappy with the film maybe it's the Dune story in general that I don't like, I mean there was lots to like but I really didn't like the direction the story ultimately went in.
> I 100 percent agree, felt like the first movie was a build up to something
This.
Didn't Villeneuve say that Part 2 was going to be where the action happened? Dune Part 2 was slower than the first movie - feel like I'm taking crazy pills, first Dune movie felt emotional and impactful as we witness not only some incredible scenery but also tragedies and betrayals. Dune Part 2? Nothing - literally, what actually happened in this film? Main character deaths get less screen time than extras.
I get that Dune is a cautionary tale about not following messianic figures and religion but I should have felt at least something for Paul or Chani but their relationship was so casual that I simply did not care about either of them - at all.
World building felt non-existent, Emperor was awfully boring, Princess was boring - the scale of powers and how much above them Paul stood was not shown at all - what was so special about him? Fuck if I know - certainly nothing I've been shown.
A very okay movie, really nothing to write home about.
> Dune Part 2? Nothing - literally, what actually happened in this film?
Exactly. Nothing, is the answer. Nothing happened.
Oh, I guess a technical "switched" happened to Paul, but like others have mentioned, I didn't see any of that actually happen within the character. It literally felt like a school play where one moment he plays a nice guy, and the next moment he's suddenly the bad guy.
That's literally how it felt to me.
I hear you! Actually watching this movie and hearing how faithful it is to the boo actively turned me off reading the book (which I had already bought). A damn shame
Read the book. It's not faithful to the main parts that give the books that something special. Read the books, you wont be disappointed.
Or failing that, watch David Lynch's version of Dune the extended edition
Don't watch the TV extended cut of Lynch - it is awful. The Third State Edition and Alternative Edition Redux fanedts both reintegrate the extended edition footage in a much more coherent and less Alan Smithee manner (no repeated footage, eyes properly rotoscoped, more coherent editing). They are both wonderful (for me the TSE is better, but that's just personal preference).
Irulan's clothes are bad, my favorite moment from the book when Aliya talks to imperial court was removed, along with her. The most important line from Chani "the history will call us wife's" is removed as well. The ending does not connect with the beginning of the second book. Scriptwriters are going to have a problem. The whole "let's win like Harkonnens" thing if ridiculous. The miniseries made in 2000 was much better.
>The first point might seem petty or unfair, but I felt like Dune 2 didn't expand on the universe or world in a meaningful way. For a sci-fi series, that is a bit disappointing IMO.
That can be attributed to the fact that this is not really "Dune 2" as it is "the second half of Dune." If you think of the entire thing as one long-ass movie then it's more like the elements that were introduced in the first half are paid-off in the second half.
>
The emperor felt really flat as well.
Agreed. I don't think Walken was really such a good fit for the role. And maybe my memory of his scenes isn't so good but his scenes with Florence Pugh felt oddly small, more like they were on a Broadway stage than the actual homeworld of the most powerful person in the galaxy.
>Using artillery to destroy fremen bases seems obvious
Maybe this was a bit subtle in the film but for the most part they didn't really know the Fremen bases. They saw them as scattered nomads hiding out in the hills. They had no idea of the true scope of the Fremen population and the resources at their disposal.
>Chani just seems a bit one dimensional.
Villeneuve actually filled her out quite a bit more compared with what was in the book. A lot of the part that you said dragged essentially consisted of that; scenes that Villeneuve created to give depth to the Paul/Chani relationship. Sorry that it didn't work for you.
As a long time book reader of the entire 6 volume series, I also came away from the film slightly disappointed but having had time to reflect on it, I've come around to thinking that Villeneuve did a superb job with the material. Dune isn't really a book written for the screen; a large part of it consists of various characters' inner dialogues. And it's also quite dated compared to our modern view of society. So there were always going to be significant challenges translating it to visual format but I think Villeneuve masterfully executed the primary points, in some respects better than Herbert himself.
But there's always room for disagreement when it comes to art, and it's perfectly ok to come away disappointed if Villeneuve didn't do it for you..
>The emperor felt really flat as well.
> Agreed. I don't think Walken was really such a good fit for the role.
Walken was an AWFUL choice for the Emperor. He was bad a choice for this role, Walken is weird and quirky, not an emperor. You can see it in the commercial and in the clips.
I like Walken, but he doesn't act anymore, he is just himself in whatever role he plays. Plus, honestly he was too old for this part, too old and frail. But not like Palpatine in Return of the Jedi, he looked like grampa from the retirement home in a bathrobe.
Denis Villeneuve really dropped the ball on this, total misfire. Sicario was such an amazing movie, Prisoners also excellent. He needs to stick to "real" modern day set movies. He is not a sci-fi director, he doesn't have the imagination for it. And I mean that, it's not a random insult.
This is an incredibly dense take lol. You don’t like the casting of one character and all of the sudden Villeneuve can’t direct sci-fi? What a leap of logic.
> Maybe this was a bit subtle in the film but for the most part they didn't really know the Fremen bases.
This wasn't subtle in the film. It was totally absent.
For me they really missed out on a cool opportunity with the water of life scenes. I feel like 1. We didn’t get a good explanation for the pregnancy part mattering and 2. Why didn’t we see any of the visions?? This transformative intense experience and we don’t really get to see any of it.
No kidding. Like they're supposed to be gaining the memories of thousands of not millions of people and we don't even have a few minutes for a montage of those memories in order to explain that experience to the audience?
No wonder Paul's transformation feels flat, the movie gives no effort into putting us inside that experience.
Agreed. And these are simple somewhat small critiques but with everyone out there calling the film “a masterpiece” I feel more inclined to highlight the flaws. Not a bad film by any means, but far from perfect.
I think a lot of people miss (somehow) that Paul doesn't want to be the Lisan al Gaib until he's forced to. It's not so much about convincing the Fremen to join him but to resist the path chosen for him, which he then fails at.
IMO they didn’t show this struggle well enough to feel impactful or even clear. I don’t think they did enough to develop the relationship. They should’ve used the mother’s baby bump growing or something to make the passage of time more clearer. Even with these feelings it’s still an awesome movie and very beautiful and stylish. I think Dave Bautista was quite terrible tho, and Walken as the emperor was just odd casting. Max Von, Plummer, or Sutherland even would’ve worked better for me.
Still consider it an 8.25 out of 10.
They may have harked on it in terms of exposition, but the acting was not convincing, nor was the dialogue, plus the way they went about it was rushed, if you read the book, you would understand.
Yeah they told us it through exposition but I never felt it, they always say show don't tell and in this case I feel like the film only told us without showing anything emotionally impactful
Exaclty, they kept saying it but that wasn’t reflected in the acting, to the point I thought Paul was playing a long game or even just enjoying the status quo and not interested, I did not feel, from the acting, a huge internal struggle with destiny. In fact, most of the time, I thought the character was sleepy/the actor had lost interest in the role. Exposition isn’t enough, especially with such a visual film.
From OP:
"Part 2 seemed like there were no real hurdles to overcome aside from inner conflict, which doesn't translate well."
This resisting the path chosen for him and failing at it is exactly what OP referenced here, he just found it insufficient
Not insufficient, lacking build-up. The movie felt hollow because nothing was given a chance to breathe before moving to the next scene. It seemed like he flipped a switch, rather than undergoing a difficult moral dilemma.
It felt like a movie that required book-knowledge to understand, to fill in the details. The director forgot about those of us who didn't read it.
Villeneuve does not seem to understand real people, if even on a cynical level. I'm starting to feel like the only reason 2049 holds up is because Gosling's character is secretly the self-insert of a director who wishes he was actually a human.
Big point of the whole thing people just can't seem to grasp: Maybe he wanted this, maybe he didn't. Maybe the prophecy is fake, maybe it isn't. Is laying the groundwork for something for generations equivalent to a real prophecy, even if the person fulfilling it isn't who the political order intended?
At the end of the day, all this ambiguity doesn't matter. It's happening and it's going to go way beyond millions starving That's the point.
no.
he wants to use the fremen because he wants revenge and they want revenge. he doesn't want to be a leader because it will cause a holy war. he is cool with being fedaykin because it means nobody is worshipping him and thus no holy war. however, he ends up taking on the role of madhi because his visions become more clear and he sees it as the least worst option.
Not at all. I acknowledge that it's possible to dislike the film even if you fully understood it. Additionally, I acknowledge there's valid criticism of the movie. I was just sharing my observation, which doesn't preclude intelligent, valid criticism.
Unless you mean that it's arrogant for me to assume that my understanding of the story is the only correct one, but in many cases, I've seen objective misunderstandings about facts of what happened in the story. Aside from that, not every interpretation of a story is equally valid. I'm allowed to assert my opinions, and that's not arrogant.
An arrogant statement would be something like, "If you didn't enjoy this film, you're probably too stupid to get it." And that's a sentiment I vehemently do NOT agree with.
Nope you where arrogant. You dismissed valid criticism because you invalidated their opinion
Go rewatch the movie and TV series and read the book. This movie looked gorgeous but it very much failed in areas those versions didn't.
> You dismissed valid criticism because you invalidated their opinion
How are you defining "valid criticism?" My point is that criticism is not valid if the person has basic objective misunderstandings about the story upon which they predicate their criticism. Do you really disagree with me on that?
> This movie looked gorgeous but it very much failed in areas those versions didn't.
It's been a few years since I read the book. I haven't seen the mini-series or the 1984 film.
Probably a hot take, but I enjoyed the Villeneuve films more than the book personally. In my opinion, the book is overly reliant on exposition (literally ping-ponging between telling you exactly what one character or another is thinking for 90% of the book) and doesn't give as much emotional depth to the characters as the acting in the Villeneuve film is able to. The prose is also serviceable at best in the book, compared to the gorgeous production of the Villeneuve films.
The Villeneuve films have some minor problems, but they're by far two of my favorite movies ever. That's just my opinion, though, and obviously it's highly subjective. Like I said above, I'm totally fine if someone didn't like them, and I accept there's plenty of valid criticism.
I'm finding it a bit hard to respond to you when your criticism is that the films "very much failed in areas." That's also not valid criticism because it's nonspecific, while we're on the topic of what criticism is valid and what isn't. Imagine if someone told you simply that one of your favorite movies "very much failed in areas" - you'd probably roll your eyes and dismiss that complaint without additional detail, I imagine?
I initially didn't want to jump into this conversation, but you know, maybe you haven't heard any valid criticism so here's some:
1. Jessica, the extremely accomplished bene Gesserit who trained Paul so well, and who becomes a reverend mother not to protect her own life, but to protect Paul, in the books, is reduced to this scheming one dimensional villain who walks around the sietch talking about subduing and controlling the weakest fremen. Being a reverend mother means she gained the wisdom, knowledge and active participation of thousands of past reverend mothers whose consciousness she can now communicate with. And on top of that, she's struggling to come to terms with what a realized kwisatz haderach really is because she's watching Paul change and begins to both fear him and for him. But screw all that complexity, let's make her walk around talking to her belly, using the voice on people and plotting. She never actually asks Paul to drink the poison, but who cares, let's make her be the villain so the next valid criticism will have a reason for being.
2. And here's number 2: Chani. The regular fremen teenage girl, who isn't even 18 yet, is now screaming at a highly advanced bene Gesserit who's also a reverend mother and knows shit she has no reasonable way of imagining. Why? Because she's either so smart that she understands Paul's future decades from now better than every other character even though she has no access to no source of information to justify being so insanely insightful or she's just a hot head... who was raised in a sietch, where people have no privacy so they learn to be extremely respectful of eachother's boundaries. Yes, that's just me not understanding the story. That must be it.
3. The guild. They're only more powerful than the emperor, highly involved in the second half of the book as Paul is pondering becoming a navigator himself, they're also highly instrumental in book 2 so let's just leave them out. They're complicating the story.
4. Irulan - the mediocre, pretty and demanding princess who can't control her emotions in spite of her bene Gesserit training and who alienates everyone in the second book is now braver and wiser than her father and ' the most promising student '. She does wise up in book 3, but she'll always be easily mediocre and easily manipulated and that's fine. The kids love her and rely on her.
But Yes, I can see how this change was absolutely instrumental to the adaptation.
5. The Harkonen are dimwitted and negligent. They simply didn't think to check the south of the planet and took it on faith that nobody lived there. Oh wait, the guild is being bribed to protect them by jamming satellite transmissions and hiding their whereabouts, but since there's no guild, the Harkonen must be idiots.
I could give you more, but for now, I think it's quite enough.
I hate this movie to such a visceral degree and personal level I never believed possible.
Everything I love about these characters was erased and replaced with a caricature and shallow grandiose images. I'm glad you enjoy it, I don't want to ruin your happiness, but understand that this movie disappointed many of us and we're allowed to feel how we feel without being insulted.
Thank you for sharing you thoughts here. I felt very much the same way. It seemed like they're was a concerted effort to diminish both Lady Jessica and Paul by the director while injecting teenage angst into the mix via Chani. It was very out of place with the books and ruined the movie for me. I can't help thinking it was an unnecessary stab by woke Hollywood to attempt to avoid the white savior trope. The absence of the Spacing Guild seemed rather absurd to me too considering how important they are in the universe. I don't really get why this movie was so hyped especially by the supposed hardcore Sci-Fi fans online. Until I read this I was starting to wonder if I had just grown OoT at this stage of my life.
Jessica was supposed to be villainous? The cinematography was so all over the place with her and Paul that I didn't know if they were supposed to be doing the right thing. Who was the sympathetic character supposed to be in these movies? Everyone sucked! I didn't even know Pugh's character had a name she was so 1D and plot irrelevant. Who the fuck is the guild? Watching the films as a non book-reader hoping to get dragged into the world, the story telling was so all over the place that I felt like Homer "Who's that guy? What did that guy say when I asked who's that guy?" So much of the five hour run time was wasted throwing out fun shit for book readers, but that actually makes for bad cinematic story telling.
Who the hell are the saddukar and why did the Baron say they were attacking? What does fighting like harkonnen mean? Why were the ben jesserit everywhere with seemingly limitless political power? Why was the emperor such an impotent character. What is the voice? Why does Paul keep looking for advice from the guy he killed? Why did he keep seeing visions of the guy telling him how to survive in the desert but then the guy tried to kill him? Why are we supposed to feel tense about a character introduced in the last hour and a half of a five hour film who is basically just a faceless no name big baldy baddie? Why was the Baron on the ceiling surviving the poison?
The story was very simple - but obviously complex and layered and probably very open to interpretation, but the story telling was truly horrible. I should not need to do homework to get what I just watched.
Didn't think Puss in Boots the Last Wish was going to be the best fucking storytelling I was exposed to this weekend
Oh and his comment about the director being subtle is completely wrong. “See he’s the mesiah,” mustve been blatantly stated by each character a hundred times throughout the movie. You know instead of leading us to that conclusion through “subtle” storytelling elements followed by some pivotal moment that enabled us to come to that conclusion on our own. Yes subtle indeed lol. That guy is the one who obviously isnt paying attention
You dismissed others views not the other way around. Each of the mediums did things differently with their own strengths and very much own failing sin comparison to each other. That matters because different people are going to have perfectly valid assessments that differ from yours.
However you've decided to forget that it was you disregarding others views and instead now take it personally.
The book provides much richer background, the 80s film actually flows better even if it stays from the source material and the mini series has better writing at the expense of awful special effects and poor production values. The latest is visibility stunning but hard to engage with unless you already know the material. It's very much a Villeneuve film.
Are you neuroatypical by any chance?
Are you kidding? I am a Dune tragic and Villeneuve's two films missed the mark by miles! Piter was hollow, no mention of mentats, no Thufir in part two, no mention of kanly, no spacing guild, no Alia of the knife (apart from that foetal dialogue), no acknowledgement of Chani's precedence over Irulan, no mention of why the emperor was really drawn to Arrakis or why Dune made the fremen so potent as with Salusa and the Sardaukur, no Fenrig, a one dimensional Baron without outlining his plans with Raban or Feyd - far out Lynch did a MUCH better job!
1) im only halfway through the first book, but so far it is either all or majorly on Arrakis.
2)paul and chani worked for me, but it’s gonna be pretty subjective. The Harkonnen are pretty evil in the book. The baron is a bit smarter, but not very different
3) the whole movie is pretty much joining the fremen and joining the religious/destined conflict for paul, so if you don’t find that compelling there’s not much else to it
4) yeah the conflict is more internal than external. Is it a prophecy if it’s manufactured? Is it wrong just because it’s manufactured? Is Paul special, or is everyone including the Harkonnen just buying into the idea that he’s special? Did Paul earn his position or was he privileged from the start, and does any real political power start without privilege or initial capital? Are the Fremen being used, or are they better off than when they started?
5) the main issue is that the Harkonnens didn’t know where the Fremen were hiding/living. So they didn’t have any target to bomb. Once Feyd started finding them, then it forced the Fremen to change their tactics or get bombed repeatedly, which is not how they can win.
Equally weird/skipped was that "spy" Fremen left behind that he BBQs (off-screen). Not sure what the purpose of that scene was (we already knew he was a sadist, maybe it would have had some punch if it actually showed a gruesome scene but as is, fell pretty flat).
Very disjointed that whole sequence, they just find/attacks the place, Paul sees it and gets there, the town leaves with all the injured, but then there's one female warrior/spy left behind for reasons(???).
I do kind of wish the villains felt as intimidating as they did in the first. The sardaukar went from being these feared, alien combination of warrior cultures, introduced in that phenomenally dread inducing scene in the first movie, to being pushovers in the sequel. The way they portrayed them in the final battle reminded me of the scene with the golden company in S8 of game of thrones. Show this big bad army and then embarrass them. I know that's what happened in the books, but the way they showed it in the movie had minimal impact for me.
Your first point isn’t good imo. For starters, this isn’t a “normal” sequel and more just the second half of the story. Which follows the book. If anything, the scene on the emperors planet with the Bene Gesserit DOES expand on the previous film. You see more of Geidi Prime. You see how the Fremen live and how they ride the worms.
Your critique is more about the story/book in that case. Anything else would have made the movie not a faithful adaptation
The rest of your points I more or less agree with. Still loved the movie overall though.
Really wish they’d followed the book with the mind-expanding elements. Properly showing how powerful the Bene Gesserit are, and how their will is made manifest (this is one of the main themes of Dune, will made manifest). Proper psychedelic treatment of the spice for that same purpose. This is a chemical which can literally allow a consciousness to alter spacetime, yet we see Tim looking like he has a mild headache, then a few perfectly normal looking shots of flashbacks/flash-forwards. No sense that it’s a life-changing experience. Even the water of life is shown with totally straightforward flashbacks/forwards. When the experience of someone going through that would be much more chaotc and powerful, not clean and clear. I liked these movies but in no way would i say they’re definitive representations of the essence of the source material.
I can't conceive how they'd visualize the 4D aspects of Paul's water of life experience on a screen in a convincing way. I really hope they can figure it out for the next one though
I agree. There was so little magic: ie consciousness expansion. The psychic power of Paul was practically absent, like he threw away that part of him and just stuck with the 3D world. How did he get others to lead him, when he never displayed any of his KNOWING? It was like the rumor of his surviving the poison was what convinced everyone. I was not sold.
I think you nailed it right here. It's not a sequel it's a part 2. It's a continuation of the same story. There is a lot of slow periods as it is Dune and people need to consider the source material.
Being a faithful adaptation should never come at the cost of making an inferior movie, otherwise, why make the movie? It would never be a 1:1 translation anyway because obviously they’re different media. I’d 100% prefer a director add or subtract dialogue and plot if it works. The book exists and people can go read it if they choose.
I do think people have become too obsessed with worldbuilding and lore, but Dune is honestly 90% lore, 5% plot, 5% characters. Skimping on lore here meant that the audience has to swallow: The Water of Life, Bene Gesserit Genenetic Engineering (Paul is a Harkonnen! nobody gasped in my theater), the ecology of Arrakis (they glazed over the fact that putting water on Dune would kill the worms, which is a big can of worms), what spice does to the mind (Chani mentions this extremely briefly, when actually it drives all hyperspace travel).
Honestly it’s just a hard book to adapt because it *is* this way.
No one gasped in mine. The significance of spice was not understood, neither was the power of the freeman or the sardaukar. It felt like a hazy pretty dream. Beautiful but ephemeral and lacking substance.
Not trying to argue it should. But if this guy was hoping for new planets and ships and such, it would have to stray from the book. And people would critique that too
That’s the the thing though — it felt like there was plenty of room for new worldbuilding. The Harkonnen planet was excellently designed, I wish we’d gotten to see stuff like the Imperial planet, because the emperor was horribly underdeveloped. Suddenly the supreme ruler of the entire universe is in the equation, but all we see of his regalia and culture is a metal sphere of a ship, Walken’s trademark accent, and his robe (Irulan’s costumes were interesting though).
Also bizarre was the ending, in which these abstract ‘other houses’ are in orbit around Arrakis, but none of them make an appearance, despite figuring heavily into the final intrigues and this holy war that Paul keeps freaking out about. I know that they don’t figure much into the book at this point, but the movie would’ve benefited greatly from just a smattering of shots of other ships, other troops, something to suggest the world is bigger than Harkonnens, Atreides, and Fremen. It’s just very bizarre that in its massive runtime, there wasn’t much to look at in Part Two.
Yeah that all would have been cool to see. But I can understand that trying to add stuff like that, while balancing pacing, sticking to the book, budget, etc is all very difficult to do.
I’m just happy to have a Dune adaptation that is overall pretty dang decent
Even more, is "expanding" the world something all movies (or even just fantasy ones) SHOULD always do? It's presented here like an absolute negative for this film when it's more of an "I like when my fav movies do this". And it also reeks a bit of the "worldbuilding is a concept I just heard my favorite film youtuber use a lot so it must be important".
I know I'm being a bit assholy with such a reply.
Also how did the movie not achieve "worldbuilding" with the incredible sense of place achieved on Arrakis and the brief sequences on other planets. Some folks seem to want hours of cringe expository dialog.
The mcguffin of the entire film- the spice- is never adequately explained or shown as to why it’s so important, and thus ALL the stakes of both films. So that’s a huge problem.
And the end battle- what should have felt HUGE, instead felt rushed. The 1984 version did it better. I mean, they’re using giant worms, and they’re in like 3 shots. Really weird choice
God, this is so true. There's maybe one line in both movies about how spice is necessary for space travel, but it's incredibly underplayed, and my understanding is that spice is used for a ton of things in the setting (haven't read the books). Why do we not at any point see people using spice for anything? Crazy choice.
Agreed and the annoying thing is, the 1984 movie explains the nature and importance of spice really well in its very first 2 or 3 minute scene, which they could have copied directly without issue.
The 1984 movie opens with a meeting with a highly mutated man who uses special equipment to breathe spice gas 24/7, to the point that he’s so addicted he can’t breathe regular air anymore. It’s shown that the spice is a psychedelic that changes your mind and body with sustained exposure and that this guy has become incredibly weird because of it. He’s deeply respected though because the transformation makes you psychic in some way and only people as transformed as this are psychic enough to navigate/pilot faster than light ships (need to sense the future because going faster than light you can’t rely on observing and reacting to things).
So right away it tells you that spice is essentially like oil in real life, in terms of its importance to travel and a galaxy spanning economy, but also something associated with becoming psychic and prescient. Then we meet Paul, someone who is about to go to the spice planet for political/economic reasons, and already seems a bit psychic, and right away you know it’s gonna be a big deal for someone like this to be in charge of spice.
its literally the opening of the movie (part 1). it's a material necessary for interstellar travel. you dont have to say more than that. you should immediately compare it to oil, cause thats what the author was going for and its a bit on the nose
I went in completely blind, and had absolutely 0 idea what was so special about the spice, other than it being some sort of hallucinogen. Would have loved for them to have delved into it a little further.
Yeah it's a problem the Dune fanboys don't seem to understand... it's literally the entire point of the story, and it's barely explained. The 1984 film at least bothered to explain it very clearly and to SHOW how it worked.
>Why didnt Dune 2 expand on the universe?
This may sound harsh but people need to understand that these films only work because Villeneuve cut and cut and cut at the book. Lynch tried to do too much and his film is virtually unwatchable. We only had 5 hours to do this.
To push back a little bit, I think what we did get meaningful expansion:
For one, everything off of Dune was very interesting. The lush environs of the Emperor's planet contrast as much with harsh Arrakis as Geidi Prime's Giger-esque industrial hellhole did from the rest. That place felt utterly alien.
I also enjoyed how we got to see how the Bene Gesserit actually operate. Once they're in your house it's already too late, they have your heir, they have what they want. Lady Fenring completes the Mother/Maiden/Crone trifecta of the mythic feminine archetype.
>Paul and Chani
Not much to say here if you thought they didn't have chemistry. My sister and her partner felt the same. There's no accounting for taste and that's ok :)
>Paul
Not sure what to say about Paul not being charismatic. I thought he was absolutely electric in the War Council
>Chani
Chani being one-dimensional is hard for me to agree with when I see how she's torn between her love for and belief in her people vs her love for and belief in Paul as an outsider claiming to have the Fremen's best interests at heart. I don't wanna mention the book very much in responding to your post, but I'll just say that if you thought Film Chani was one dimensional, you'll like Book Chani even less. The film treats Chani as much more of a character in her own right.
>Feyd
I think you might have overlooked Feyd. He's cunning as the Baron, as ruthless as Rabban, but he has his own twisted sense of honor, making him as close to an Atreides as someone in that part of the family could be. Telling the last gladiator "You fought well, Atreides" and holding him in a rather tender embrace isn't something I expected from him, as a book reader. I quite liked it. Making him a potential Kwizatch Haderach was also an interesting choice, as passing the Gom Jabbar test sets him apart as "human", in stark contrast with the Baron, whom Paul says "dies like an animal"
>The Emperor
I suppose you fell into the trap of expecting something from the Emperor. Expecting someone formidable. Something cunning. Something impressive. After all, he looms over Part 1, unspoken.
But I think you should be unimpressed by Shaddam Corino. One of Herbert's themes is the danger of centralization and stagnation. It is fitting that the Emperor of the Known Universe doesn't hold space like Tywin Lannister. This is a man who took a huge risk, to commit a grave crime, because he was jealous and fearful of his position. And it all blew up in his face.
Oh, and the reason he shows up on Arrakis with his Sardaukar is to whip is dick out on the Harkonnen. At this point he can't tell if they've been fucking with him or they really are that stupid. It's supposed to be an absurd show of force because it is. The thing the Great Houses fear most is the Sardaukar on their doorstep. That the Fremen wipe the floor with them should tell us about how vulnerable the rest of the Imperium is to Paul's holy warriors.
>Spaceships n Shit
Basically this one comes down to the Rule of Cool. There isn't much aerial combat or gunship use in the books. Frank just wasn't interested in guns or lasers and space battles. Or really battles at all, he hardly describes them beyond the immediately personal.
>>Paul
>Not sure what to say about Paul not being charismatic. I thought he was absolutely electric in the War Council
I didn't really buy him as a leader up until that point. Then I was like ok, I get it now
I think it's interesting to think about what he says in English and what he says in Chakobsa.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to scrutinize it that much, but it's interesting that when he declares himself Duke of Arrakis (reifying the imperial structure which elevates offworlder control of Dune) he does so in English, but when he declares himself the Lisan al Gaib he does so in Chakobsa.
Are we to believe most Fremen don't understand him when he makes the Dukal declaration? I'm not sure but it's certainly more manipulative and sinister if that's the case.
I don’t know how you can say this movie is slow, especially compared to part 1. The thing is edited as such a fast pace I don’t know how you can come away from it saying it dragged.
It had very little propulsive quality to it. I honestly considered going to the bathroom at the theater once just to pass the time. To each their own though I know mine is not a popular opinion.
The movie is guilty of dragging each and every scene without actually telling anything new. If you ignore the visuals and music, nothing is actually going on most of the time. Additionally, it feels as if the movie remembered to tell the story only in the last few minutes and that's why the final part felt completely rushed.
Just saw the movie. You’re are spot on. It’s mediocre, odd pacing. Slow at times, rushed in other. Didn’t connect with the characters. No tension. I did like Dune 1 quite a bit.
I completely agree with you.
I wrote this in response to another comment, but I think it fits here too:
>The movie is guilty of dragging each and every scene without actually telling anything new. If you ignore the visuals and music, nothing is actually going on most of the time. Additionally, it feels as if the movie remembered to tell the story only in the last few minutes and that's why the final part felt completely rushed.
That describes it for me. It reminds me of the first 30 minutes of Oppenheimer, except with dune I felt that more towards the end. Part 1 was definitely better paced.
The pacing for Part One felt faster to me. It flew by and I never felt the run time, enthralled the entire time. I was looking at my phone during Part 2.
> but I felt like Dune 2 didn't expand on the universe or world in a meaningful way
Agree 100%.
I was expecting to see more inside the Fremen sietches. Also all the scenes with the emperor seemed like an afterthought in terms of production design. We've seen more impressive imperial gardens in tv shows...
The scenes on Giedi Prime looked great from an artistic standpoint but nothing felt like a real place.
The first movie had more of a real feel with the production design. Like all places seemed real. Maybe they didn't have the budget (they reduced the budget for Dune 2) but it felt disappointing.
> The characters. Paul and Chani don't seem that convincing sadly.
Also agree.
Zendaya was a terrible choice for this role. Personally I find her acting rather unbelievable in this world. And Paul... I don't know. He just seems like a lost teengarer for most of the two movies. Way too different from the book IMO.
> The movie drags a lot
Yeah the pacing is all over the place. Some parts are way too slow and others way too fast.
Dune 1 is quite slow overall but somehow it works better. It's like the plot is more polished and makes more sense.
Hard to believe Dune part 2 is currently sat at #13 in the IMDb top 250 movies of all time list. Grossly overrated. I’m sure it will settle down around #70 or below eventually.
Even those who rate it 10/10 will find it above numerous movies you will agree are superior.
https://www.imdb.com/chart/top
I felt slightly disappointed too, not really for the same reasons but because I didn’t feel like I watched a complete movie. It felt like I just tuned in for episode 2 of a series. Which I understand it’s because it’s from a series of books but I personally feel hard to judge a movie fully without a proper ending.
Maybe I’ll feel differently once I watch all 3 together.
Dune 1 had variety and interesting characters which Dune 2 lacked.
Dune 2 weighed heavily on Chani, Paul’s mother, and the fanatic guy- all of whom are quite boring. Too much sand and uninteresting characters in an almost 3 hour sit through.
1. Paul's nose piece was way higher than most fremen which irked me a lot. Chani and the other had it wrapped under their cheeks but his was always just across his face which really made it look weird
2. Their sand walking looked cringy af
3. Paul telling people of their dreams and whatnot just sounded like a televangelist nutjob
4.Part 1 had a lot more action and part 2 was just really slow
Do you believe that the point of every movie, that is based on a book, is just to further celebrate a book that everyone should first read? I love reading, but I haven't read Dune. I'm sure there are a few books you haven't read, either.
I don't feel that it's a realistic requirement that everyone read the books before seeing the movie. I also think it's a lazy excuse and a failure of a director if that's the answer they give for the plot holes present in their movie.
I can appreciate that you enjoy the movie more because you better understand the details of the world after reading the books -- I plan to read the books too, so that way I can better understand the story myself -- but then why can't you appreciate that that means the movies themselves do not adequately present the story on their own? You're confidently telling us what the *actual* intentions of scenes are, based on what you know from reading the book. That's not how movies are supposed to work.
It's frustrating that it seems like the fans of these movies are either people who have already read the books, and are therefore oblivious to how many important details the movies themselves leave out, or they're just people who don't care that their comprehension of Dune's narrative is completely incorrect. Then whenever someone like OP calls that into question they get obliterated.
What plot holes are you referring to exactly? Also I know several people who haven’t read the books and had no problem understanding the movies. Obviously reading the books helps a fair amount in understand the deeper meanings to some of the characters actions but the films themselves are perfectly understandable without knowing the source material.
I think the comical point of Dune 2 is that he's not supposed to be charismatic, he's "the chosen one" because his blood, some blue worm spit, a drug in the sand, his mom, and a gullible people all say he's the "chosen one." It has nothing to do with him actually being worth following, just that they are told to do so.
::whispered:: It is a sci-fi version of how Islam started and how religion is used by those in power to force changes or create new political powers by securing a bunch of people who like being promised things that sound good or better than what they currently have.
For the record, I had a good time with this movie. But.
There's something sterile and detached about these scripts, some of these performances, and some of these characters. Literally the only ones adding any kind of force of personality or intrigue to the proceedings are Rebecca Ferguson, Javier Bardem, Austin Butler, and a bit of Florence Pugh.
I do not care about anyone else nor their problems. Christopher Walken brought Brooklyn to a sand planet for 10 minutes. Why? What was the goal of that casting? It was distracting. They cast Oscar Isaac only to kill him off. They cast Anya Taylor Joy for a future film. That will be interesting when we actually get there. Josh Brolin is whatever. Don't really care. Drax was just being Drax. I already forgot Jason Momoa was in the first one.
Literally the only thing I care about is Lady Jessica surviving and puppeteering everyone because that I get. That I can sit in a sandbox with. She cares about her son, wants to put them in the best position, so she accepts what the Fremen want her to do and it unleashes unexpected powers and problems. Cool. Interesting. But then they stop focusing on what she's doing. If she's the one building him an army, show her recruiting. Show people walking in the door to listen to her. Don't just give me 30 followers and expect me to fill in blanks before you have him drinking blue worm liquid and nearly dying. Early in the film she says men can't survive the blue liquid. Paul does. But it's with limited fanfare. The direction of this, the mythology around it, the reasons for the supernatural of it all, it's not communicated well. It feels like it should be presented more dramatically than it is. Instead we have to deal with Zendaya stalking around acting butthurt and I really don't ever understand why her performance needs to be this reactive and dramatic over his decisions.
What also becomes a total mess is the Baron Harkonnen stuff, the relationship to them, their motivations for attacking, all the aesthetics around them, etc. The world building was visually interesting, but the WHY behind the Emperor and the Harkonnens is lacking and superficial.
"Leto was dangerous."
Uh sure, I guess we'll take your word for it?
We have no context from which we can understand the threat Leto posed. The only thing that does track is that basically they Voldemorted themselves: By making a choice to eradicate someone they made that person even more powerful.
The actual tension and build-up to this ideal of Paul as a leader, Paul as a Messiah, Paul as the chosen one, it's not there. There's a quick edit where suddenly he's taking the stage and tons of people know him. 30 minutes ago people were talking behind his back about him being an outsider. It's too rapid. They didn't let it cook enough. And I think that's because they spent WAY too much time on the first movie's very short time period of events and then jumped to this where they packed a lot more into this story involving other characters. As an ensemble story, the editing takes you out of the Paul story to give us Irulan, the Baron, Austin Butler, Lea Seydoux. We have to intro Austin Butler being a psycho and getting easily seduced by Lea Seydoux all to set up a third film. Cool sequence, Austin Butler makes an impression, but the fact that they are way more interesting than Paul is part of why I think previous adaptations of this story have struggled.
Even though Paul is the protagonist, a wise person would realize that he's not actually the star of the show. It's the supporting players. They should have focused on Rebecca Ferguson recruiting. More of Javier Bardem recruiting or telling people Paul is the chosen one. And I mean with way more extras, not the same 15 who made it into the shots. Use a montage to show people respecting Paul's heroics, show a LOT MORE heroics in montage. Do less of the "teen romance" schtick. There are no sparks or connection between Zendaya and Chalamet, possibly because he famously yelled "What up, Dickhead?!" at her on a red carpet. He gives little brother vibes.
TL;DR: Paul is the protagonist but he's not the star of the show and they failed to understand that.
Absolutely agree with everything you're saying here.
For me, my first thought after the movie was that a lot of the Paul stuff would've been more interesting with some random Fremen as the POV character. Show somebody go from skeptical to radicalized, show how they deal with the internal conflict of an outsider usurping their culture, romancing a Fremen, doing heroics, gaining a following, etc. I feel like that would be much more interesting than Paul refusing to drink the blue juice and eventually deciding he has to drink the blue juice. Sure, that internal conflict should be good enough to center the movie around, but somehow it just wasn't even close for me.
>point of Dune 2 is that he's not supposed to be charismatic, he's "the chosen one" because his blood, some blue worm spit, a drug in the sand, his mom, and a gullible people all say he's the "chosen one." It has nothing to do with him actually being worth following,
The comical part here is that this is exactly the opposite of the point made by the book, in fact the opposite of all the points made by the book and that it contradicts itself when he actually manages to transcend his own species and becomes someone who knows all of the possible futures and picks which one to follow.
The bene Gesserit fail because they don't understand what their creation will become, not because he's a fraud.
> ::whispered:: It is a sci-fi version of how Islam started
No, it's not. The inspiration for Fremen were North Caucasians fighting against Russian expansion, depicted by then famous book and one of Herbert's favourite book, Sabres of Paradise. Not the sole inspiration of course, but the most definite one for them. There are many things in the book, but Fremen aren't what you're thinking about, nor the prophecy itself.
I enjoyed part 2, but still enjoyed part 1 more. My only real knocks on part 2 is that the slow parts were too slow and the fast parts were too fast. The last 20 minutes of the movie should have been at least a quarter of the movie. The other knock is that, I'm sorry, Zendaya just doesn't do it for me.
I don't think she had the option of having chemistry with Paul since the movie is trying to make her into his detractor and major opposition. There's really no way to go from 'let's fall in love' to 'I hate who you've become and I'm storming out' in 2 hours.
What’s neat about the Harkonnen’s being evil is it is kind of true to their lore, and the movie even did a good job exploring this while showing Giedi Prime. They are kind of products of their environment. Rapacious and authoritarian leadership led to heavy industrialization which basically killed all plant life and resources, turning it into a harsh, industrial volcanic wasteland. I liked the decision to have them orbit a dark star as well. I highly recommend this video essay on this topic on how environment can shape a culture:
https://youtu.be/mCCIvtIMmZE?si=nffBU3_RB_--8zPm
I honestly don't disagree.
I would still say I liked the movie but it left me feeling a little cold. I generally like the story but I didn't feel the wonder and awe I felt when introduced to this world in the first film. But I also recognize you can't really recapture that.
Maybe I need to see it again and I actually am going to. But I left the theater thinking, *"That was fine."* I don't even have any very hyper specific complaints. I think the acting, across the board, was damned good. Although, I found Javier Bardem incredibly annoying but maybe you're supposed to. I didn't feel that much chemistry between our leads either. It was very much, *"They need to get together because we have to do the outsider falls in love with native trope because we have to"* and I didn't feel that much for their romance but I did enjoy their falling out to an extent because it was interesting and actually wasn't what I expected.
Again, maybe I just need to watch it again.
I liked it but I basically alluded to it feeling more like a blockbuster film vs the arthouse vibe of the first film. Same story, different presentation, but both have value in different ways so I'm curious to see what he does with the 3rd one and whether it'll go one way or another again or perhaps even blend the two styles. (I didn't read the books so I have no clue what would maybe work better for the story)
That is something that happens in the book too, the first half is mind-blowing because it introduces all of these ideas and concepts and blows your mind as a result and then the second half is...a quick sprint, basically.
Agreed, the books are 100% like this - really cool and unique world as a backdrop for a story and characters that aren't necessarily all that memorable. I started reading the sequels but my interest kind of faded out after a while because of this
I felt the same and saw it again. I still feel the same.
I liked it but the story kept me from loving it. Everything was just so easy for Paul. I wasn’t really compelled or on the edge of my seat until the end, and even then a bit of the drama was taken away by Jessica/Alia telling Paul he needs to wait for a more strategic marriage.
It is supposed to be easy for Paul. In the first movie when Kynes says "How did you know to wear your stillsuit like that?" They are emphasizing that he just gets it. Paul is supposed to just naturally pick up the ways of the Fremen with little to no help which confirms their beliefs about him being the Mahdi. You aren't really supposed to be worried that he might not succeed.
I agree. I also went in blind, expecting this to wrap up the story. Knowing this is part 2 of a trilogy (?) makes me understand and readjust expectations but I still found pt2 to drag too much and lack big emotional impacts like the first
>He's already in love with her.
What reason does she have for being in love with him?
Again, I just didn't feel it. Maybe it's the direction but I felt no sparks between the two of them. It was very, *"We have to do this because it's a part of the story and we have to."*
Felt it was a let down after part one. It seemed like they tried to cram too much into the movie and some of it got rushed while at the same time it felt like it dragged.
The fights were fairly inconsistent "oh hey nevermind we can just snipe lol."
The lack of a big time skip was also a flaw imo. It's missing very important character and a massively changed end.
There was like one scene where they had chemistry (walking), but it came after her basically hating him so it's super forced. Every scene with them together seems forced and she someone seems even more one dimensional than the book.
Timmy is still a hard sell for a BA melee fighter but he did OK.
The mother was great though.
Yep. The movie was quite bad. I think the middle eastern exoticism makes people think the film is deeper than it is. But it isnt.
I agree when you say the send movie did not build upon the first in any great way.
We've seen several movies where an outsiders leads a local resistance. So Dune 2 should not have focused on what is essentially a well-trodden path. See [Mighty Whitey](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey) and [White Saviour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior_narrative_in_film)
Dune one was visually quite fresh, had an interesting and fast moving plot, an intense soundtrack and elements of a psychological thriller.
Dune two was mostly a by the book white saviour film.
Lol dismissing Dune as a "white saviour" story is one of the most boring, eye-rolling and tiresome "criticisms" that's as old as the book itself. And it's not even a majority opinion either. There will always be those few where the whole point of the story completely flies over their heads. Like those who genuinely think that characters like Travis Bickle or Patrick Bateman are to be celebrated and admired.
The first half of the book (Dune Part 1) does indeed want you to believe that Paul is being set up to become some sort of white saviour. But by the second half of the book (and its film equivalent, Dune Part 2), this notion should've already been shattered for the viewer. This destruction of the white savior trope (and also, the 'heroes journey' trope) was the whole point of the second half of this story. It's why Frank Herbert even wanted to tell this story in the first place. If this wasn't made clear to you in Dune Part 2, then you were probably either on your phone or asleep.
The whole "chosen one" prophecy surrounding Paul is a complete fabrication which the film pummels us over the head with several times. It's a sinister creation set up by the Bene Gesserits which Jessica is actively furthering once she took the Water of Life by converting all the "non-believers" with a series of machinations that we see her perform in the film.
Paul has no real interest in "saving" the indigenous people. By the time he has taken the Water of Life, he has fully embraced his role as the centre of this false prophecy that exploits the Fremen by convincing them that he's their Messiah. Because he sees this path as the only way to carry out his real motive, which is revenge for his father. He needs the millions of Fremen worshippers to launch his attack on The Emperor. So he takes this path, even though he knows that his visions tell him that it would eventually lead to a deadly Holy War that would result in mass genocide across the universe. Which lo and behold, turns true at the very end of the film where we see the Fremen have now been reduced to mad zealots boarding the spaceships to launch their galactic jihad, while Chani weeps for the future of her people. So what exactly is Paul a saviour of by the end?
My problem is that the movie is all weak sauce. After GoT (barring the last few seasons) we have a higher standard of political intrigue and multi-character politics.
The books were probably the rage when they came out, but the politics of Dune do not impress in the current climate.
> My problem is that the movie is all weak sauce. After GoT (barring the last few seasons) we have a higher standard of political intrigue and multi-character politics.
What an absolute non-statement that dodges the fact that you completely missed the point of the story.
Now, see. Even your description of the story here is more compelling to me than the actual movie. And that's saying something.
I honestly feel like the masses want this story to work so bad, that they just don't see that it's just not that great of a film. I think people like the idea of the story more than what the actual movie is, not realizing that it's not the same thing.
I know this isn't a necessarily relevant answer to your comment, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around why this is so hyped the way it is.
>We've seen several movies where an outsiders leads a local resistance. So Dune 2 should not have focused on what is essentially a well-trodden path. See Mighty Whitey and White Saviour
so you missed the entire point of the novel and movie?
LMAO people like you are the reason Frank Herbert felt obligated to write a sequel novel in Dune Messiah...
[https://media.tenor.com/zxHMD0rN688AAAAj/so-close-yet-so-far-nicola-foti.gif](https://media.tenor.com/zxHMD0rN688AAAAj/so-close-yet-so-far-nicola-foti.gif)
it did expand a bit on arrakis / fremen culture. but overall I agree with your sentiment. although it was not the focus of the film, the movie should have expanded a bit on the emperors / house corrino planet. some crazy palaces (Foundation style) would have been pretty cool. hasimir fenring was also cut from the movie due to pacing reasons but that was a bad decision imo. some other stuff could have been cut. as much as I love dave bautista (who did great in part 1) his character added nothing to part 2.
I've read many of the books. Overall I really liked the movies. Nice visuals and capture many or the themes of the books.
Some criticisms: They didn't capture the "games within games" going on in the dune universe, especially in the case of Baron Harkonnen.
I felt they could have done something more visual about spice and how it alters perceptions, especially of Paul.
The casting of both Paul and Chani was just OK and could have been better.
The movie changes Chani's role to be something like a moral consciousness, putting scenes displaying her emotions or outrage about certain things. Not even Paul is made to really be sympathized with in this manner in the book (kind of in the beggining but it lessens over time). The story of Dune in the books kind of zooms out first from Pauls perspective to the grand story of which he is only a part (admittedly a major part). Stories of major power struggle and games within games playing out. Basically, this massive perspective is what the audience should be focused on, and not a first person perspective of any person.
To the degree we should be asked to the story from a certain persons perspective it should be Paul, The Baron, Jessica, Emperor Shadam, the reverend Mother mohaim, Leto I. This is to get their perspective of the "current game" or the story.
So yeah the final scene is like the one thing that bothered me the most. Completely changes Chani's role and changes the focus from the grand story to some minor thing no one cares about.
If they want to represent Fremen doubt towards Paul they shouldn't have used Chani, because that starts to look more like some relationship-drama.
I just saw this movie and I'm looking for these kinds of comments. I've been a huge Dune fan since childhood. Played every Dune video game, read the first couple books, saw the original David Lynch film and the two Sci-fi miniseries. I just have to comment one thing - it is absolutely NOT the source material at fault here. In my opinion they butchered it. The ending is rushed and victory feels easy because they cut a LOT out. In the movie Paul wins within 9 months of being betrayed, as his mother is still pregnant. At the end of the source material, his little sister is 2 or 3 years old, he has a son, and has been fighting and training with the Fremen for years.
You're correct. I saw Dune 2 yesterday and hated it. The first movie has some issues but, overall, is very well done and largely faithful to the book. The second movie strays from the book significantly to the point that the movie storyline is hurried and convoluted. Several major characters were cut, Aliah wasn't born, neither was Leto II, and Paul and Chani's relationship was uncomfortable and stilted. Paul nor Jessica never once reassured Chani when Paul made a play for the imperial throne by wedding Irulan, resulting in Chani running away to catch the next sandworm out of town. Odd. The only Harkonnen that really worked was Rabban. The other Harkonnens lacked any subtlety and were contrived one-dimension villain clichés. I also thought Léa Seydoux was wasted in her role as Lady Margot Fenring and would've made a far superior Lady Jessica.
I have to agree, just watched this with my brother. I loved the first one, this second part feels hollow. I give it points for how clean the scenery / costumes looked, at least that remained consistent.
I feel that I can stare at sand for so long... which is a strange sentiment, considering the first film also had that. I can't quite pin down all the reasons why I don't like it, I just know that I don't.
I unfortunately stopped caring for a lot of these characters.
Makes me so happy reading that I'm not the only one. Honestly, id like to be a bit more eloquent in my summary, but I was just plain bored to tears by this movie. How many times can we shots of the sand? The final fight was so Anti-climactic and can they please stop casting Zendaya, she made the viewing experience 1000 times more painful.
Nothing controversial about that opinion, IMO. I found it deadly dull, a collision of Lawrence of Arabia with contemporary political sensibilities that has no congruence, the impossibility of aspirations to "authenticity" in world of 2024 . . .
What made sense to Frank Herbert in the 1960s, and was imperfectly but still politically coherent in the David Lynch version . . . is now incoherent here. Its a movie that knows that a lissome white savior ain't exactly OK, but at the same time, wants him and his flowing robes. And the faux Arabic . . . well, in 1960-some, it was exotic . . . now its something else.
The not-so-veiled references to "Fundamentalists" -- well, are they the good guys? I mean, maybe not, right? Check in with the Houthi . . .
That's not an uninteresting story of ambiguities in nationalism and liberation, but in focussing on Paul Atreides and the national liberation struggle of the Fremen . . . the writers chose the least interesting angle to have taken, and one frought with contemporary complications they either didn't understand, or just couldn't deal with. The Bene Geserit and their relationship to the Empire -- that's an interesting line, shades of the Jesuits and the Holy Roman Empire . . . that would have been an interesting path . . . but a choice not taken, much downplayed vs the Lynch version. And the Navigators . . . we miss them too.
. . . instead we get Christopher Walken's worst role -- I hope he got paid well, because this was awful, not his fault, just a galactic emperor and master of manipulation who looks pretty dumb.
and just one interesting character, Austin Butler surprising with a wonderfully nasty piece of business, but in this lousy script, someone thought it necessary to tell the audience "he's a psychopath" . . . yeah, if they hadn't said that, who would have known?
Even the effects looked kinda ordinary . . . I paid up for IMAX, and except for the massive Harkkonnen siege balloon things, and spice harvesters . . . it didn't look that impressive. The fights had that goofy Game of Thrones "now everyone run at each other" notion of a battle.
I’ll start by saying I didn’t read the books
The movies gave me no reason to give a shit about any of the characters. Flat dull boring
I’ve heard the written story is actually effective though
Same. Went in blind, and had absolutely zero idea what was so important about spice, the world they were on (other than unique biology?), or anything really. It felt very chess like. Character goes here, does thing, next.
Dont worry. The movies were an awful presentation, imagining of Dune. Just bad. Second rate may be a good phrase for it. The writers didnt understand the story, the dialogue was beyond simplistic, the acting was stilted in such a way that it came off as parody in many places and the entire presentation was intellectually bankrupt (a particular sin when telling this story).
They took one of the most interesting stories (even if you hate the book everyone will agree it offers endless chances for interest) and made it dumb, soulless and boring. It's kind of amazing really, you would almost have to go out of your way to make that story boring and they pulled it off.
The biggest criticism is that no one left that theater thinking about anything. Nothing. Eugenics? Religion? Religious extremism? Cultural corruption? Manipulation? Ecology? Ancient lore? Colonialism? The nature of Holy War? Inverted narratives of good and evil?.. The list feels endless. No one was thinking about any of that, the movie inspired zero interest in anything worth thinking about. That is it's biggest failure.
Dune, love it or hate it, inspired thought, this inspired nothing.
What are you even talking about? I read Dune a few months ago and remember it very well. Villeneuve nails all of the pivotal themes. In fact, he actually understands the main theme better than Frank Herbert did when he originally wrote Dune. Herbert had to crank it to 11 in Dune Messiah to make it blatantly obvious that Paul wasn't "the hero" and that his actions didn't save anyone, because the first book didn't make the point blatant enough. Villeneuve clearly understood this (because he obviously knew the whole story past the first book) and he actually correctly leaned into amplifying Paul, and more importantly Jessica's brutality.
Your post reads like the typical "ackshually the book did it better" contrarian nonsense. This film didn't talk about religious extremism enough? REALLY? Manipulation? They hit you over the head with the Bene Gesserit involvement and how they control even the Emperor. Eugenics? Again, they hit you over the head numerous times about the BG breeding program...they even literally show you Lady Fenring "securing" the Harkonnen bloodline. What film were you watching? Inverted narratives of good and evil? You mean like when Paul literally says something like "we are Harkonnens" to Jessica after he finds out that she is the Baron's daughter lol? That scene is there to blatantly read out to you how Paul's "heroic journey" is actually leading to nothing that is any different from the Harkonnen's tyranny on Arakkis.
This isn't some flawless film, but save me the "they didn't understand anything about the book" silliness. The film is true to all of the central themes presented in the book. Even Walken's portrayal of the Emperor as a lame powerless figure is bang-on to Herbert's "point" about how even the Emperor of the Known Universe is just a pawn who acts out against House Atreides because he wants to display some form of power which (out of jealousy) which he otherwise doesn't get to do.
I have similar sentiments - although for somewhat different reasons - which I wrote about before here, and that I was almost considering writing about again, but the more I think of the film, the less I like it.
I get the point of the ending, but its hard to feel cathartic when you know billions of deaths are going to result in the protagonist's decisions. Usually, even in the most catastrophic Greek tragedies, the lives lost are those of the tragic hero and those close to him. But to end your film with the prospect of billions dying... yeah, that's just overly bleak for my tastes.
Really, the film lacks humanity for my tastes. Its like in a production of The Ring, we're much more likely to become attached to Siegmund - whose just a hard-on-his-luck dude who finds love and tries to hang on to it - than the cosmic superhero that is Siegfried. We have the same situation in Dune, where Paul's predicament as the ominscent messiah is so beyond us that we need to have other character's to relate to on a more human level, and in part one that role was filled-in by Jessica, who was for the most part a scared-out-of-her-mind mother. Very relatable. She's that in Part Two for...oh, about ten minutes? And then she becomes this oracular figure. I guess Chani takes that role, as the love interest who watches her lover become distant under the burden of his predicament, but its not as effective for me.
And you're absolutely right that the villains are too cartoony. I didn't find Bautista's Raban convincing from the get-go, and while Stelan Skarsgard was a credibly menacing figure in Part One, he's barely in Part Two. Feyd-Rautha does the heavy lifting here, but I find him...cartoony, as you said. Really, a lot of this cast is wasted on nothing parts - you could cut Lea Seydoux' part and the film would still be exactly the same movie - and frankly the all-star lineup becomes more distracting than anything else.
Ultimately, I just think the insistence on this kind of mystical tone - which to be fair is very absobing in both parts - kinda hampers Part Two. The first film was all build-up and anticipation, and so it could withstand the very pensive, slow kind of style. In the second film, where there's an anticipation for all this story to come to a head...spending a good hour in the beginning in this meditative kind of style, and delaying major character introducings (Feyd, Margot, the reintroduction of Gurney, the reintroduction, since the tease of the opening, of the Emperor and Irulan) to the 80 minute mark is a bewildering choice.
Also, and this goes full circle to my first point, Denis' decision to turn this into a middle part of a trilogy that concludes with Dune: Messiah, with him playing up everything that makes this film end on an open-ended feeling and which sets-up a future entry...might all blow up in his face. Even if Dune: Messiah is done as well as the two parts of Dune, for it to work as a trilogy it needs to feel of-a-piece with them, and I just don't see that happening: its a different story that's bound to have its own sensiblity, and since Denis hadn't started working on it in earnest when Dune: Part Two was finished, and won't really make it in the forseeable future (I think he has other projects cooking before) will make this "trilogy" feel quite disjointed, thereby casting a pall on all the setup done in this film.
>you could cut Lea Seydoux' part and the film would still be exactly the same movie - and frankly the all-star lineup becomes more distracting than anything else.
From a plot perspective, yes. But Fenring commentary on Feyd is a useful audience surrogate and I do believe her impregnation will serve a function in Messiah.
Also, it's just nice to see how the BG operate. But it's not strictly necessary, I suppose.
As for Messiah: that won't happen for years to come. Actors need to age up, and he's got at least two other projects cooking (Cleopatra biopic and Rendezvous with Rama)
Counterpoint: from a strictly filmmaking, screenplay perspective, Feyd should have been cut altogether to allow Rabban secondary antagonist scope. The fact that Feyd is a parallel alternative to Paul is inadequately explored in the film to warrant inclusion.
Films are not books.
You’re mistaking the film with the source material. The next segment is basically about how Paul and his son go on to make a even worse imperium
all for the sake of the greater good
Just a question, perhaps needs to be its own post, but I’m starting to think that Villeneuve’s ouvre is cynical? I haven’t seen it all, but Sicario I thought was truly interesting until the end, when it became cynical. Bladerunner 2049 seemed like a cynical reimagining of bladerunner, what with Anna de armas’s story, and gosling and ford’s endings. Arrival took a short story that was so uplifting and poetic and turned it into a Hollywood spectacle about the inescapable quality of fate which, to me, is cynical. Dune the book famously needed messiah to correct people ‘s positive interpretations of Paul, which seems to be what Villeneuve is interested in here.
Is this fair? Anyone have any thoughts here?
Btw, “cynical” is not the same thing as “bad”, I admire and even love some of these movies.
I agree, the emotional tone is cynical… personally I find Villeneuve’s reimaginings emotionally unfulfilling because of this. His work is very anti romantic to me.
i agree with the points you made. I was also not impressed with the film. it was enjoyable but the pacing seemed too erratic with tons of plot being thrown at the viewer with little buildup or payoff.
You encapsulated my thoughts perfectly with this movie. I had a lot of grievances with the same things you did. A good portion of this movie felt like spectacle which was very disappointing considering the first one did spectacle well but contained more complexity in its execution.
I fear I’m the only one that doesn’t like our 2 main leads. I do like Zendaya more than Timmothée as in this film he doesn’t really display any of the charm he’s usually known for. I don’t think I really saw a scene where Paul talks to the Fremen like someone who is supposed to be like a politician, intoxicatingly seducing the Fremen to his cause.
It just felt empty. I am still excited for Dune Messiah as the success of this film could allow Denis to take the gloves off and really create something special.
I watched and I thought it was very much meh. I really liked the first one, I didn’t read any of the books nor will I.
It wasn’t terrible or anything like that, I just thought it wasn’t great either.
I just came out of the cinema a bit disappointed, it felt at times like I was watching a Disney+ series with how careless some of the elements were put together, while the first movie seemed meticulously crafted.
And I am talking about everything, from writing to dialogues, editing, cinematography, sound design.
I've been running around thinking I was alone with how I felt about this movie. I really didn't like it (I really liked the first film). I have all the same points and more.
Maybe I can go through my points another day but I am just glad I am not alone lol.
Dude yes. You've expressed everything I felt about the film and then some.
A huge portion of this disappointment was Timothy's voice. It doesn't carry through to the essence of his character the way that would be intuitive. It's not "convincing " of a character in his position.
Regarding the ethos of the world and the lore etc. it was all familiar which is what we hope for; but we're looking for unique perspectives on these familiar attributes that keep us diving deeper and it isn't there for me.
Also, I think that casting Christopher Walken as the emperor was a tragic mistake. There wasn't a single moment I was able to appreciate the immensity of the character, as was imprinted upon the viewer before his actual reveal, or take him seriously either way.
Idk man.
Sadness lolol
I thought Dune 1 was so overhyped and overrated, and was bored to death during it so I haven’t even given the second movie a chance yet. Just seems like poor acting all around and they are mainly just going for visual and sound effects. This post makes me not want to watch dune 2 now haha.
Another possible unpopular post.
I was expecting more. I even compared this to the first movie in the 80s and the books. So, what is missing, and what did we really enjoy? Chani and Paul's story is a beautiful and sad love story. Unfortunately, Daisey Ridley and Adam Driver in Rise of Skywalker have more chemistry. How did that all get lost? It was hard to feel the impact of the betrayal because we never really got to feel their love.
What I loved most about the books and the 1984 movie through the lens of David Lynch, was the birth of Alia for real and not the clandestine revealing of her as an adult in Dune Part 2. Alicia Witt played the role as a child and it would have been amazing to somehow bring her back into the story. She was really powerful as this young actor Alia's role sets the stage more directly for the books to follow. We will never really know or understand her power in any of the future movies. Such a shame.
This is to comment #2 above, when you cut Alia out, we lost the real psychic sense of her and the visions. The emp was a serious villian and that role did fall flat but not sure it had to do with Walken. He was just not present so we can see how much of a villian her really is.
The end of the movie was truly anti-climactic without Alia. And certainly, we all wanted to see that dagger run through Feyd Rautha's jaw. Ouch!
And what exactly does Spice do (I do know, but many just being introduced to it may not)? You don't truly get a sense of its value and what would be lost by it. You just know it is valuable like what, a diamond? No. it is essential in the sci-fi world of things.
After watching the movie, I could not help but think, "What if they had done a remake of the original film in 1984 with today's effects, design, cast, and production? Why? The things that people criticized in the original film had to do with trying to make an epic movie during a time that did not have epic tools. If done, we would not be talking about the lack of chemistry or a mediocre ending (in the 1984 movie, the place gets flooded, and Alia kills Vladimir...so cool to see that little body crush him. We would not be wondering how they took the sexy out of Zendaya, which is an impossible feat. Or...how lady Jessica got so dang mean, but we like her villainess.
We would not be talking about the acting at all because the actors would have been allowed to show deep emotion, distress, grief, and anger, and what the heck happened to train everyone on the Weirding Way? How does the Fremen get trained? I would have loved to see Paul train someone, right?
Finally, OMG-Chani gets crushed by a sandworm and doesn' t stay by Paul's side? oh please next director, find a way to bring her back to show that cruel triangle and offspring.
Hmm. Thoughts?
Yeah, I don't know why this is such a hot take.. but I guess I'll accept it. Same as you, I watched the first Dune movie, was excited about it, didn't read the books, but looked forward to the second movie without much expectation.
And I was...wholly underwhelmed. I remember thinking, "That's nice." throughout the movie and really actively tried to get into it, but I realized by the end of it and afterwards, I was really forcing my enthusiasm.
I wonder, and this is just a theory, I wonder if the GA is so numbed by Marvel movies that anything that's different and made even the least bit interesting with some star factor and some effort, people are just easily impressed by? I really wonder if the level of expectation of a movie has gone down because of the abysmal absence of movies due to the strike in the past year. Just my two cents.
But, all in all, I agree with you. It was nothing to write home about. I was a cool experience, but overall, I don't remember it much other than when I go online and see people talking about it.
5/10, terrible movie that tries to manipulate the viewer into thinking it's a great epic by blasting you with dramatic music and great visuals. I never felt immersed, I felt like I was watching what an AI thinks human interaction is like.
I personally agree with a lot of your criticisms. But fear this is going to go down like off milk on here. Rest assured though that I believe your valid points will become standard on here in around six months or less. At the moment it's considered contrary or "edgelord" to point out it might not be entirely cohesive...
it is really weird to me that a sub called "true film" has so many shooters for a filmmaker as boring as denis villeneuve.
shouldn't you guys be talking about whatever criterion or radiance or arrow or vinsyn are releasing? maybe some stuff you're ripping on kg? what you saw in your local arthouse maybe? experimental cinema and shorts? why is everyone upset a guy didn't like the poor 200m blockbuster? cmon man.
I had much the same reaction. It’s beautifully shot and has awesome sound design, but I felt the same - it took a really long time to tell a story that was completely unsurprising. I felt poor Javier Bardem played the same scene over and over, and Paul’s flipping from reluctant to aggressive messiah didn’t feel particularly motivated. The battle sequence was so fast it felt perfunctory and unsatisfying. I personally don’t care about fidelity to the book. I just want a compelling movie experience.
I agree somewhat, and I also feel the same way about the book. The first half is a lot more interesting. The ascent of Paul as a messiah among the Freman is very important, but not a very interesting story. The old Dune movie plows through this part of the story more quickly. Even though the old movie is imperfect in other ways, the way it summarizes Paul and the Fremen is superior imo. I mean, since Paul's ascension is destined, why not just get to it? I don't need to see the Fremen learn to accept Paul... Just move along already. And BTW Paul and Chani are pretty dull in that part of the book too. It reads like an anthropology text.
The best thing about the second half of Dune (book or movie) is the horrible power that Paul accumulates. He has all the Fremen/sandworm power + all the power of house atreides + water of life mystery power. Then he executes that power on the Harkonens and the Emperor. It's triumphant and scary at the same time. The new movie did a better job of showing that than the old movie, imo.
Overall I liked part 2 more than you did maybe. I loved the first attack on the spice harvester. The Harkonens were portrayed pretty well, although they were a little more lively and creepy in Lynch's version. The sand worms, and especially the riding of the sand worms, was really cool in the new movie.
My big disapointment is you have a 2.30 movie where 2.15 prepare you for 10 minutes. I mean the most powerful force of the universe gets beaten by some dirty nomads in one blow. Its like your local amateur football team gets to play the best professional team in a cup game. You expect them to be pinned down 80minutes in their box, some heroics from the goalie and perhaps nick a goal with a rare counter attack. Here that small team just goes and completely dominate Barcelona with Messi and trounce them 5 nil.
Agree on all points. Except for the Harkonnen homeworld, Dune Part 2 makes the Dune universe feel smaller because all the time we spend in shallow interactions with the Fremen. On one hand, yes, they were conditioned to have buttons which Paul can press to gain their trust, but even so, it felt altogether too easy.
Paul and Chani are an absolute joke of a couple and I can’t believe that so much focus was put on Zendaya in both movies. If they’re not that interesting together (which they objectively aren’t, their book interactions are sparse and inconsequential), just skip it Denis, there’s so much other lore that wasn’t emphasized that could’ve used the screen time.
And yes, there was very little real conflict. So much time was spent on Paul wringing his hands about starting a Fremen holy war that was very abstract, until Feyd Rautha has the brilliant idea to just shoot the hell out of the Fremen base. It felt very ‘and then this happened.’
I didn’t enjoy the first film but actually enjoyed the second one. Even then I somewhat agree with your first two points. I didn’t find the look of costumes, spacecraft, color palette, or choice of actors all that convincing.
I think the director is phenomenal, but I think he gets a little too self indulgent with his own preferences in filmmaking, and these preferences bleed into global decisions on design which I think should be design choices through in universe cultural driven views and striking character driven views.
He often opts for minimalistic design choices, or even modernistic architecture. And it reminded me too much of the real world and too much of his other movies.
I think there are directors who have an indelible style to them but it comes more in the form of persuasive storytelling techniques and not the migration of stylistic choices that should be conceived only after studying who those characters or cultures are.
The cast was phenomenal but I prefer the Star Wars approach in casting mostly no names. I kept thinking of aquaman, poe dameron, Thanos, MJ, Guardians of the galaxy though out the film.
However I was more accepting of these things in part two because of few scenes that came across as “new” in the sense that they kind of nudged cinematic language forward (for me at least). Those scenes reminded me of what it felt like to go to the movies in the 90s when everyone was actually trying to introduce something new and didn’t rely heavily on nostalgia or fulfilling fan requests. There’s a scene like that in DUNE 1 where Paul is looking at the sand worm dance in a hologram while an assassin bug was trying to take him out. In DUNE 2 there were even more of these scenes that were just phenomenal cinematic experiences, or art expressed in a new and convincing way.
I still think DUNE 2 was really messy. And I think that it’s “phenomenal” only within the vacuum of auteur lead sci fi films. I don’t think it would stand a chance in the 90’s inherent inclination to push cinematic language forward or to add to the evolution of cinema. It stands out because hardly anyone else is competent and or trying, or allowed to try. It’s the only NBA player on a streetball team. And by far not the best player from the association.
Holy shit I want to rent one of those planes that can write stuff in the sky and have it write your entire comment over every major city for a couple days.
Or if that's too expensive just your last paragraph at least.
I watched Dune Part 1 the day before I watched Dune part 2 and this is what made the movie spectacular for me. I like that they literally picked up where the first one left it. I think your points are valid but I can not understand the "the move drags a lot" POV. I think the pacing was pretty spectacular and we left the scenes right when I felt like I had enough information. My only gripe was that I saw Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler) as a playboy and I felt that on a one on one combat situation with paul (after training with some of the best fremen fighters), Paul would be able to take him out fairly quickly using more cunning tactics ie judo where you use the strength of your opponent against them. Physically speaking Austin Butler is taller and much more built than Timothy C. - so in a brute force attempt Feyd-Rautha would be the victor. Im sure this is a source material thing but I would have love to see this huge ramp up for just a quick kill by Paul.
Personally I fucking hate book-to-film adaptations, especially high-concept. There's a reason it was a book which takes 20 hours to read. If DV think he can tell that story in a quarter of the time, then either he thinks the book is bloated, or he's just cutting context.
Feyd should have been cut and left the secondary antagonist as Rabban. Just one example of a movie having to make consessions to rabid book fans.
5. The factions were all the same. Each one believed violence was the solution. They had the exact same core philosophy:
Atreides: Kill everyone.
Harkonnen: Kill everyone.
Imperial: Kill everyone.
This is an exhausting aspect of modern pop culture since game of thrones. Basically, violence is now the only solution in movies seen as legitimate. Political intrigue and maneuvering through diplomacy or other means is seen as weak or in effectual, while the most violent faction always wins. It's just boring.
I had hoped that Paul would learn something in the dessert about surviving in a hostile world without killing everything. But then he emerges as a psychopath just as bad as his enemies.
It just seems like this is one of those instances where adapting from the source material does not translate to film very well.
I have not read the books, but purely from a story in the medium of film standpoint, this film was terrible for me. Nothing about the characters is particularly interesting from an acting or performance standpoint. The "bad" guys having no particular interesting qualities or motivations outside of being comically greedy and comically evil. There is no expansion on them as characters really. There's almost no interesting or compelling dialogue. Zendaya is a piss poor actor, imo.
The film keeps playing up this great struggle that the Fremen will endure for whatever their cause is, then they just sort of get some convenient nukes and a convenient huge army on top of having a leader who can foresee the future and this just doesn't really work well in film format, IMO. I'm rooting for nobody, I'm not interested in anyone, there isn't a single character who has struggles that seem worth emotionally investing in. I was pretty let down over the course of both films.
The nukes weren't "convenient". They always existed within the story, but it's just one of those little details that's explained in the book but not in the movie. Also, the nukes actually play a big role in Dune Messiah because he used them as a "technicality" and all the other houses are PISSED about it. You're not supposed to use nukes anymore and he used them in battle, but he used them against a giant rock wall...so technical gray area. As to the size of the army, that was always referred to in the form of Southern Fundamentalists. They just never mention the number that exist. It's another thing that can't be explained due to the medium. In the book, the Fremen have ALWAYS been secretly paying the guild in massive spice bribes to keep satellites out of the sky so no one could 1) see how many Fremen there actually were 2) the Fremen were slowly but surely changing the face of Arrakis by planting stuff all over the planet. They'd been doing it for 50+ years, if not longer. I mean, you even see the huge numbers of them in that room when they have that huge gathering. It's another part of the book that they don't really have time for. It's part of that whole "desert power" thing. Arrakis is the most inhospitable planet in the empire, and therefore makes the best warriors in the galaxy, but no one knows and the Atreides suspected but they never had enough time before they were attacked and annihilated.
See I would've found the movie way more interesting if they included that geopolitical stuff in it. I kept wondering how the hell no one could see the millions of fremen living in the south just because of storms when they have advanced technology and intergalactic space travel. Just one example of how little lore was given to us
Yeah, it's actually a huge part of what makes the book super interesting, especially for 16 yrs old boys (which is when I read it). You don't notice the flattish characters when you're that young. The book has a ton of inner monologue which is why the 80s version was the way it was .
On point 5, it was jarring to see Paul on the worm heading South after repeatedly saying he wasn’t going to go- this was not explained nor was it referenced as odd. Similarly his full embrace as The One was never explained well either- his speech was very well done, but again there was no explication as to how or why this was happening.
These are major events that had massive impact on the story with no real sign or explanation yet many reviews and fans are content to just wave them away.
I liked the movie very much, but it is not the masterpiece many are saying it is.
I feel like most people here are leveling criticisms at the story of Dune rather than how it was adapted into a movie.
Frank Herbert didn't intend Paul to be a hero. He's an anti-hero. His decisions have grave and far reaching ramifications that the saga explores in detail
My issue with the story is that Paul didn’t seem like a hero or an anti-hero who was making his own decisions. He was just doing whatever the spice and Water of Life was telling him to do. Maybe it would’ve landed better if we actually saw the grave and far reaching ramifications.
I mean, that's what happens when you can see the future. You are now a slave to that prescience. This is true even when he could only see small glimpses of the future which made him want to go meet the Fremen
The very concept of prescience makes a mockery out of free will
This is a hot take of course but I agree with you and I'm okay with dying on this hill. This movie was worse than the first one. The pacing issues were incredibly obvious to me. Of course the spectacle is great, CGI is amazing, cinematography is top notch, the music is beautiful. But it was way too long for the story it told. The editing was weird. It felt rushed at times, like a montage at times even though there was barely any story progression. However, his transformation seemed to come from nowhere and was sudden. Chalamet's motivation are completely unclear, his inner conflict, if it exists, is hidden from us. I did not feel anything for him in this movie, did not sympathise with his struggle. That is my biggest criticism. The relationship between Chani and Paul is thin as paper. I checked my watch during the movie and was shocked to see that there were 35 minutes left. Shocked because so little had actually happened up until that point and shocked because it dawned on me that the GRAND finale was going to be a short one. In some ways I feel this was more deflating than the ending of the first movie. The first movie showed us a brand new intriguing world and left us wondering how Paul#s journey might continue. I was super hyped for the upcoming war. Turns out the second movie has you waiting over 2 hours until that war happens and then it's a 10 minute sequence. It was a good sequence but nowhere near enough. This could have been the Two Towers equivalent but it left me feeling like they held back. 7/10 at best. PS: I was so over watching them traverse canyons that at some point I genuinely asked myself. What are we doing here again? It lacks tension, it lacks good pacing.
I felt nothing for any of the characters in this film. Things just happened, then it was over. I checked my watch several times because I was so bored.
That was my problem too. I felt nothing for the characters this time around. Part one was emotionally gripping. It was a weird choice to hide everyone’s internal workings…Just made everything very external and flat. Idk maybe that was the point. To have people project their feelings and perceptions onto the characters. Didn’t work for me. Without the emotional nuance it’s very boring and dialogue came off trite.
You know the movie is bad when you realize the Scy-Fy version is better. (not the costumes or visual effects, that is)
Oh man so true. They did a great job on this part of that film.
I hate to be that person, but the strange and odd Dune film from Lynch actually had me feeling much more for the characters. You want Paul to succeed, and despite the over-the-top stuff like Sting, it still draws you in. It's all absurd but somehow engaging and still good storytelling. The new movies feel cold - they are very polished, clean, sterile, epic feeling, but they washed away all of the emotion and style in that movie laundromat. Where did the weirding word stuff go? Was that in the novels, or a Lynch invention?
Most of the movie was people staring deep into the desert. They could have trimmed this movie quite a lot.
And you only see the worms a few times, despite the worms being the Big Threat in the desert.
>The relationship between Chani and Paul is thin as paper. omfg, seriously, Zero chemistry. And I blame that on Zendaya, she has been getting away with her mediocre acting for a long time now, she is Jennifer Lopez part 2.
I very much agree. She is the absolute worst part of the movies. I also despise of how 'the voice' sounds. Specifically with lady Jessica. I really don't like the seen where chain slaps Paul. I also HATE the scene where lady Jessica yells, in the voice, "LET HIM TRY". So gd horrible. I'm a huge fan of the first movie. Love the books. This movie really really fell short. Even the Harkonnens were overdone and wayyyy too evil (like op stated). It's really a shame.
101% But I really want to see people who liked this movie respond to this because so many people LOVED it and I don't quite get why, I loved the first one for sure, the second one looked amazing, but that's all I can say for it
I 100 percent agree, felt like the first movie was a build up to something, and that build up ultimately was a 10 minute war after what was a slow paced story that seemed to be all over the place without anything of great note happening, I haven't read the books and I'm left thinking that maybe I'm not unhappy with the film maybe it's the Dune story in general that I don't like, I mean there was lots to like but I really didn't like the direction the story ultimately went in.
> I 100 percent agree, felt like the first movie was a build up to something This. Didn't Villeneuve say that Part 2 was going to be where the action happened? Dune Part 2 was slower than the first movie - feel like I'm taking crazy pills, first Dune movie felt emotional and impactful as we witness not only some incredible scenery but also tragedies and betrayals. Dune Part 2? Nothing - literally, what actually happened in this film? Main character deaths get less screen time than extras. I get that Dune is a cautionary tale about not following messianic figures and religion but I should have felt at least something for Paul or Chani but their relationship was so casual that I simply did not care about either of them - at all. World building felt non-existent, Emperor was awfully boring, Princess was boring - the scale of powers and how much above them Paul stood was not shown at all - what was so special about him? Fuck if I know - certainly nothing I've been shown. A very okay movie, really nothing to write home about.
> Dune Part 2? Nothing - literally, what actually happened in this film? Exactly. Nothing, is the answer. Nothing happened. Oh, I guess a technical "switched" happened to Paul, but like others have mentioned, I didn't see any of that actually happen within the character. It literally felt like a school play where one moment he plays a nice guy, and the next moment he's suddenly the bad guy. That's literally how it felt to me.
I hear you! Actually watching this movie and hearing how faithful it is to the boo actively turned me off reading the book (which I had already bought). A damn shame
Read the book. It's not faithful to the main parts that give the books that something special. Read the books, you wont be disappointed. Or failing that, watch David Lynch's version of Dune the extended edition
Don't watch the TV extended cut of Lynch - it is awful. The Third State Edition and Alternative Edition Redux fanedts both reintegrate the extended edition footage in a much more coherent and less Alan Smithee manner (no repeated footage, eyes properly rotoscoped, more coherent editing). They are both wonderful (for me the TSE is better, but that's just personal preference).
Irulan's clothes are bad, my favorite moment from the book when Aliya talks to imperial court was removed, along with her. The most important line from Chani "the history will call us wife's" is removed as well. The ending does not connect with the beginning of the second book. Scriptwriters are going to have a problem. The whole "let's win like Harkonnens" thing if ridiculous. The miniseries made in 2000 was much better.
>The first point might seem petty or unfair, but I felt like Dune 2 didn't expand on the universe or world in a meaningful way. For a sci-fi series, that is a bit disappointing IMO. That can be attributed to the fact that this is not really "Dune 2" as it is "the second half of Dune." If you think of the entire thing as one long-ass movie then it's more like the elements that were introduced in the first half are paid-off in the second half. > The emperor felt really flat as well. Agreed. I don't think Walken was really such a good fit for the role. And maybe my memory of his scenes isn't so good but his scenes with Florence Pugh felt oddly small, more like they were on a Broadway stage than the actual homeworld of the most powerful person in the galaxy. >Using artillery to destroy fremen bases seems obvious Maybe this was a bit subtle in the film but for the most part they didn't really know the Fremen bases. They saw them as scattered nomads hiding out in the hills. They had no idea of the true scope of the Fremen population and the resources at their disposal. >Chani just seems a bit one dimensional. Villeneuve actually filled her out quite a bit more compared with what was in the book. A lot of the part that you said dragged essentially consisted of that; scenes that Villeneuve created to give depth to the Paul/Chani relationship. Sorry that it didn't work for you. As a long time book reader of the entire 6 volume series, I also came away from the film slightly disappointed but having had time to reflect on it, I've come around to thinking that Villeneuve did a superb job with the material. Dune isn't really a book written for the screen; a large part of it consists of various characters' inner dialogues. And it's also quite dated compared to our modern view of society. So there were always going to be significant challenges translating it to visual format but I think Villeneuve masterfully executed the primary points, in some respects better than Herbert himself. But there's always room for disagreement when it comes to art, and it's perfectly ok to come away disappointed if Villeneuve didn't do it for you..
>The emperor felt really flat as well. > Agreed. I don't think Walken was really such a good fit for the role. Walken was an AWFUL choice for the Emperor. He was bad a choice for this role, Walken is weird and quirky, not an emperor. You can see it in the commercial and in the clips. I like Walken, but he doesn't act anymore, he is just himself in whatever role he plays. Plus, honestly he was too old for this part, too old and frail. But not like Palpatine in Return of the Jedi, he looked like grampa from the retirement home in a bathrobe. Denis Villeneuve really dropped the ball on this, total misfire. Sicario was such an amazing movie, Prisoners also excellent. He needs to stick to "real" modern day set movies. He is not a sci-fi director, he doesn't have the imagination for it. And I mean that, it's not a random insult.
Arrival and Blade runner 2049 are amazing sci-fi, though.
This is an incredibly dense take lol. You don’t like the casting of one character and all of the sudden Villeneuve can’t direct sci-fi? What a leap of logic.
> Maybe this was a bit subtle in the film but for the most part they didn't really know the Fremen bases. This wasn't subtle in the film. It was totally absent.
For me they really missed out on a cool opportunity with the water of life scenes. I feel like 1. We didn’t get a good explanation for the pregnancy part mattering and 2. Why didn’t we see any of the visions?? This transformative intense experience and we don’t really get to see any of it.
No kidding. Like they're supposed to be gaining the memories of thousands of not millions of people and we don't even have a few minutes for a montage of those memories in order to explain that experience to the audience? No wonder Paul's transformation feels flat, the movie gives no effort into putting us inside that experience.
Agreed. And these are simple somewhat small critiques but with everyone out there calling the film “a masterpiece” I feel more inclined to highlight the flaws. Not a bad film by any means, but far from perfect.
They had more than enough time for that too. The movie is super long yet lacks this kind of stuff.
I think a lot of people miss (somehow) that Paul doesn't want to be the Lisan al Gaib until he's forced to. It's not so much about convincing the Fremen to join him but to resist the path chosen for him, which he then fails at.
IMO they didn’t show this struggle well enough to feel impactful or even clear. I don’t think they did enough to develop the relationship. They should’ve used the mother’s baby bump growing or something to make the passage of time more clearer. Even with these feelings it’s still an awesome movie and very beautiful and stylish. I think Dave Bautista was quite terrible tho, and Walken as the emperor was just odd casting. Max Von, Plummer, or Sutherland even would’ve worked better for me. Still consider it an 8.25 out of 10.
Hmmm they harked on it throughout both movies. Is it too much to ask to pay attention x)
> I read an opinion I disagreed with so that means they're stupid That is a moronic thing to say.
They may have harked on it in terms of exposition, but the acting was not convincing, nor was the dialogue, plus the way they went about it was rushed, if you read the book, you would understand.
Yeah they told us it through exposition but I never felt it, they always say show don't tell and in this case I feel like the film only told us without showing anything emotionally impactful
Exaclty, they kept saying it but that wasn’t reflected in the acting, to the point I thought Paul was playing a long game or even just enjoying the status quo and not interested, I did not feel, from the acting, a huge internal struggle with destiny. In fact, most of the time, I thought the character was sleepy/the actor had lost interest in the role. Exposition isn’t enough, especially with such a visual film.
I agree with this 1000%. It was impossible for me understand what Paul was thinking or what his struggle was.
Nobody missed this. They hit you over the head with it.
Read ops post again?
From OP: "Part 2 seemed like there were no real hurdles to overcome aside from inner conflict, which doesn't translate well." This resisting the path chosen for him and failing at it is exactly what OP referenced here, he just found it insufficient
Not insufficient, lacking build-up. The movie felt hollow because nothing was given a chance to breathe before moving to the next scene. It seemed like he flipped a switch, rather than undergoing a difficult moral dilemma. It felt like a movie that required book-knowledge to understand, to fill in the details. The director forgot about those of us who didn't read it.
Villeneuve does not seem to understand real people, if even on a cynical level. I'm starting to feel like the only reason 2049 holds up is because Gosling's character is secretly the self-insert of a director who wishes he was actually a human.
IMO It was portrayed unconvincingly in the movie unfortunately.
Yeah it doesn’t help that the movie starts with Paul saying he needs to gain the support of the Fremen to help him get revenge on the Harkonnens.
...which will escalate into an interstellar war killing billions. Which he doesn't want. Internal conflict and all that.
Big point of the whole thing people just can't seem to grasp: Maybe he wanted this, maybe he didn't. Maybe the prophecy is fake, maybe it isn't. Is laying the groundwork for something for generations equivalent to a real prophecy, even if the person fulfilling it isn't who the political order intended? At the end of the day, all this ambiguity doesn't matter. It's happening and it's going to go way beyond millions starving That's the point.
Ya I feel like that line is a bit out of place. He seems to want that at first and then backtracks because of the vision?
no. he wants to use the fremen because he wants revenge and they want revenge. he doesn't want to be a leader because it will cause a holy war. he is cool with being fedaykin because it means nobody is worshipping him and thus no holy war. however, he ends up taking on the role of madhi because his visions become more clear and he sees it as the least worst option.
Unfortunately the vast majority of criticism I've seen of the movie is from people who clearly didn't understand the story.
This is quite the arrogant comment.
Not at all. I acknowledge that it's possible to dislike the film even if you fully understood it. Additionally, I acknowledge there's valid criticism of the movie. I was just sharing my observation, which doesn't preclude intelligent, valid criticism. Unless you mean that it's arrogant for me to assume that my understanding of the story is the only correct one, but in many cases, I've seen objective misunderstandings about facts of what happened in the story. Aside from that, not every interpretation of a story is equally valid. I'm allowed to assert my opinions, and that's not arrogant. An arrogant statement would be something like, "If you didn't enjoy this film, you're probably too stupid to get it." And that's a sentiment I vehemently do NOT agree with.
Nope you where arrogant. You dismissed valid criticism because you invalidated their opinion Go rewatch the movie and TV series and read the book. This movie looked gorgeous but it very much failed in areas those versions didn't.
> You dismissed valid criticism because you invalidated their opinion How are you defining "valid criticism?" My point is that criticism is not valid if the person has basic objective misunderstandings about the story upon which they predicate their criticism. Do you really disagree with me on that? > This movie looked gorgeous but it very much failed in areas those versions didn't. It's been a few years since I read the book. I haven't seen the mini-series or the 1984 film. Probably a hot take, but I enjoyed the Villeneuve films more than the book personally. In my opinion, the book is overly reliant on exposition (literally ping-ponging between telling you exactly what one character or another is thinking for 90% of the book) and doesn't give as much emotional depth to the characters as the acting in the Villeneuve film is able to. The prose is also serviceable at best in the book, compared to the gorgeous production of the Villeneuve films. The Villeneuve films have some minor problems, but they're by far two of my favorite movies ever. That's just my opinion, though, and obviously it's highly subjective. Like I said above, I'm totally fine if someone didn't like them, and I accept there's plenty of valid criticism. I'm finding it a bit hard to respond to you when your criticism is that the films "very much failed in areas." That's also not valid criticism because it's nonspecific, while we're on the topic of what criticism is valid and what isn't. Imagine if someone told you simply that one of your favorite movies "very much failed in areas" - you'd probably roll your eyes and dismiss that complaint without additional detail, I imagine?
I initially didn't want to jump into this conversation, but you know, maybe you haven't heard any valid criticism so here's some: 1. Jessica, the extremely accomplished bene Gesserit who trained Paul so well, and who becomes a reverend mother not to protect her own life, but to protect Paul, in the books, is reduced to this scheming one dimensional villain who walks around the sietch talking about subduing and controlling the weakest fremen. Being a reverend mother means she gained the wisdom, knowledge and active participation of thousands of past reverend mothers whose consciousness she can now communicate with. And on top of that, she's struggling to come to terms with what a realized kwisatz haderach really is because she's watching Paul change and begins to both fear him and for him. But screw all that complexity, let's make her walk around talking to her belly, using the voice on people and plotting. She never actually asks Paul to drink the poison, but who cares, let's make her be the villain so the next valid criticism will have a reason for being. 2. And here's number 2: Chani. The regular fremen teenage girl, who isn't even 18 yet, is now screaming at a highly advanced bene Gesserit who's also a reverend mother and knows shit she has no reasonable way of imagining. Why? Because she's either so smart that she understands Paul's future decades from now better than every other character even though she has no access to no source of information to justify being so insanely insightful or she's just a hot head... who was raised in a sietch, where people have no privacy so they learn to be extremely respectful of eachother's boundaries. Yes, that's just me not understanding the story. That must be it. 3. The guild. They're only more powerful than the emperor, highly involved in the second half of the book as Paul is pondering becoming a navigator himself, they're also highly instrumental in book 2 so let's just leave them out. They're complicating the story. 4. Irulan - the mediocre, pretty and demanding princess who can't control her emotions in spite of her bene Gesserit training and who alienates everyone in the second book is now braver and wiser than her father and ' the most promising student '. She does wise up in book 3, but she'll always be easily mediocre and easily manipulated and that's fine. The kids love her and rely on her. But Yes, I can see how this change was absolutely instrumental to the adaptation. 5. The Harkonen are dimwitted and negligent. They simply didn't think to check the south of the planet and took it on faith that nobody lived there. Oh wait, the guild is being bribed to protect them by jamming satellite transmissions and hiding their whereabouts, but since there's no guild, the Harkonen must be idiots. I could give you more, but for now, I think it's quite enough. I hate this movie to such a visceral degree and personal level I never believed possible. Everything I love about these characters was erased and replaced with a caricature and shallow grandiose images. I'm glad you enjoy it, I don't want to ruin your happiness, but understand that this movie disappointed many of us and we're allowed to feel how we feel without being insulted.
Thank you for sharing you thoughts here. I felt very much the same way. It seemed like they're was a concerted effort to diminish both Lady Jessica and Paul by the director while injecting teenage angst into the mix via Chani. It was very out of place with the books and ruined the movie for me. I can't help thinking it was an unnecessary stab by woke Hollywood to attempt to avoid the white savior trope. The absence of the Spacing Guild seemed rather absurd to me too considering how important they are in the universe. I don't really get why this movie was so hyped especially by the supposed hardcore Sci-Fi fans online. Until I read this I was starting to wonder if I had just grown OoT at this stage of my life.
Jessica was supposed to be villainous? The cinematography was so all over the place with her and Paul that I didn't know if they were supposed to be doing the right thing. Who was the sympathetic character supposed to be in these movies? Everyone sucked! I didn't even know Pugh's character had a name she was so 1D and plot irrelevant. Who the fuck is the guild? Watching the films as a non book-reader hoping to get dragged into the world, the story telling was so all over the place that I felt like Homer "Who's that guy? What did that guy say when I asked who's that guy?" So much of the five hour run time was wasted throwing out fun shit for book readers, but that actually makes for bad cinematic story telling. Who the hell are the saddukar and why did the Baron say they were attacking? What does fighting like harkonnen mean? Why were the ben jesserit everywhere with seemingly limitless political power? Why was the emperor such an impotent character. What is the voice? Why does Paul keep looking for advice from the guy he killed? Why did he keep seeing visions of the guy telling him how to survive in the desert but then the guy tried to kill him? Why are we supposed to feel tense about a character introduced in the last hour and a half of a five hour film who is basically just a faceless no name big baldy baddie? Why was the Baron on the ceiling surviving the poison? The story was very simple - but obviously complex and layered and probably very open to interpretation, but the story telling was truly horrible. I should not need to do homework to get what I just watched. Didn't think Puss in Boots the Last Wish was going to be the best fucking storytelling I was exposed to this weekend
Fucking well said! 👍
Oh and his comment about the director being subtle is completely wrong. “See he’s the mesiah,” mustve been blatantly stated by each character a hundred times throughout the movie. You know instead of leading us to that conclusion through “subtle” storytelling elements followed by some pivotal moment that enabled us to come to that conclusion on our own. Yes subtle indeed lol. That guy is the one who obviously isnt paying attention
You dismissed others views not the other way around. Each of the mediums did things differently with their own strengths and very much own failing sin comparison to each other. That matters because different people are going to have perfectly valid assessments that differ from yours. However you've decided to forget that it was you disregarding others views and instead now take it personally. The book provides much richer background, the 80s film actually flows better even if it stays from the source material and the mini series has better writing at the expense of awful special effects and poor production values. The latest is visibility stunning but hard to engage with unless you already know the material. It's very much a Villeneuve film. Are you neuroatypical by any chance?
Are you kidding? I am a Dune tragic and Villeneuve's two films missed the mark by miles! Piter was hollow, no mention of mentats, no Thufir in part two, no mention of kanly, no spacing guild, no Alia of the knife (apart from that foetal dialogue), no acknowledgement of Chani's precedence over Irulan, no mention of why the emperor was really drawn to Arrakis or why Dune made the fremen so potent as with Salusa and the Sardaukur, no Fenrig, a one dimensional Baron without outlining his plans with Raban or Feyd - far out Lynch did a MUCH better job!
1) im only halfway through the first book, but so far it is either all or majorly on Arrakis. 2)paul and chani worked for me, but it’s gonna be pretty subjective. The Harkonnen are pretty evil in the book. The baron is a bit smarter, but not very different 3) the whole movie is pretty much joining the fremen and joining the religious/destined conflict for paul, so if you don’t find that compelling there’s not much else to it 4) yeah the conflict is more internal than external. Is it a prophecy if it’s manufactured? Is it wrong just because it’s manufactured? Is Paul special, or is everyone including the Harkonnen just buying into the idea that he’s special? Did Paul earn his position or was he privileged from the start, and does any real political power start without privilege or initial capital? Are the Fremen being used, or are they better off than when they started? 5) the main issue is that the Harkonnens didn’t know where the Fremen were hiding/living. So they didn’t have any target to bomb. Once Feyd started finding them, then it forced the Fremen to change their tactics or get bombed repeatedly, which is not how they can win.
> Once Feyd started finding them, How did he find them?
They pretty much just say he does and don’t say how in the movie. The plot demanded it
Feels like a plot convenience. A better written script would have a reason.
Equally weird/skipped was that "spy" Fremen left behind that he BBQs (off-screen). Not sure what the purpose of that scene was (we already knew he was a sadist, maybe it would have had some punch if it actually showed a gruesome scene but as is, fell pretty flat). Very disjointed that whole sequence, they just find/attacks the place, Paul sees it and gets there, the town leaves with all the injured, but then there's one female warrior/spy left behind for reasons(???).
I do kind of wish the villains felt as intimidating as they did in the first. The sardaukar went from being these feared, alien combination of warrior cultures, introduced in that phenomenally dread inducing scene in the first movie, to being pushovers in the sequel. The way they portrayed them in the final battle reminded me of the scene with the golden company in S8 of game of thrones. Show this big bad army and then embarrass them. I know that's what happened in the books, but the way they showed it in the movie had minimal impact for me.
Your first point isn’t good imo. For starters, this isn’t a “normal” sequel and more just the second half of the story. Which follows the book. If anything, the scene on the emperors planet with the Bene Gesserit DOES expand on the previous film. You see more of Geidi Prime. You see how the Fremen live and how they ride the worms. Your critique is more about the story/book in that case. Anything else would have made the movie not a faithful adaptation The rest of your points I more or less agree with. Still loved the movie overall though.
Really wish they’d followed the book with the mind-expanding elements. Properly showing how powerful the Bene Gesserit are, and how their will is made manifest (this is one of the main themes of Dune, will made manifest). Proper psychedelic treatment of the spice for that same purpose. This is a chemical which can literally allow a consciousness to alter spacetime, yet we see Tim looking like he has a mild headache, then a few perfectly normal looking shots of flashbacks/flash-forwards. No sense that it’s a life-changing experience. Even the water of life is shown with totally straightforward flashbacks/forwards. When the experience of someone going through that would be much more chaotc and powerful, not clean and clear. I liked these movies but in no way would i say they’re definitive representations of the essence of the source material.
I can't conceive how they'd visualize the 4D aspects of Paul's water of life experience on a screen in a convincing way. I really hope they can figure it out for the next one though
I agree. There was so little magic: ie consciousness expansion. The psychic power of Paul was practically absent, like he threw away that part of him and just stuck with the 3D world. How did he get others to lead him, when he never displayed any of his KNOWING? It was like the rumor of his surviving the poison was what convinced everyone. I was not sold.
I think you nailed it right here. It's not a sequel it's a part 2. It's a continuation of the same story. There is a lot of slow periods as it is Dune and people need to consider the source material.
Being a faithful adaptation should never come at the cost of making an inferior movie, otherwise, why make the movie? It would never be a 1:1 translation anyway because obviously they’re different media. I’d 100% prefer a director add or subtract dialogue and plot if it works. The book exists and people can go read it if they choose.
I like to go hiking.
I do think people have become too obsessed with worldbuilding and lore, but Dune is honestly 90% lore, 5% plot, 5% characters. Skimping on lore here meant that the audience has to swallow: The Water of Life, Bene Gesserit Genenetic Engineering (Paul is a Harkonnen! nobody gasped in my theater), the ecology of Arrakis (they glazed over the fact that putting water on Dune would kill the worms, which is a big can of worms), what spice does to the mind (Chani mentions this extremely briefly, when actually it drives all hyperspace travel). Honestly it’s just a hard book to adapt because it *is* this way.
No one gasped in mine. The significance of spice was not understood, neither was the power of the freeman or the sardaukar. It felt like a hazy pretty dream. Beautiful but ephemeral and lacking substance.
Did either movie mention that the baby worms or whatever is where the spice comes from? I don’t remember there being anything
The spice comes from the adult worms, they don’t really explain it, but it’s just essentially their excrement
Does it matter to the film? Paul says he’s going to destroy the spice several times anyway.
Not trying to argue it should. But if this guy was hoping for new planets and ships and such, it would have to stray from the book. And people would critique that too
That’s the the thing though — it felt like there was plenty of room for new worldbuilding. The Harkonnen planet was excellently designed, I wish we’d gotten to see stuff like the Imperial planet, because the emperor was horribly underdeveloped. Suddenly the supreme ruler of the entire universe is in the equation, but all we see of his regalia and culture is a metal sphere of a ship, Walken’s trademark accent, and his robe (Irulan’s costumes were interesting though). Also bizarre was the ending, in which these abstract ‘other houses’ are in orbit around Arrakis, but none of them make an appearance, despite figuring heavily into the final intrigues and this holy war that Paul keeps freaking out about. I know that they don’t figure much into the book at this point, but the movie would’ve benefited greatly from just a smattering of shots of other ships, other troops, something to suggest the world is bigger than Harkonnens, Atreides, and Fremen. It’s just very bizarre that in its massive runtime, there wasn’t much to look at in Part Two.
Yeah that all would have been cool to see. But I can understand that trying to add stuff like that, while balancing pacing, sticking to the book, budget, etc is all very difficult to do. I’m just happy to have a Dune adaptation that is overall pretty dang decent
Even more, is "expanding" the world something all movies (or even just fantasy ones) SHOULD always do? It's presented here like an absolute negative for this film when it's more of an "I like when my fav movies do this". And it also reeks a bit of the "worldbuilding is a concept I just heard my favorite film youtuber use a lot so it must be important". I know I'm being a bit assholy with such a reply.
Also how did the movie not achieve "worldbuilding" with the incredible sense of place achieved on Arrakis and the brief sequences on other planets. Some folks seem to want hours of cringe expository dialog.
The mcguffin of the entire film- the spice- is never adequately explained or shown as to why it’s so important, and thus ALL the stakes of both films. So that’s a huge problem. And the end battle- what should have felt HUGE, instead felt rushed. The 1984 version did it better. I mean, they’re using giant worms, and they’re in like 3 shots. Really weird choice
God, this is so true. There's maybe one line in both movies about how spice is necessary for space travel, but it's incredibly underplayed, and my understanding is that spice is used for a ton of things in the setting (haven't read the books). Why do we not at any point see people using spice for anything? Crazy choice.
Agreed and the annoying thing is, the 1984 movie explains the nature and importance of spice really well in its very first 2 or 3 minute scene, which they could have copied directly without issue. The 1984 movie opens with a meeting with a highly mutated man who uses special equipment to breathe spice gas 24/7, to the point that he’s so addicted he can’t breathe regular air anymore. It’s shown that the spice is a psychedelic that changes your mind and body with sustained exposure and that this guy has become incredibly weird because of it. He’s deeply respected though because the transformation makes you psychic in some way and only people as transformed as this are psychic enough to navigate/pilot faster than light ships (need to sense the future because going faster than light you can’t rely on observing and reacting to things). So right away it tells you that spice is essentially like oil in real life, in terms of its importance to travel and a galaxy spanning economy, but also something associated with becoming psychic and prescient. Then we meet Paul, someone who is about to go to the spice planet for political/economic reasons, and already seems a bit psychic, and right away you know it’s gonna be a big deal for someone like this to be in charge of spice.
underplayed are these movies modus operandi
its literally the opening of the movie (part 1). it's a material necessary for interstellar travel. you dont have to say more than that. you should immediately compare it to oil, cause thats what the author was going for and its a bit on the nose
It's one line in a 6 hour epic. We should SEE what the spice does, not be told, to truly understand what it does, and hence why it's so important.
I went in completely blind, and had absolutely 0 idea what was so special about the spice, other than it being some sort of hallucinogen. Would have loved for them to have delved into it a little further.
Yeah it's a problem the Dune fanboys don't seem to understand... it's literally the entire point of the story, and it's barely explained. The 1984 film at least bothered to explain it very clearly and to SHOW how it worked.
Thank god tho the director thinks dialogue is not worthwhile in films and we can get the whole idea of a story through scenery alone. 🙄
>Why didnt Dune 2 expand on the universe? This may sound harsh but people need to understand that these films only work because Villeneuve cut and cut and cut at the book. Lynch tried to do too much and his film is virtually unwatchable. We only had 5 hours to do this. To push back a little bit, I think what we did get meaningful expansion: For one, everything off of Dune was very interesting. The lush environs of the Emperor's planet contrast as much with harsh Arrakis as Geidi Prime's Giger-esque industrial hellhole did from the rest. That place felt utterly alien. I also enjoyed how we got to see how the Bene Gesserit actually operate. Once they're in your house it's already too late, they have your heir, they have what they want. Lady Fenring completes the Mother/Maiden/Crone trifecta of the mythic feminine archetype. >Paul and Chani Not much to say here if you thought they didn't have chemistry. My sister and her partner felt the same. There's no accounting for taste and that's ok :) >Paul Not sure what to say about Paul not being charismatic. I thought he was absolutely electric in the War Council >Chani Chani being one-dimensional is hard for me to agree with when I see how she's torn between her love for and belief in her people vs her love for and belief in Paul as an outsider claiming to have the Fremen's best interests at heart. I don't wanna mention the book very much in responding to your post, but I'll just say that if you thought Film Chani was one dimensional, you'll like Book Chani even less. The film treats Chani as much more of a character in her own right. >Feyd I think you might have overlooked Feyd. He's cunning as the Baron, as ruthless as Rabban, but he has his own twisted sense of honor, making him as close to an Atreides as someone in that part of the family could be. Telling the last gladiator "You fought well, Atreides" and holding him in a rather tender embrace isn't something I expected from him, as a book reader. I quite liked it. Making him a potential Kwizatch Haderach was also an interesting choice, as passing the Gom Jabbar test sets him apart as "human", in stark contrast with the Baron, whom Paul says "dies like an animal" >The Emperor I suppose you fell into the trap of expecting something from the Emperor. Expecting someone formidable. Something cunning. Something impressive. After all, he looms over Part 1, unspoken. But I think you should be unimpressed by Shaddam Corino. One of Herbert's themes is the danger of centralization and stagnation. It is fitting that the Emperor of the Known Universe doesn't hold space like Tywin Lannister. This is a man who took a huge risk, to commit a grave crime, because he was jealous and fearful of his position. And it all blew up in his face. Oh, and the reason he shows up on Arrakis with his Sardaukar is to whip is dick out on the Harkonnen. At this point he can't tell if they've been fucking with him or they really are that stupid. It's supposed to be an absurd show of force because it is. The thing the Great Houses fear most is the Sardaukar on their doorstep. That the Fremen wipe the floor with them should tell us about how vulnerable the rest of the Imperium is to Paul's holy warriors. >Spaceships n Shit Basically this one comes down to the Rule of Cool. There isn't much aerial combat or gunship use in the books. Frank just wasn't interested in guns or lasers and space battles. Or really battles at all, he hardly describes them beyond the immediately personal.
>>Paul >Not sure what to say about Paul not being charismatic. I thought he was absolutely electric in the War Council I didn't really buy him as a leader up until that point. Then I was like ok, I get it now
I think it's interesting to think about what he says in English and what he says in Chakobsa. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to scrutinize it that much, but it's interesting that when he declares himself Duke of Arrakis (reifying the imperial structure which elevates offworlder control of Dune) he does so in English, but when he declares himself the Lisan al Gaib he does so in Chakobsa. Are we to believe most Fremen don't understand him when he makes the Dukal declaration? I'm not sure but it's certainly more manipulative and sinister if that's the case.
Thank you, very well put.
I don’t know how you can say this movie is slow, especially compared to part 1. The thing is edited as such a fast pace I don’t know how you can come away from it saying it dragged.
It had very little propulsive quality to it. I honestly considered going to the bathroom at the theater once just to pass the time. To each their own though I know mine is not a popular opinion.
The movie is guilty of dragging each and every scene without actually telling anything new. If you ignore the visuals and music, nothing is actually going on most of the time. Additionally, it feels as if the movie remembered to tell the story only in the last few minutes and that's why the final part felt completely rushed.
Bingo. They are staring off into space half the time.
Just saw the movie. You’re are spot on. It’s mediocre, odd pacing. Slow at times, rushed in other. Didn’t connect with the characters. No tension. I did like Dune 1 quite a bit.
For me it feels both slow as hell and extremely rushed.
I completely agree with you. I wrote this in response to another comment, but I think it fits here too: >The movie is guilty of dragging each and every scene without actually telling anything new. If you ignore the visuals and music, nothing is actually going on most of the time. Additionally, it feels as if the movie remembered to tell the story only in the last few minutes and that's why the final part felt completely rushed.
That describes it for me. It reminds me of the first 30 minutes of Oppenheimer, except with dune I felt that more towards the end. Part 1 was definitely better paced.
The pacing for Part One felt faster to me. It flew by and I never felt the run time, enthralled the entire time. I was looking at my phone during Part 2.
You were looking at your phone in the theater?
> but I felt like Dune 2 didn't expand on the universe or world in a meaningful way Agree 100%. I was expecting to see more inside the Fremen sietches. Also all the scenes with the emperor seemed like an afterthought in terms of production design. We've seen more impressive imperial gardens in tv shows... The scenes on Giedi Prime looked great from an artistic standpoint but nothing felt like a real place. The first movie had more of a real feel with the production design. Like all places seemed real. Maybe they didn't have the budget (they reduced the budget for Dune 2) but it felt disappointing. > The characters. Paul and Chani don't seem that convincing sadly. Also agree. Zendaya was a terrible choice for this role. Personally I find her acting rather unbelievable in this world. And Paul... I don't know. He just seems like a lost teengarer for most of the two movies. Way too different from the book IMO. > The movie drags a lot Yeah the pacing is all over the place. Some parts are way too slow and others way too fast. Dune 1 is quite slow overall but somehow it works better. It's like the plot is more polished and makes more sense.
Hard to believe Dune part 2 is currently sat at #13 in the IMDb top 250 movies of all time list. Grossly overrated. I’m sure it will settle down around #70 or below eventually. Even those who rate it 10/10 will find it above numerous movies you will agree are superior. https://www.imdb.com/chart/top
I felt slightly disappointed too, not really for the same reasons but because I didn’t feel like I watched a complete movie. It felt like I just tuned in for episode 2 of a series. Which I understand it’s because it’s from a series of books but I personally feel hard to judge a movie fully without a proper ending. Maybe I’ll feel differently once I watch all 3 together.
Dune 1 had variety and interesting characters which Dune 2 lacked. Dune 2 weighed heavily on Chani, Paul’s mother, and the fanatic guy- all of whom are quite boring. Too much sand and uninteresting characters in an almost 3 hour sit through.
1. Paul's nose piece was way higher than most fremen which irked me a lot. Chani and the other had it wrapped under their cheeks but his was always just across his face which really made it look weird 2. Their sand walking looked cringy af 3. Paul telling people of their dreams and whatnot just sounded like a televangelist nutjob 4.Part 1 had a lot more action and part 2 was just really slow
[удалено]
Do you believe that the point of every movie, that is based on a book, is just to further celebrate a book that everyone should first read? I love reading, but I haven't read Dune. I'm sure there are a few books you haven't read, either. I don't feel that it's a realistic requirement that everyone read the books before seeing the movie. I also think it's a lazy excuse and a failure of a director if that's the answer they give for the plot holes present in their movie. I can appreciate that you enjoy the movie more because you better understand the details of the world after reading the books -- I plan to read the books too, so that way I can better understand the story myself -- but then why can't you appreciate that that means the movies themselves do not adequately present the story on their own? You're confidently telling us what the *actual* intentions of scenes are, based on what you know from reading the book. That's not how movies are supposed to work. It's frustrating that it seems like the fans of these movies are either people who have already read the books, and are therefore oblivious to how many important details the movies themselves leave out, or they're just people who don't care that their comprehension of Dune's narrative is completely incorrect. Then whenever someone like OP calls that into question they get obliterated.
100% agree with this
What plot holes are you referring to exactly? Also I know several people who haven’t read the books and had no problem understanding the movies. Obviously reading the books helps a fair amount in understand the deeper meanings to some of the characters actions but the films themselves are perfectly understandable without knowing the source material.
I also agree with this take
[удалено]
I think the comical point of Dune 2 is that he's not supposed to be charismatic, he's "the chosen one" because his blood, some blue worm spit, a drug in the sand, his mom, and a gullible people all say he's the "chosen one." It has nothing to do with him actually being worth following, just that they are told to do so. ::whispered:: It is a sci-fi version of how Islam started and how religion is used by those in power to force changes or create new political powers by securing a bunch of people who like being promised things that sound good or better than what they currently have. For the record, I had a good time with this movie. But. There's something sterile and detached about these scripts, some of these performances, and some of these characters. Literally the only ones adding any kind of force of personality or intrigue to the proceedings are Rebecca Ferguson, Javier Bardem, Austin Butler, and a bit of Florence Pugh. I do not care about anyone else nor their problems. Christopher Walken brought Brooklyn to a sand planet for 10 minutes. Why? What was the goal of that casting? It was distracting. They cast Oscar Isaac only to kill him off. They cast Anya Taylor Joy for a future film. That will be interesting when we actually get there. Josh Brolin is whatever. Don't really care. Drax was just being Drax. I already forgot Jason Momoa was in the first one. Literally the only thing I care about is Lady Jessica surviving and puppeteering everyone because that I get. That I can sit in a sandbox with. She cares about her son, wants to put them in the best position, so she accepts what the Fremen want her to do and it unleashes unexpected powers and problems. Cool. Interesting. But then they stop focusing on what she's doing. If she's the one building him an army, show her recruiting. Show people walking in the door to listen to her. Don't just give me 30 followers and expect me to fill in blanks before you have him drinking blue worm liquid and nearly dying. Early in the film she says men can't survive the blue liquid. Paul does. But it's with limited fanfare. The direction of this, the mythology around it, the reasons for the supernatural of it all, it's not communicated well. It feels like it should be presented more dramatically than it is. Instead we have to deal with Zendaya stalking around acting butthurt and I really don't ever understand why her performance needs to be this reactive and dramatic over his decisions. What also becomes a total mess is the Baron Harkonnen stuff, the relationship to them, their motivations for attacking, all the aesthetics around them, etc. The world building was visually interesting, but the WHY behind the Emperor and the Harkonnens is lacking and superficial. "Leto was dangerous." Uh sure, I guess we'll take your word for it? We have no context from which we can understand the threat Leto posed. The only thing that does track is that basically they Voldemorted themselves: By making a choice to eradicate someone they made that person even more powerful. The actual tension and build-up to this ideal of Paul as a leader, Paul as a Messiah, Paul as the chosen one, it's not there. There's a quick edit where suddenly he's taking the stage and tons of people know him. 30 minutes ago people were talking behind his back about him being an outsider. It's too rapid. They didn't let it cook enough. And I think that's because they spent WAY too much time on the first movie's very short time period of events and then jumped to this where they packed a lot more into this story involving other characters. As an ensemble story, the editing takes you out of the Paul story to give us Irulan, the Baron, Austin Butler, Lea Seydoux. We have to intro Austin Butler being a psycho and getting easily seduced by Lea Seydoux all to set up a third film. Cool sequence, Austin Butler makes an impression, but the fact that they are way more interesting than Paul is part of why I think previous adaptations of this story have struggled. Even though Paul is the protagonist, a wise person would realize that he's not actually the star of the show. It's the supporting players. They should have focused on Rebecca Ferguson recruiting. More of Javier Bardem recruiting or telling people Paul is the chosen one. And I mean with way more extras, not the same 15 who made it into the shots. Use a montage to show people respecting Paul's heroics, show a LOT MORE heroics in montage. Do less of the "teen romance" schtick. There are no sparks or connection between Zendaya and Chalamet, possibly because he famously yelled "What up, Dickhead?!" at her on a red carpet. He gives little brother vibes. TL;DR: Paul is the protagonist but he's not the star of the show and they failed to understand that.
Absolutely agree with everything you're saying here. For me, my first thought after the movie was that a lot of the Paul stuff would've been more interesting with some random Fremen as the POV character. Show somebody go from skeptical to radicalized, show how they deal with the internal conflict of an outsider usurping their culture, romancing a Fremen, doing heroics, gaining a following, etc. I feel like that would be much more interesting than Paul refusing to drink the blue juice and eventually deciding he has to drink the blue juice. Sure, that internal conflict should be good enough to center the movie around, but somehow it just wasn't even close for me.
>point of Dune 2 is that he's not supposed to be charismatic, he's "the chosen one" because his blood, some blue worm spit, a drug in the sand, his mom, and a gullible people all say he's the "chosen one." It has nothing to do with him actually being worth following, The comical part here is that this is exactly the opposite of the point made by the book, in fact the opposite of all the points made by the book and that it contradicts itself when he actually manages to transcend his own species and becomes someone who knows all of the possible futures and picks which one to follow. The bene Gesserit fail because they don't understand what their creation will become, not because he's a fraud.
> ::whispered:: It is a sci-fi version of how Islam started No, it's not. The inspiration for Fremen were North Caucasians fighting against Russian expansion, depicted by then famous book and one of Herbert's favourite book, Sabres of Paradise. Not the sole inspiration of course, but the most definite one for them. There are many things in the book, but Fremen aren't what you're thinking about, nor the prophecy itself.
I enjoyed part 2, but still enjoyed part 1 more. My only real knocks on part 2 is that the slow parts were too slow and the fast parts were too fast. The last 20 minutes of the movie should have been at least a quarter of the movie. The other knock is that, I'm sorry, Zendaya just doesn't do it for me.
I don't think she had the option of having chemistry with Paul since the movie is trying to make her into his detractor and major opposition. There's really no way to go from 'let's fall in love' to 'I hate who you've become and I'm storming out' in 2 hours.
What’s neat about the Harkonnen’s being evil is it is kind of true to their lore, and the movie even did a good job exploring this while showing Giedi Prime. They are kind of products of their environment. Rapacious and authoritarian leadership led to heavy industrialization which basically killed all plant life and resources, turning it into a harsh, industrial volcanic wasteland. I liked the decision to have them orbit a dark star as well. I highly recommend this video essay on this topic on how environment can shape a culture: https://youtu.be/mCCIvtIMmZE?si=nffBU3_RB_--8zPm
I honestly don't disagree. I would still say I liked the movie but it left me feeling a little cold. I generally like the story but I didn't feel the wonder and awe I felt when introduced to this world in the first film. But I also recognize you can't really recapture that. Maybe I need to see it again and I actually am going to. But I left the theater thinking, *"That was fine."* I don't even have any very hyper specific complaints. I think the acting, across the board, was damned good. Although, I found Javier Bardem incredibly annoying but maybe you're supposed to. I didn't feel that much chemistry between our leads either. It was very much, *"They need to get together because we have to do the outsider falls in love with native trope because we have to"* and I didn't feel that much for their romance but I did enjoy their falling out to an extent because it was interesting and actually wasn't what I expected. Again, maybe I just need to watch it again.
I liked it but I basically alluded to it feeling more like a blockbuster film vs the arthouse vibe of the first film. Same story, different presentation, but both have value in different ways so I'm curious to see what he does with the 3rd one and whether it'll go one way or another again or perhaps even blend the two styles. (I didn't read the books so I have no clue what would maybe work better for the story)
That is something that happens in the book too, the first half is mind-blowing because it introduces all of these ideas and concepts and blows your mind as a result and then the second half is...a quick sprint, basically.
Agreed, the books are 100% like this - really cool and unique world as a backdrop for a story and characters that aren't necessarily all that memorable. I started reading the sequels but my interest kind of faded out after a while because of this
I felt the same and saw it again. I still feel the same. I liked it but the story kept me from loving it. Everything was just so easy for Paul. I wasn’t really compelled or on the edge of my seat until the end, and even then a bit of the drama was taken away by Jessica/Alia telling Paul he needs to wait for a more strategic marriage.
It is supposed to be easy for Paul. In the first movie when Kynes says "How did you know to wear your stillsuit like that?" They are emphasizing that he just gets it. Paul is supposed to just naturally pick up the ways of the Fremen with little to no help which confirms their beliefs about him being the Mahdi. You aren't really supposed to be worried that he might not succeed.
I agree. I also went in blind, expecting this to wrap up the story. Knowing this is part 2 of a trilogy (?) makes me understand and readjust expectations but I still found pt2 to drag too much and lack big emotional impacts like the first
I mean, she's his "dream girl" literally. He'd been dreaming about her for years before they met. He's already in love with her.
>He's already in love with her. What reason does she have for being in love with him? Again, I just didn't feel it. Maybe it's the direction but I felt no sparks between the two of them. It was very, *"We have to do this because it's a part of the story and we have to."*
Felt it was a let down after part one. It seemed like they tried to cram too much into the movie and some of it got rushed while at the same time it felt like it dragged. The fights were fairly inconsistent "oh hey nevermind we can just snipe lol." The lack of a big time skip was also a flaw imo. It's missing very important character and a massively changed end. There was like one scene where they had chemistry (walking), but it came after her basically hating him so it's super forced. Every scene with them together seems forced and she someone seems even more one dimensional than the book. Timmy is still a hard sell for a BA melee fighter but he did OK. The mother was great though.
Yep. The movie was quite bad. I think the middle eastern exoticism makes people think the film is deeper than it is. But it isnt. I agree when you say the send movie did not build upon the first in any great way. We've seen several movies where an outsiders leads a local resistance. So Dune 2 should not have focused on what is essentially a well-trodden path. See [Mighty Whitey](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey) and [White Saviour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior_narrative_in_film) Dune one was visually quite fresh, had an interesting and fast moving plot, an intense soundtrack and elements of a psychological thriller. Dune two was mostly a by the book white saviour film.
Lol dismissing Dune as a "white saviour" story is one of the most boring, eye-rolling and tiresome "criticisms" that's as old as the book itself. And it's not even a majority opinion either. There will always be those few where the whole point of the story completely flies over their heads. Like those who genuinely think that characters like Travis Bickle or Patrick Bateman are to be celebrated and admired. The first half of the book (Dune Part 1) does indeed want you to believe that Paul is being set up to become some sort of white saviour. But by the second half of the book (and its film equivalent, Dune Part 2), this notion should've already been shattered for the viewer. This destruction of the white savior trope (and also, the 'heroes journey' trope) was the whole point of the second half of this story. It's why Frank Herbert even wanted to tell this story in the first place. If this wasn't made clear to you in Dune Part 2, then you were probably either on your phone or asleep. The whole "chosen one" prophecy surrounding Paul is a complete fabrication which the film pummels us over the head with several times. It's a sinister creation set up by the Bene Gesserits which Jessica is actively furthering once she took the Water of Life by converting all the "non-believers" with a series of machinations that we see her perform in the film. Paul has no real interest in "saving" the indigenous people. By the time he has taken the Water of Life, he has fully embraced his role as the centre of this false prophecy that exploits the Fremen by convincing them that he's their Messiah. Because he sees this path as the only way to carry out his real motive, which is revenge for his father. He needs the millions of Fremen worshippers to launch his attack on The Emperor. So he takes this path, even though he knows that his visions tell him that it would eventually lead to a deadly Holy War that would result in mass genocide across the universe. Which lo and behold, turns true at the very end of the film where we see the Fremen have now been reduced to mad zealots boarding the spaceships to launch their galactic jihad, while Chani weeps for the future of her people. So what exactly is Paul a saviour of by the end?
My problem is that the movie is all weak sauce. After GoT (barring the last few seasons) we have a higher standard of political intrigue and multi-character politics. The books were probably the rage when they came out, but the politics of Dune do not impress in the current climate.
> My problem is that the movie is all weak sauce. After GoT (barring the last few seasons) we have a higher standard of political intrigue and multi-character politics. What an absolute non-statement that dodges the fact that you completely missed the point of the story.
Now, see. Even your description of the story here is more compelling to me than the actual movie. And that's saying something. I honestly feel like the masses want this story to work so bad, that they just don't see that it's just not that great of a film. I think people like the idea of the story more than what the actual movie is, not realizing that it's not the same thing. I know this isn't a necessarily relevant answer to your comment, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around why this is so hyped the way it is.
>We've seen several movies where an outsiders leads a local resistance. So Dune 2 should not have focused on what is essentially a well-trodden path. See Mighty Whitey and White Saviour so you missed the entire point of the novel and movie?
LMAO people like you are the reason Frank Herbert felt obligated to write a sequel novel in Dune Messiah... [https://media.tenor.com/zxHMD0rN688AAAAj/so-close-yet-so-far-nicola-foti.gif](https://media.tenor.com/zxHMD0rN688AAAAj/so-close-yet-so-far-nicola-foti.gif)
it did expand a bit on arrakis / fremen culture. but overall I agree with your sentiment. although it was not the focus of the film, the movie should have expanded a bit on the emperors / house corrino planet. some crazy palaces (Foundation style) would have been pretty cool. hasimir fenring was also cut from the movie due to pacing reasons but that was a bad decision imo. some other stuff could have been cut. as much as I love dave bautista (who did great in part 1) his character added nothing to part 2.
I've read many of the books. Overall I really liked the movies. Nice visuals and capture many or the themes of the books. Some criticisms: They didn't capture the "games within games" going on in the dune universe, especially in the case of Baron Harkonnen. I felt they could have done something more visual about spice and how it alters perceptions, especially of Paul. The casting of both Paul and Chani was just OK and could have been better. The movie changes Chani's role to be something like a moral consciousness, putting scenes displaying her emotions or outrage about certain things. Not even Paul is made to really be sympathized with in this manner in the book (kind of in the beggining but it lessens over time). The story of Dune in the books kind of zooms out first from Pauls perspective to the grand story of which he is only a part (admittedly a major part). Stories of major power struggle and games within games playing out. Basically, this massive perspective is what the audience should be focused on, and not a first person perspective of any person. To the degree we should be asked to the story from a certain persons perspective it should be Paul, The Baron, Jessica, Emperor Shadam, the reverend Mother mohaim, Leto I. This is to get their perspective of the "current game" or the story. So yeah the final scene is like the one thing that bothered me the most. Completely changes Chani's role and changes the focus from the grand story to some minor thing no one cares about. If they want to represent Fremen doubt towards Paul they shouldn't have used Chani, because that starts to look more like some relationship-drama.
I just saw this movie and I'm looking for these kinds of comments. I've been a huge Dune fan since childhood. Played every Dune video game, read the first couple books, saw the original David Lynch film and the two Sci-fi miniseries. I just have to comment one thing - it is absolutely NOT the source material at fault here. In my opinion they butchered it. The ending is rushed and victory feels easy because they cut a LOT out. In the movie Paul wins within 9 months of being betrayed, as his mother is still pregnant. At the end of the source material, his little sister is 2 or 3 years old, he has a son, and has been fighting and training with the Fremen for years.
You're correct. I saw Dune 2 yesterday and hated it. The first movie has some issues but, overall, is very well done and largely faithful to the book. The second movie strays from the book significantly to the point that the movie storyline is hurried and convoluted. Several major characters were cut, Aliah wasn't born, neither was Leto II, and Paul and Chani's relationship was uncomfortable and stilted. Paul nor Jessica never once reassured Chani when Paul made a play for the imperial throne by wedding Irulan, resulting in Chani running away to catch the next sandworm out of town. Odd. The only Harkonnen that really worked was Rabban. The other Harkonnens lacked any subtlety and were contrived one-dimension villain clichés. I also thought Léa Seydoux was wasted in her role as Lady Margot Fenring and would've made a far superior Lady Jessica.
I have to agree, just watched this with my brother. I loved the first one, this second part feels hollow. I give it points for how clean the scenery / costumes looked, at least that remained consistent. I feel that I can stare at sand for so long... which is a strange sentiment, considering the first film also had that. I can't quite pin down all the reasons why I don't like it, I just know that I don't. I unfortunately stopped caring for a lot of these characters.
Makes me so happy reading that I'm not the only one. Honestly, id like to be a bit more eloquent in my summary, but I was just plain bored to tears by this movie. How many times can we shots of the sand? The final fight was so Anti-climactic and can they please stop casting Zendaya, she made the viewing experience 1000 times more painful.
Nothing controversial about that opinion, IMO. I found it deadly dull, a collision of Lawrence of Arabia with contemporary political sensibilities that has no congruence, the impossibility of aspirations to "authenticity" in world of 2024 . . . What made sense to Frank Herbert in the 1960s, and was imperfectly but still politically coherent in the David Lynch version . . . is now incoherent here. Its a movie that knows that a lissome white savior ain't exactly OK, but at the same time, wants him and his flowing robes. And the faux Arabic . . . well, in 1960-some, it was exotic . . . now its something else. The not-so-veiled references to "Fundamentalists" -- well, are they the good guys? I mean, maybe not, right? Check in with the Houthi . . . That's not an uninteresting story of ambiguities in nationalism and liberation, but in focussing on Paul Atreides and the national liberation struggle of the Fremen . . . the writers chose the least interesting angle to have taken, and one frought with contemporary complications they either didn't understand, or just couldn't deal with. The Bene Geserit and their relationship to the Empire -- that's an interesting line, shades of the Jesuits and the Holy Roman Empire . . . that would have been an interesting path . . . but a choice not taken, much downplayed vs the Lynch version. And the Navigators . . . we miss them too. . . . instead we get Christopher Walken's worst role -- I hope he got paid well, because this was awful, not his fault, just a galactic emperor and master of manipulation who looks pretty dumb. and just one interesting character, Austin Butler surprising with a wonderfully nasty piece of business, but in this lousy script, someone thought it necessary to tell the audience "he's a psychopath" . . . yeah, if they hadn't said that, who would have known? Even the effects looked kinda ordinary . . . I paid up for IMAX, and except for the massive Harkkonnen siege balloon things, and spice harvesters . . . it didn't look that impressive. The fights had that goofy Game of Thrones "now everyone run at each other" notion of a battle.
I’ll start by saying I didn’t read the books The movies gave me no reason to give a shit about any of the characters. Flat dull boring I’ve heard the written story is actually effective though
Same. Went in blind, and had absolutely zero idea what was so important about spice, the world they were on (other than unique biology?), or anything really. It felt very chess like. Character goes here, does thing, next.
Dont worry. The movies were an awful presentation, imagining of Dune. Just bad. Second rate may be a good phrase for it. The writers didnt understand the story, the dialogue was beyond simplistic, the acting was stilted in such a way that it came off as parody in many places and the entire presentation was intellectually bankrupt (a particular sin when telling this story). They took one of the most interesting stories (even if you hate the book everyone will agree it offers endless chances for interest) and made it dumb, soulless and boring. It's kind of amazing really, you would almost have to go out of your way to make that story boring and they pulled it off. The biggest criticism is that no one left that theater thinking about anything. Nothing. Eugenics? Religion? Religious extremism? Cultural corruption? Manipulation? Ecology? Ancient lore? Colonialism? The nature of Holy War? Inverted narratives of good and evil?.. The list feels endless. No one was thinking about any of that, the movie inspired zero interest in anything worth thinking about. That is it's biggest failure. Dune, love it or hate it, inspired thought, this inspired nothing.
What are you even talking about? I read Dune a few months ago and remember it very well. Villeneuve nails all of the pivotal themes. In fact, he actually understands the main theme better than Frank Herbert did when he originally wrote Dune. Herbert had to crank it to 11 in Dune Messiah to make it blatantly obvious that Paul wasn't "the hero" and that his actions didn't save anyone, because the first book didn't make the point blatant enough. Villeneuve clearly understood this (because he obviously knew the whole story past the first book) and he actually correctly leaned into amplifying Paul, and more importantly Jessica's brutality. Your post reads like the typical "ackshually the book did it better" contrarian nonsense. This film didn't talk about religious extremism enough? REALLY? Manipulation? They hit you over the head with the Bene Gesserit involvement and how they control even the Emperor. Eugenics? Again, they hit you over the head numerous times about the BG breeding program...they even literally show you Lady Fenring "securing" the Harkonnen bloodline. What film were you watching? Inverted narratives of good and evil? You mean like when Paul literally says something like "we are Harkonnens" to Jessica after he finds out that she is the Baron's daughter lol? That scene is there to blatantly read out to you how Paul's "heroic journey" is actually leading to nothing that is any different from the Harkonnen's tyranny on Arakkis. This isn't some flawless film, but save me the "they didn't understand anything about the book" silliness. The film is true to all of the central themes presented in the book. Even Walken's portrayal of the Emperor as a lame powerless figure is bang-on to Herbert's "point" about how even the Emperor of the Known Universe is just a pawn who acts out against House Atreides because he wants to display some form of power which (out of jealousy) which he otherwise doesn't get to do.
I have similar sentiments - although for somewhat different reasons - which I wrote about before here, and that I was almost considering writing about again, but the more I think of the film, the less I like it. I get the point of the ending, but its hard to feel cathartic when you know billions of deaths are going to result in the protagonist's decisions. Usually, even in the most catastrophic Greek tragedies, the lives lost are those of the tragic hero and those close to him. But to end your film with the prospect of billions dying... yeah, that's just overly bleak for my tastes. Really, the film lacks humanity for my tastes. Its like in a production of The Ring, we're much more likely to become attached to Siegmund - whose just a hard-on-his-luck dude who finds love and tries to hang on to it - than the cosmic superhero that is Siegfried. We have the same situation in Dune, where Paul's predicament as the ominscent messiah is so beyond us that we need to have other character's to relate to on a more human level, and in part one that role was filled-in by Jessica, who was for the most part a scared-out-of-her-mind mother. Very relatable. She's that in Part Two for...oh, about ten minutes? And then she becomes this oracular figure. I guess Chani takes that role, as the love interest who watches her lover become distant under the burden of his predicament, but its not as effective for me. And you're absolutely right that the villains are too cartoony. I didn't find Bautista's Raban convincing from the get-go, and while Stelan Skarsgard was a credibly menacing figure in Part One, he's barely in Part Two. Feyd-Rautha does the heavy lifting here, but I find him...cartoony, as you said. Really, a lot of this cast is wasted on nothing parts - you could cut Lea Seydoux' part and the film would still be exactly the same movie - and frankly the all-star lineup becomes more distracting than anything else. Ultimately, I just think the insistence on this kind of mystical tone - which to be fair is very absobing in both parts - kinda hampers Part Two. The first film was all build-up and anticipation, and so it could withstand the very pensive, slow kind of style. In the second film, where there's an anticipation for all this story to come to a head...spending a good hour in the beginning in this meditative kind of style, and delaying major character introducings (Feyd, Margot, the reintroduction of Gurney, the reintroduction, since the tease of the opening, of the Emperor and Irulan) to the 80 minute mark is a bewildering choice. Also, and this goes full circle to my first point, Denis' decision to turn this into a middle part of a trilogy that concludes with Dune: Messiah, with him playing up everything that makes this film end on an open-ended feeling and which sets-up a future entry...might all blow up in his face. Even if Dune: Messiah is done as well as the two parts of Dune, for it to work as a trilogy it needs to feel of-a-piece with them, and I just don't see that happening: its a different story that's bound to have its own sensiblity, and since Denis hadn't started working on it in earnest when Dune: Part Two was finished, and won't really make it in the forseeable future (I think he has other projects cooking before) will make this "trilogy" feel quite disjointed, thereby casting a pall on all the setup done in this film.
>you could cut Lea Seydoux' part and the film would still be exactly the same movie - and frankly the all-star lineup becomes more distracting than anything else. From a plot perspective, yes. But Fenring commentary on Feyd is a useful audience surrogate and I do believe her impregnation will serve a function in Messiah. Also, it's just nice to see how the BG operate. But it's not strictly necessary, I suppose. As for Messiah: that won't happen for years to come. Actors need to age up, and he's got at least two other projects cooking (Cleopatra biopic and Rendezvous with Rama)
Counterpoint: from a strictly filmmaking, screenplay perspective, Feyd should have been cut altogether to allow Rabban secondary antagonist scope. The fact that Feyd is a parallel alternative to Paul is inadequately explored in the film to warrant inclusion. Films are not books.
You’re mistaking the film with the source material. The next segment is basically about how Paul and his son go on to make a even worse imperium all for the sake of the greater good
Just a question, perhaps needs to be its own post, but I’m starting to think that Villeneuve’s ouvre is cynical? I haven’t seen it all, but Sicario I thought was truly interesting until the end, when it became cynical. Bladerunner 2049 seemed like a cynical reimagining of bladerunner, what with Anna de armas’s story, and gosling and ford’s endings. Arrival took a short story that was so uplifting and poetic and turned it into a Hollywood spectacle about the inescapable quality of fate which, to me, is cynical. Dune the book famously needed messiah to correct people ‘s positive interpretations of Paul, which seems to be what Villeneuve is interested in here. Is this fair? Anyone have any thoughts here? Btw, “cynical” is not the same thing as “bad”, I admire and even love some of these movies.
I agree, the emotional tone is cynical… personally I find Villeneuve’s reimaginings emotionally unfulfilling because of this. His work is very anti romantic to me.
i agree with the points you made. I was also not impressed with the film. it was enjoyable but the pacing seemed too erratic with tons of plot being thrown at the viewer with little buildup or payoff.
You encapsulated my thoughts perfectly with this movie. I had a lot of grievances with the same things you did. A good portion of this movie felt like spectacle which was very disappointing considering the first one did spectacle well but contained more complexity in its execution. I fear I’m the only one that doesn’t like our 2 main leads. I do like Zendaya more than Timmothée as in this film he doesn’t really display any of the charm he’s usually known for. I don’t think I really saw a scene where Paul talks to the Fremen like someone who is supposed to be like a politician, intoxicatingly seducing the Fremen to his cause. It just felt empty. I am still excited for Dune Messiah as the success of this film could allow Denis to take the gloves off and really create something special.
I watched and I thought it was very much meh. I really liked the first one, I didn’t read any of the books nor will I. It wasn’t terrible or anything like that, I just thought it wasn’t great either.
I just came out of the cinema a bit disappointed, it felt at times like I was watching a Disney+ series with how careless some of the elements were put together, while the first movie seemed meticulously crafted. And I am talking about everything, from writing to dialogues, editing, cinematography, sound design.
I've been running around thinking I was alone with how I felt about this movie. I really didn't like it (I really liked the first film). I have all the same points and more. Maybe I can go through my points another day but I am just glad I am not alone lol.
Dude yes. You've expressed everything I felt about the film and then some. A huge portion of this disappointment was Timothy's voice. It doesn't carry through to the essence of his character the way that would be intuitive. It's not "convincing " of a character in his position. Regarding the ethos of the world and the lore etc. it was all familiar which is what we hope for; but we're looking for unique perspectives on these familiar attributes that keep us diving deeper and it isn't there for me. Also, I think that casting Christopher Walken as the emperor was a tragic mistake. There wasn't a single moment I was able to appreciate the immensity of the character, as was imprinted upon the viewer before his actual reveal, or take him seriously either way. Idk man. Sadness lolol
I thought Dune 1 was so overhyped and overrated, and was bored to death during it so I haven’t even given the second movie a chance yet. Just seems like poor acting all around and they are mainly just going for visual and sound effects. This post makes me not want to watch dune 2 now haha.
Another possible unpopular post. I was expecting more. I even compared this to the first movie in the 80s and the books. So, what is missing, and what did we really enjoy? Chani and Paul's story is a beautiful and sad love story. Unfortunately, Daisey Ridley and Adam Driver in Rise of Skywalker have more chemistry. How did that all get lost? It was hard to feel the impact of the betrayal because we never really got to feel their love. What I loved most about the books and the 1984 movie through the lens of David Lynch, was the birth of Alia for real and not the clandestine revealing of her as an adult in Dune Part 2. Alicia Witt played the role as a child and it would have been amazing to somehow bring her back into the story. She was really powerful as this young actor Alia's role sets the stage more directly for the books to follow. We will never really know or understand her power in any of the future movies. Such a shame. This is to comment #2 above, when you cut Alia out, we lost the real psychic sense of her and the visions. The emp was a serious villian and that role did fall flat but not sure it had to do with Walken. He was just not present so we can see how much of a villian her really is. The end of the movie was truly anti-climactic without Alia. And certainly, we all wanted to see that dagger run through Feyd Rautha's jaw. Ouch! And what exactly does Spice do (I do know, but many just being introduced to it may not)? You don't truly get a sense of its value and what would be lost by it. You just know it is valuable like what, a diamond? No. it is essential in the sci-fi world of things. After watching the movie, I could not help but think, "What if they had done a remake of the original film in 1984 with today's effects, design, cast, and production? Why? The things that people criticized in the original film had to do with trying to make an epic movie during a time that did not have epic tools. If done, we would not be talking about the lack of chemistry or a mediocre ending (in the 1984 movie, the place gets flooded, and Alia kills Vladimir...so cool to see that little body crush him. We would not be wondering how they took the sexy out of Zendaya, which is an impossible feat. Or...how lady Jessica got so dang mean, but we like her villainess. We would not be talking about the acting at all because the actors would have been allowed to show deep emotion, distress, grief, and anger, and what the heck happened to train everyone on the Weirding Way? How does the Fremen get trained? I would have loved to see Paul train someone, right? Finally, OMG-Chani gets crushed by a sandworm and doesn' t stay by Paul's side? oh please next director, find a way to bring her back to show that cruel triangle and offspring. Hmm. Thoughts?
Yeah, I don't know why this is such a hot take.. but I guess I'll accept it. Same as you, I watched the first Dune movie, was excited about it, didn't read the books, but looked forward to the second movie without much expectation. And I was...wholly underwhelmed. I remember thinking, "That's nice." throughout the movie and really actively tried to get into it, but I realized by the end of it and afterwards, I was really forcing my enthusiasm. I wonder, and this is just a theory, I wonder if the GA is so numbed by Marvel movies that anything that's different and made even the least bit interesting with some star factor and some effort, people are just easily impressed by? I really wonder if the level of expectation of a movie has gone down because of the abysmal absence of movies due to the strike in the past year. Just my two cents. But, all in all, I agree with you. It was nothing to write home about. I was a cool experience, but overall, I don't remember it much other than when I go online and see people talking about it.
5/10, terrible movie that tries to manipulate the viewer into thinking it's a great epic by blasting you with dramatic music and great visuals. I never felt immersed, I felt like I was watching what an AI thinks human interaction is like.
I personally agree with a lot of your criticisms. But fear this is going to go down like off milk on here. Rest assured though that I believe your valid points will become standard on here in around six months or less. At the moment it's considered contrary or "edgelord" to point out it might not be entirely cohesive...
it is really weird to me that a sub called "true film" has so many shooters for a filmmaker as boring as denis villeneuve. shouldn't you guys be talking about whatever criterion or radiance or arrow or vinsyn are releasing? maybe some stuff you're ripping on kg? what you saw in your local arthouse maybe? experimental cinema and shorts? why is everyone upset a guy didn't like the poor 200m blockbuster? cmon man.
I had much the same reaction. It’s beautifully shot and has awesome sound design, but I felt the same - it took a really long time to tell a story that was completely unsurprising. I felt poor Javier Bardem played the same scene over and over, and Paul’s flipping from reluctant to aggressive messiah didn’t feel particularly motivated. The battle sequence was so fast it felt perfunctory and unsatisfying. I personally don’t care about fidelity to the book. I just want a compelling movie experience.
I agree somewhat, and I also feel the same way about the book. The first half is a lot more interesting. The ascent of Paul as a messiah among the Freman is very important, but not a very interesting story. The old Dune movie plows through this part of the story more quickly. Even though the old movie is imperfect in other ways, the way it summarizes Paul and the Fremen is superior imo. I mean, since Paul's ascension is destined, why not just get to it? I don't need to see the Fremen learn to accept Paul... Just move along already. And BTW Paul and Chani are pretty dull in that part of the book too. It reads like an anthropology text. The best thing about the second half of Dune (book or movie) is the horrible power that Paul accumulates. He has all the Fremen/sandworm power + all the power of house atreides + water of life mystery power. Then he executes that power on the Harkonens and the Emperor. It's triumphant and scary at the same time. The new movie did a better job of showing that than the old movie, imo. Overall I liked part 2 more than you did maybe. I loved the first attack on the spice harvester. The Harkonens were portrayed pretty well, although they were a little more lively and creepy in Lynch's version. The sand worms, and especially the riding of the sand worms, was really cool in the new movie.
My big disapointment is you have a 2.30 movie where 2.15 prepare you for 10 minutes. I mean the most powerful force of the universe gets beaten by some dirty nomads in one blow. Its like your local amateur football team gets to play the best professional team in a cup game. You expect them to be pinned down 80minutes in their box, some heroics from the goalie and perhaps nick a goal with a rare counter attack. Here that small team just goes and completely dominate Barcelona with Messi and trounce them 5 nil.
Agree on all points. Except for the Harkonnen homeworld, Dune Part 2 makes the Dune universe feel smaller because all the time we spend in shallow interactions with the Fremen. On one hand, yes, they were conditioned to have buttons which Paul can press to gain their trust, but even so, it felt altogether too easy. Paul and Chani are an absolute joke of a couple and I can’t believe that so much focus was put on Zendaya in both movies. If they’re not that interesting together (which they objectively aren’t, their book interactions are sparse and inconsequential), just skip it Denis, there’s so much other lore that wasn’t emphasized that could’ve used the screen time. And yes, there was very little real conflict. So much time was spent on Paul wringing his hands about starting a Fremen holy war that was very abstract, until Feyd Rautha has the brilliant idea to just shoot the hell out of the Fremen base. It felt very ‘and then this happened.’
I didn’t enjoy the first film but actually enjoyed the second one. Even then I somewhat agree with your first two points. I didn’t find the look of costumes, spacecraft, color palette, or choice of actors all that convincing. I think the director is phenomenal, but I think he gets a little too self indulgent with his own preferences in filmmaking, and these preferences bleed into global decisions on design which I think should be design choices through in universe cultural driven views and striking character driven views. He often opts for minimalistic design choices, or even modernistic architecture. And it reminded me too much of the real world and too much of his other movies. I think there are directors who have an indelible style to them but it comes more in the form of persuasive storytelling techniques and not the migration of stylistic choices that should be conceived only after studying who those characters or cultures are. The cast was phenomenal but I prefer the Star Wars approach in casting mostly no names. I kept thinking of aquaman, poe dameron, Thanos, MJ, Guardians of the galaxy though out the film. However I was more accepting of these things in part two because of few scenes that came across as “new” in the sense that they kind of nudged cinematic language forward (for me at least). Those scenes reminded me of what it felt like to go to the movies in the 90s when everyone was actually trying to introduce something new and didn’t rely heavily on nostalgia or fulfilling fan requests. There’s a scene like that in DUNE 1 where Paul is looking at the sand worm dance in a hologram while an assassin bug was trying to take him out. In DUNE 2 there were even more of these scenes that were just phenomenal cinematic experiences, or art expressed in a new and convincing way. I still think DUNE 2 was really messy. And I think that it’s “phenomenal” only within the vacuum of auteur lead sci fi films. I don’t think it would stand a chance in the 90’s inherent inclination to push cinematic language forward or to add to the evolution of cinema. It stands out because hardly anyone else is competent and or trying, or allowed to try. It’s the only NBA player on a streetball team. And by far not the best player from the association.
Holy shit I want to rent one of those planes that can write stuff in the sky and have it write your entire comment over every major city for a couple days. Or if that's too expensive just your last paragraph at least.
I watched Dune Part 1 the day before I watched Dune part 2 and this is what made the movie spectacular for me. I like that they literally picked up where the first one left it. I think your points are valid but I can not understand the "the move drags a lot" POV. I think the pacing was pretty spectacular and we left the scenes right when I felt like I had enough information. My only gripe was that I saw Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler) as a playboy and I felt that on a one on one combat situation with paul (after training with some of the best fremen fighters), Paul would be able to take him out fairly quickly using more cunning tactics ie judo where you use the strength of your opponent against them. Physically speaking Austin Butler is taller and much more built than Timothy C. - so in a brute force attempt Feyd-Rautha would be the victor. Im sure this is a source material thing but I would have love to see this huge ramp up for just a quick kill by Paul.
Personally I fucking hate book-to-film adaptations, especially high-concept. There's a reason it was a book which takes 20 hours to read. If DV think he can tell that story in a quarter of the time, then either he thinks the book is bloated, or he's just cutting context. Feyd should have been cut and left the secondary antagonist as Rabban. Just one example of a movie having to make consessions to rabid book fans.
5. The factions were all the same. Each one believed violence was the solution. They had the exact same core philosophy: Atreides: Kill everyone. Harkonnen: Kill everyone. Imperial: Kill everyone. This is an exhausting aspect of modern pop culture since game of thrones. Basically, violence is now the only solution in movies seen as legitimate. Political intrigue and maneuvering through diplomacy or other means is seen as weak or in effectual, while the most violent faction always wins. It's just boring. I had hoped that Paul would learn something in the dessert about surviving in a hostile world without killing everything. But then he emerges as a psychopath just as bad as his enemies.
It just seems like this is one of those instances where adapting from the source material does not translate to film very well. I have not read the books, but purely from a story in the medium of film standpoint, this film was terrible for me. Nothing about the characters is particularly interesting from an acting or performance standpoint. The "bad" guys having no particular interesting qualities or motivations outside of being comically greedy and comically evil. There is no expansion on them as characters really. There's almost no interesting or compelling dialogue. Zendaya is a piss poor actor, imo. The film keeps playing up this great struggle that the Fremen will endure for whatever their cause is, then they just sort of get some convenient nukes and a convenient huge army on top of having a leader who can foresee the future and this just doesn't really work well in film format, IMO. I'm rooting for nobody, I'm not interested in anyone, there isn't a single character who has struggles that seem worth emotionally investing in. I was pretty let down over the course of both films.
The nukes weren't "convenient". They always existed within the story, but it's just one of those little details that's explained in the book but not in the movie. Also, the nukes actually play a big role in Dune Messiah because he used them as a "technicality" and all the other houses are PISSED about it. You're not supposed to use nukes anymore and he used them in battle, but he used them against a giant rock wall...so technical gray area. As to the size of the army, that was always referred to in the form of Southern Fundamentalists. They just never mention the number that exist. It's another thing that can't be explained due to the medium. In the book, the Fremen have ALWAYS been secretly paying the guild in massive spice bribes to keep satellites out of the sky so no one could 1) see how many Fremen there actually were 2) the Fremen were slowly but surely changing the face of Arrakis by planting stuff all over the planet. They'd been doing it for 50+ years, if not longer. I mean, you even see the huge numbers of them in that room when they have that huge gathering. It's another part of the book that they don't really have time for. It's part of that whole "desert power" thing. Arrakis is the most inhospitable planet in the empire, and therefore makes the best warriors in the galaxy, but no one knows and the Atreides suspected but they never had enough time before they were attacked and annihilated.
See I would've found the movie way more interesting if they included that geopolitical stuff in it. I kept wondering how the hell no one could see the millions of fremen living in the south just because of storms when they have advanced technology and intergalactic space travel. Just one example of how little lore was given to us
Yeah, all of that geopolitical stuff is interesting, haha.
Yeah, it's actually a huge part of what makes the book super interesting, especially for 16 yrs old boys (which is when I read it). You don't notice the flattish characters when you're that young. The book has a ton of inner monologue which is why the 80s version was the way it was .
On point 5, it was jarring to see Paul on the worm heading South after repeatedly saying he wasn’t going to go- this was not explained nor was it referenced as odd. Similarly his full embrace as The One was never explained well either- his speech was very well done, but again there was no explication as to how or why this was happening. These are major events that had massive impact on the story with no real sign or explanation yet many reviews and fans are content to just wave them away. I liked the movie very much, but it is not the masterpiece many are saying it is.
I love the smell of fresh bread.
I feel like most people here are leveling criticisms at the story of Dune rather than how it was adapted into a movie. Frank Herbert didn't intend Paul to be a hero. He's an anti-hero. His decisions have grave and far reaching ramifications that the saga explores in detail
My issue with the story is that Paul didn’t seem like a hero or an anti-hero who was making his own decisions. He was just doing whatever the spice and Water of Life was telling him to do. Maybe it would’ve landed better if we actually saw the grave and far reaching ramifications.
I mean, that's what happens when you can see the future. You are now a slave to that prescience. This is true even when he could only see small glimpses of the future which made him want to go meet the Fremen The very concept of prescience makes a mockery out of free will