The new Dune movies (part 1, and now part 2!)

[Blue3]

Any thoughts about part 1 of the new Dune movie, released today?

[Torrain]

Saw it tonight.

Atmosphere and world building was phenomenal. Truly felt transported to somewhere alien, and always appreciate Villeneuve’s visual touch.

Not 100% sold on the plot, and wasn’t totally onboard with Chalamet’s approach. Oscar Isaac was worth the price of admission alone though.

[Blair]

It's very good- I just hope that there's the commitment to do the full story (and the what 6 follow on books?) justice.

I wondered before if a TV series would have done it better but the majesty of the shots & the world made clear it needed to be on the big screen.

[Blue3]

I agree with the above.

The atmosphere, music, scenery, and character work were great. Plot and worldbuilding could have had a little more in my opinion, but still great, just made it stop short of phenomenal.

Definitely a cinematic experience.

The Bene Gesserit were so creepy, what the Sith should have been.

[Donerail]

It's very good- I just hope that there's the commitment to do the full story (and the what 6 follow on books?) justice.

I ... really don't think 4-6, in particular, are suitable for that kind of treatment. But you could squeeze a couple more films out of the material.

[Blue3]

God-Emperor of Dune is the best conclusion.

[Torrain]

God-Emperor of Dune is the best conclusion.

You have to admire Herbert for the sheer confidence the guy had.

The man won a Hugo award for Dune, and then took the saga in such a wild direction that it ends up being about an immortal human/sandworm hybrid with little t-Rex arms, and his machinations to preserve the human race by organising a series of coups against his own dictatorship.

[RI]

Part 2 greenlit for October 2023!

[Donerail]

⊃∪∩⪽ TWO ⊃∪∩⪽ TWO ⊃∪∩⪽ TWO

[Progressive Pessimist]

I sort of like the original David Lynch 'Dune,' sort of, so I'm looking forward to watching it, especially since it's been getting great reviews so far. But Timothee Chalamet being the lead has dampened my enthusiasm a little, I must admit. I don't know, something about the guy has always bothered me.

But Denis Villeneuve directing it might make up for that. I've liked, or loved, all of his films (with the exception of 'Prisoners') and he has especially demonstrated a real knack for science-fiction-'Blade Runner 2049' is among my favorite movies ever, and I even prefer it over the original 'Blade Runner' which I still absolutely love.

[Meclazine for Israel]

That was phenomenal.

I liked the lead guy. He was in 'The King' and is heading for stardom.

Because I have not read the book, the action parts of the movie where captivating.

Overall, 10/10 for the sci-fi environment. It was top quality cinematography start to finish.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In some instances, Villeneuve almost seemed to take visual inspiration from the Lynch version, but maybe this was also a result of both directors' prediliction for dark, weird, and alien scenarios. Then again, Villeneuve had already shown an interest in updating and expanding a previous director' work with Blade Runner.

Structurally, there are probably only few other movies which are set up as a two-parter that overtly (although Villeneuve has already stated that he hopes to make it a trilogy with an adaptation of Dune Messiah.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I sort of like the original David Lynch 'Dune,' sort of, so I'm looking forward to watching it, especially since it's been getting great reviews so far. But Timothee Chalamet being the lead has dampened my enthusiasm a little, I must admit. I don't know, something about the guy has always bothered me.

It's Paul Atreides. I think casting an actor some people see as very attractive in a fey sort of way and other people see as a creepy-looking weirdo was a great choice, especially given that Chalamet appears to be deliberately pulling from both sides of that image at once. I hope they don't recast him if/when they get around to adapting Dune Messiah; there aren't many somewhat-older actors (maybe Eddie Redmayne doing a MUCH more toned-down version of his Jupiter Ascending performance?) who could achieve the same effect.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I sort of like the original David Lynch 'Dune,' sort of, so I'm looking forward to watching it, especially since it's been getting great reviews so far. But Timothee Chalamet being the lead has dampened my enthusiasm a little, I must admit. I don't know, something about the guy has always bothered me.

It's Paul Atreides. I think casting an actor some people see as very attractive in a fey sort of way and other people see as a creepy-looking weirdo was a great choice, especially given that Chalamet appears to be deliberately pulling from both sides of that image at once. I hope they don't recast him if/when they get around to adapting Dune Messiah; there aren't many somewhat-older actors (maybe Eddie Redmayne doing a MUCH more toned-down version of his Jupiter Ascending performance?) who could achieve the same effect.

The second novel is only 12 years later. When you factor in time involved in production + makeup and acting, I don't think we have to worry about TC being recast.

[Meclazine for Israel]

It was an interesting story.

I cannot help but feel that the story is inspired by a young English guys' journey to Algeria or North African oil fields only to find the French are exploiting them and plan to come back and do more of the same. Or visa-versa.

The people indigenous to the planet have a romantic belief system with mannerisms similar to the Muslim population of Algeria or Mauritania. They look and feel like touregs.

Anyone who visits remote North Africa for work will experience a similar culture shock to the movie.

It's a dangerous part of the world.

[Torrain]

Part 2 greenlit for October 2023!

The Spice Sequels Must Flow!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Biblical.


(Will likely have something of substance, incl. soft criticism, at a later date)

[beaver2.0]

I was disappointed by the lack of pugs.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Honestly rather disappointing. Felt like a string of disconnected plot points framed by a few pointless action set pieces. Very little characterisation or even narrative. Book fans will probably like it as they can fill in the blanks themselves but as a standalone film it’s just not very interesting.

[John Dule]

Saw this today. While many of my complaints from the book carry over (the emotionally distant characters, the stiff dialogue, and the deluge of unpronounceable sci-fi jargon), I was absolutely craving the opportunity to be transported as far away from law school as possible for a few hours, and this did the trick. Everything about the look of the movie is incredible, from the set design to the costumes to the endlessly innovative technology. As a film it's decent, but as an adaptation of this particular book it's perfect. I don't imagine big fans of the series will have much to quibble about. As for general audiences, this probably won't be too approachable for them-- but anyone who enjoys immersing themselves in well-imagined fictional worlds will surely get something out of it.

[THG]

I had no intention of seeing this, but I might check it out now due to the hype around it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I had no intention of seeing this, but I might check it out now due to the hype around it.

*Dune

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Biblical.


(Will likely have something of substance, incl. soft criticism, at a later date)

My Complaints:
-The period from the beginning of the film to the invasion of Arrakis by the Harkonnens and the Sardaukar felt rushed, with jumps in time and space pushing us ever forward without warning.
-Pursuant to the above, Thufir Hawat seems present in only two scenes. Furthermore, it appears he was in a third scene with Piter DeVries, which was cut. This is a pity, since Hawat's interactions with the Harkonnens are a subtle but impotant part of the latter half of the book.
-I wasn't sure how I felt about Dellan Skarsgaard's Baron Harkonnen the first time through, though I enjoyed him much more on second viewing. I keep repeating "My spice. My Arrakis. My Duuuuune."
-Some of Paul's interactions with the male supporting cast--Thufir Hawat, Gurney Halleck--didn't feel to me entirely authentic.
-The CGI was not perfect. Maybe we are spoiled, but in scenes with some of the spice harvesting equipment and the sandworms, I was not entirely convinced, and got slight Attack of the Clones vibes.

My Worries:
-On first viewing, the lack of humor throughout much of the movie--and the intensity of despair and hopelessness throughout much of the second half--while consistent with the book, has me concerned that, should Dune as a series ever be adapted (say, a trilogy with Messiah occupying the last third), it will be very hard to binge or marathon the way we do with, say, Lord of the Rings. This concern was not as present the second time I watched the movie, though I can't say it was entirely allayed.
-Similarly, while Hans Zimmer's score is magnificent, it is also palpably unpleasant. I kept expecting something as majestic as the Prince of Egypt soundtrack as our heroes surveyed the desert, but instead the audience is trapped in this milieu of dissonant wailing. (Which is not to denigrate the cultures from which Zimmer drew the score--it is amazing, but doesn't really constitute easy listening)
-I was concerned, a day or two after watching, that there might have not been enough exposition. On second watching, this concern disappeared. Nevertheless, someone on twitter noticed that the movie neglected to mention that Jessica bore Leto a son out of love for him, a detail that I agree would have enhanced the movie.

What I Loved:
That said, I was in awe of the film, and am in no way averse to seeing it again. I already rewatched it once, and it inspired my Halloween (Eve) costume, a sloppy Fremen portrayal (a white dude in fake tac gear and a shemagh). This is in contrast to Joker, which I rated as objectively good, but unenjoyable, and which I walked away from never really intending to watch a second time. I enoyed much of the casting, most of the visuals, and a lot of the soundtrack. It was a faithful adaptation that cut corners on the book where necessary. The portrayals of Geidi Prime and Salusa Secundus were brief but enthralling.

Timothee Chalamet's portrayal of Paul in his encounter with the Spice-induced visions of his destiny were amazing. And, while the many vision flashes may have been "unnecessary", the Biblical imagery--a robed woman, framed by desert and sunlight, her hands bathed in blood--felt reminiscent of Passion of the Christ and lent a certain air of mystery (emphasis on the "myst") and weight to the plot's progression and Paul's internal journey.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My Worries:
-I was concerned, a day or two after watching, that there might have not been enough exposition. On second watching, this concern disappeared. Nevertheless, someone on twitter noticed that the movie neglected to mention that Jessica bore Leto a son out of love for him, a detail that I agree would have enhanced the movie.

One of the things Lynch's Dune is regularly derided for is its excessive use of voiceover exposition, so I imagine Villeneuve tried to minimise its use. Still, you'd think that particular plot point could be conveyed by dialogue, presumably between the Lady Jessica and Reverend Mother Mohiam.

[ProudModerate2]

Just saw Dune Part 1.
Enjoyed it immensely. Looking forward to seeing Part 2, which will be released in about 3 months (November 3, 2023).

PS: I have on DVD the original movie from 1984, which was also good.