When watching movies, I always try to differentiate between my personal enjoyment and the inherent merits of the movies. There are a lot of bad movies, which I totally and thoroughly enjoy watching, and some really great movies, which I don’t enjoy that much, but still can respect/appreciate.
With this prelude, I totally do not get the positive reactions to Denis Villeneuve’s Dune movies. At the time I am writing this question, part two has 94% critique and 95% audience score at Rotten Tomatoes, 9.0 at IMDB.
In my opinion, Dune 1 and Dune 2 have obviously high production values and good special effects. What I do not like is the acting, the pacing, the total flat/simple characters and the whole narration, which is for me a trivial love story between Chani and Paul, plus becoming a leader and get some revenge. I could simply replace the ‘Dune’ theme with a standard war theme and a few tribes, and I would have exactly the same movie. Also the battle scenes at the end of part 2, they are for me totally cookie cutter war movie/battle aesthetics. (Total waste: There are big Sandworms after all, and combat with personal shields etc.).
My question is, especially if you very much enjoyed watching the Dune movies:
- Why did you personally enjoy the movie?
- Do you think this movies have some inherent merits?
- How do you like the acting/plot/pacing?
The “cookie cutter” parts of dune are only that because everyone has copied dune since the books came out.
That’s like saying Houdinis’ tricks were cookie cutter traps.
Lord of the rings comes out
“Oh look, another movie about elves and dwarves.”
Lol exactly
I fear the Greeks around two thousands years back already had the cookies which inspired Frank Herbert. ;-)
Ha, true true. Like music, how you put the notes together is what matters. Dune put them together in an inspiring way.
Just for clarification, so you enjoy Villeneuve’s Dune movies?
I do. I haven’t seen the second yet though. But I imagine I’ll enjoy it more than the first just because I remember that section of the story less. Part One is tough since it’s the part that everyone knows more and has been repeated more often in culture. Also, it just kinda… ends.
Your description of the issues sounds just like the book. Which I also hated.
It is a long time ago, when I read the books, and I liked, that they where very political and changed the narrator often (if I remember correctly). To say, I kept them in good memory w/o the urge of reading them ever again. ;-)
The books are full of intrigue, subtle plots and other plots.
It’s a book that when read a second time you come away with an entirely new experience armed with the knowledge (and familiarity) of the first read.
Dune 1 (haven’t seen part 2 yet) just captures the feel of all the forces, pressures and consequences of the book.
It goes for a “show don’t tell” kind of storytelling that really works to get a feel for it.
Not that the works merit direct comparison since they’re so different it harkens to the Lord of the Ring trilogy where you don’t get a lot of the details of the book but you get the heart of the story, world, lore and relationships of the people.
Paul is reserved, intrigued by Chani and his visions.
Jessica acts out of love over duty
The Duke brings his family to a place of what he expects to be dangerous but is also powerful and the political maneuver putting them there was airtight. Hence his duty to go, his worry for the family, the importance of being there.
All the players, all the parties, all the pressures are there. The only ones not focused on, at least in the first, is the guild which fits what was shown so far anyway.
I read Dune years ago now and have only seen part 1. I may misremember the book some and that may be affecting my personal feelings of it but I’ll give my input nonetheless.
Pretty much, I feel Villeneuve and his team have done the most faithful depiction of the first part of the book to date, in terms of matching mood and description of the spaces, as well as the behaviors exhibited by characters. the scenes that really drove this home for me were the hunter seeker in Paul’s chamber and Jessica’s interaction with Shadout Mapes. Unfortunately much of the relevant exposition which explains the details of the situation are missing, since they’re internal monologues of Paul and Jessica.
I can’t blame Chalamet for his acting here. Paul shows Jack shit in the books and you mostly get what he’s thinking and feeling, once again, from his thoughts. In this case, Chalamet is being pretty faithful to Paul’s demeanor in the books - whether he means to or not. I do remember him being alittle more expressive in the second part of the book, so it’ll be interesting for me to see if that comes across in part 2.
TL;DR: Dune is a novel packed full of culture, intrigue, and philosophy, and Denis tosses basically all of that out the window in favour of style and atmosphere.
As a massive Dune fan who has also only seen part 1, I’m very conflicted. It’s obviously the most faithful adaptation but that’s a pretty low bar to set. There are so many little changes from the novel that it’s hard for me not to feel Denis doesn’t really get Dune. I also have tons of small complaints with the script just in a general sense, weird moments that are distracting and pointless even ignoring their relation to the novel.
My biggest issue with the script is that it feels like Denis is focused on creating this super epic atmosphere. We have many beautiful shots of space ships or terrain accompanied by booming music. It’s cool, but it feels like a massive waste when the movie also has rushed scenes that could have been so easily adapted to film.
For example Stilgar meeting Leto. In the movie, Stilgar walks in, Leto says something along the lines of “I respect you” and Stilgar immediately spits on the ground to indicate his respect for Leto.
In the novel that scene has Duncan explaining how he tried to save a dying fremen but wasn’t able to and that the fremen gave him his crysknife before he died. Stilgar then dramatically interrupts saying something like “Do not unsheath that knife!”. What follows is an interaction between Stilgar and Leto where Leto deftly shows his respect to Fremen and their culture without capitulating or showing weakness. Only then does Stilgar spit on the ground giving us the dramatic scene where Duncan has to quickly intervene to prevent violence.
I don’t think I’m doing a great job of making my case but the difference to me is stark. The book uses this one scene to feed the reader knowledge about Leto, Stilgar, Duncan, and the fremen. But the movie rushes the scene and we learn next to nothing.
I could go on but I’m just ranting at this point. Dune is a novel packed full of culture, intrigue, and philosophy, and Denis tosses basically all of that out the window in favour of style and atmosphere.
The tropes it’s drawing on are universal:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
Wtf you didn’t like the acting?
I would agree the pacing is a little bit too fast at the end of part 2, but especially the first and the beginning of the second are perfectly paced…
The shots are great. And it looks very good. And that’s not only because of the production value… Also the camera and scenery is top notch. Don’t know when I saw such a good looking movie the last time.
The replacement of the dune theme is a dumb argument. You could say that about any movie. And also it’s not true. You get topics about ecology, economics, choice, power structures, religious fanatism in a very interesting way.
Personally I liked the first one better than the second one, mostly because of the pacing issues at the end… I would have been ok with having another hour of runtime :) also some political and economic stuff was cut, which I would have liked to see… Instead they go all in on the fundamentalism… But ok
I’m not a huge fan of the setting btw… I don’t really like this feudal-sci-fi mix, because it leads to ridiculous situations (comes with a spaceship to the planet and is immediately taken hostage by sword fighters?). Still the movie can compensate with all the other stuff it does and make it somewhat believable. Also I can see over some plot holes if the rest is good. I’m not someone who complaines that the eagles could have flown frodo to mount doom either.
I really don’t know what you have against the acting, though… They have to transport some ridiculous stuff and they do a great job.
Have no particular opinion on the characters… I would have liked to see some more screen time from some of them… But I guess that comes down to the additional hour, I would have loved. Think they were what they needed to be. Nothing more nothing less.
