I liked it well enough, probably a 4/5. But it's fascinating to me how almost 3 hours can feel so rushed. Many things were happening too fast and too easy. Paul's mom needed about 2 scenes to become Mother Mary to his Jesus. It's almost as if they could predict the future.
I still think the first one is a slug that should've been shorter, but now I respect it a little bit more because it laid the ground for what has to be the best sci-fi/fantasy epic since Fury Road
Finally, I get the appeal of Dune. The spirituality, the politics, the conflict, the worms... everything feels so vivid. It takes the principles and beliefs of the characters seriously so it makes you understand them and even feel sorry for some. It's amazing to watch a Hollywood movie that for better or worse acknowledge that religion is important.
Talking about the technical aspect is redundant; it's beautiful to watch and listen. Villeneuve is a craftsman on the level of Nolan or Scott.
I don't know where the story goes from here, but even if they drop the ball with Messiah, I believe this will remain an achievement on its own (don't care about Batman Begins, love The Dark Knight and hate The Dark Knight Rises... it happens).
Somebody has to make a 4 hour edit that includes the essential elements of Part One. I can imagine it having a similar pace to classic epics like Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur and (obviously!) Lawrence of Arabia.
With the conflict in Gaza boiling over in the news, Dune Part Two of course takes on a certain "current affairs" resonance, but obviously, this was going on even when the original book came out in 1965. Denis Villeneuve didn't set forth to discuss that particular piece of the Middle East's history (not at the pace such movies are made), but he DID set out to make a Dune adaptation for our time, and one grounded in Frank Herbert's actual themes. The old joke, of course, is less aware audiences thinking Dune is a Star Wars riff, but I think Villeneuve amplifies just how Herbert was making an anti-Star Wars, or rather, an anti-Hero's Journey. He was on record saying he hated Campbell's reductive opinion of story-telling, and when you compare Dune to its closest surface analog, Star Wars, which is BLATANTLY working from Campbell's formula, you'll see what I mean. It's not that Paul doesn't want to answer the hero's call - this he fulfills willingly - it's that he refuses the call to become a TYRANT. The character changes made to Chani are the overt voice of this idea, convinced that all this Messiah business is propaganda and that the concept of a Messiah is dangerous and radicalizing (providing the most humor this time around is Javier Bardem's Stilgar, but he's the zealot who brings this idea out the best). Indeed, the "Chosen One" narrative is explicitly propaganda in the book and film, an artificial construct designed to rule through religious fervor. Ultimately, Paul does have to answer the call and we're supposed to take a step back. He's no longer the hero our Campbell/Hollywood-trained minds made him out to be. The novel's purists will hate the changes made (although I think what they did with Alia was clever and made the story more immediate than spreading events over years, but am still not sure why changes were made to the final fight), but I think they're made to speak to the moment (good), or to set up a third chapter (not so good, but let's unpack that). If there is to be a Part Three, which is certain given this one's reception, it will likely have elements of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune (why else secretly cast an adult Alia?), and Part Two's changes do seem to prepare the way for elements in those books in a way the original novel didn't. It does also mean that the film ends with a lack of closure, just like Part One did. Still, these are immaculately constructed films, making some dense material understandable and even, judging from the current meme-frenzy, iconic.
I was sure that the second part would be at the same high level, and it was. The same peaceful and confident storytelling while featuring fast-paced, large-scale fight scenes.
The three most important characters here:
1) Zendaya as Chani - from beginning to end of the movie, her emotions reflect the flow of the story
2) Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides - his development as a leader of the Fremen
3) Sandworms - both small and large ones
Just like part 1, movie looks and sounds amazing. Saw the first one at home but really wanted to see this one at the cinema. But just like the first one, left me mostly cold with a high mumbo jumbo story line that makes no sense at various points.
My friend who knows the books filled in some gaps but it really didn't grip me and didn't care about any of the characters.
It's a quality film worthy of a Best Picture nomination, but I did have plenty of quibbles. If I were to review the film in three words, I'd just say "TOO MUCH ZENDAYA." She had no chemistry with Chalamet and every time she was on screen, I felt like I was watching a kids movie. Terrible choice of actress. And so many heavyweight actors are wasted in small or even miscast roles. For instance, Christopher Walken didn't suit his part. Walken needs a character where he can smile and be a bit devilish, instead of just being dour and old. And I'm never excited by what Chalamet does and am mystified by his superstardom. However, I will admit he came through better than expected at the end when he becomes the messiah and has to turn stentorian and powerful.
Florence Pugh's character was barely developed, and she's a dull actress whom I don't even find attractive. I wish she and Lea Seydoux had switched parts. But with the way the film was scripted, Chalamet being paired up with Pugh at the end just seemed totally random and out of the blue. And Austin Butler was out of his depth — I didn't like him at all. His only inspiration seemed to be Pennywise from "It." Dig deeper.
I guess it's tough to do something with a story where you're in sand the whole time, but the film wasn't all that visually striking by effects-blockbuster standards. Maybe the details of the ships could have been dwelled upon more, or maybe Paul's spice-driven hallucinations could have been more prominent and vivid. The sequences on the B&W planet were more interesting but, there, I kept wrinkling my nose at those giant crowd scenes where the flailing people were so obviously computer creations.
I think the film was hurt by straining to be PG-13. The violence was so avoided and non-explicit that it had little dramatic impact. All these people dying with a single stroke of a bloodless sword. *Swoosh*. He's done. Next.
I can't recall the first part in enough exacting detail to micro-compare my reactions to the two parts. It does seem like the first part wasn't so relentlessly battle-heavy. Fight scenes usually make my attention wander. But I didn't think the film felt overlong, despite its hefty duration.
Strange to see
Almond Taylor-Joy
pop in for just one quick scene. I assume they're planning for a third part where she stars.
I'm really looking forward to Dune: Part Two in 2024! The first part was visually stunning and had a great storyline. I can't wait to see how the next installment continues the epic saga. Also, while we're on the topic of great entertainment, have you guys heard of Omegle?
A disappointment in some major parts. Everything that was problematic in the first one is only getting worse in this one: the pacing, the costumes, the adaptation from the book but most crucially the lack of charisma of Chalamet.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 14 of 14
Darth Destroyer
A visual spectacle!!! And just such an amazing cast!CarcamanoFerreto
Instant Certified Classic.kanoba
Lisan al-Gaib!Minamu
I liked it well enough, probably a 4/5. But it's fascinating to me how almost 3 hours can feel so rushed. Many things were happening too fast and too easy. Paul's mom needed about 2 scenes to become Mother Mary to his Jesus. It's almost as if they could predict the future.baraka92
I still think the first one is a slug that should've been shorter, but now I respect it a little bit more because it laid the ground for what has to be the best sci-fi/fantasy epic since Fury RoadFinally, I get the appeal of Dune. The spirituality, the politics, the conflict, the worms... everything feels so vivid. It takes the principles and beliefs of the characters seriously so it makes you understand them and even feel sorry for some. It's amazing to watch a Hollywood movie that for better or worse acknowledge that religion is important.
Talking about the technical aspect is redundant; it's beautiful to watch and listen. Villeneuve is a craftsman on the level of Nolan or Scott.
I don't know where the story goes from here, but even if they drop the ball with Messiah, I believe this will remain an achievement on its own (don't care about Batman Begins, love The Dark Knight and hate The Dark Knight Rises... it happens).
Somebody has to make a 4 hour edit that includes the essential elements of Part One. I can imagine it having a similar pace to classic epics like Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur and (obviously!) Lawrence of Arabia.
Anyway... Go watch it now!
Siskoid
With the conflict in Gaza boiling over in the news, Dune Part Two of course takes on a certain "current affairs" resonance, but obviously, this was going on even when the original book came out in 1965. Denis Villeneuve didn't set forth to discuss that particular piece of the Middle East's history (not at the pace such movies are made), but he DID set out to make a Dune adaptation for our time, and one grounded in Frank Herbert's actual themes. The old joke, of course, is less aware audiences thinking Dune is a Star Wars riff, but I think Villeneuve amplifies just how Herbert was making an anti-Star Wars, or rather, an anti-Hero's Journey. He was on record saying he hated Campbell's reductive opinion of story-telling, and when you compare Dune to its closest surface analog, Star Wars, which is BLATANTLY working from Campbell's formula, you'll see what I mean. It's not that Paul doesn't want to answer the hero's call - this he fulfills willingly - it's that he refuses the call to become a TYRANT. The character changes made to Chani are the overt voice of this idea, convinced that all this Messiah business is propaganda and that the concept of a Messiah is dangerous and radicalizing (providing the most humor this time around is Javier Bardem's Stilgar, but he's the zealot who brings this idea out the best). Indeed, the "Chosen One" narrative is explicitly propaganda in the book and film, an artificial construct designed to rule through religious fervor. Ultimately, Paul does have to answer the call and we're supposed to take a step back. He's no longer the hero our Campbell/Hollywood-trained minds made him out to be. The novel's purists will hate the changes made (although I think what they did with Alia was clever and made the story more immediate than spreading events over years, but am still not sure why changes were made to the final fight), but I think they're made to speak to the moment (good), or to set up a third chapter (not so good, but let's unpack that). If there is to be a Part Three, which is certain given this one's reception, it will likely have elements of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune (why else secretly cast an adult Alia?), and Part Two's changes do seem to prepare the way for elements in those books in a way the original novel didn't. It does also mean that the film ends with a lack of closure, just like Part One did. Still, these are immaculately constructed films, making some dense material understandable and even, judging from the current meme-frenzy, iconic.CodeV
I was sure that the second part would be at the same high level, and it was. The same peaceful and confident storytelling while featuring fast-paced, large-scale fight scenes.The three most important characters here:
1) Zendaya as Chani - from beginning to end of the movie, her emotions reflect the flow of the story
2) Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides - his development as a leader of the Fremen
3) Sandworms - both small and large ones
boulderman
Great cinematic experience. Preferred it slightly to the first and looking forward to the next oneEarring72
Just like part 1, movie looks and sounds amazing. Saw the first one at home but really wanted to see this one at the cinema. But just like the first one, left me mostly cold with a high mumbo jumbo story line that makes no sense at various points.My friend who knows the books filled in some gaps but it really didn't grip me and didn't care about any of the characters.
Still ok, but long, watch. Impressive cast!!!!
Ebbywebby
It's a quality film worthy of a Best Picture nomination, but I did have plenty of quibbles. If I were to review the film in three words, I'd just say "TOO MUCH ZENDAYA." She had no chemistry with Chalamet and every time she was on screen, I felt like I was watching a kids movie. Terrible choice of actress. And so many heavyweight actors are wasted in small or even miscast roles. For instance, Christopher Walken didn't suit his part. Walken needs a character where he can smile and be a bit devilish, instead of just being dour and old. And I'm never excited by what Chalamet does and am mystified by his superstardom. However, I will admit he came through better than expected at the end when he becomes the messiah and has to turn stentorian and powerful.Florence Pugh's character was barely developed, and she's a dull actress whom I don't even find attractive. I wish she and Lea Seydoux had switched parts. But with the way the film was scripted, Chalamet being paired up with Pugh at the end just seemed totally random and out of the blue. And Austin Butler was out of his depth — I didn't like him at all. His only inspiration seemed to be Pennywise from "It." Dig deeper.
I guess it's tough to do something with a story where you're in sand the whole time, but the film wasn't all that visually striking by effects-blockbuster standards. Maybe the details of the ships could have been dwelled upon more, or maybe Paul's spice-driven hallucinations could have been more prominent and vivid. The sequences on the B&W planet were more interesting but, there, I kept wrinkling my nose at those giant crowd scenes where the flailing people were so obviously computer creations.
I think the film was hurt by straining to be PG-13. The violence was so avoided and non-explicit that it had little dramatic impact. All these people dying with a single stroke of a bloodless sword. *Swoosh*. He's done. Next.
I can't recall the first part in enough exacting detail to micro-compare my reactions to the two parts. It does seem like the first part wasn't so relentlessly battle-heavy. Fight scenes usually make my attention wander. But I didn't think the film felt overlong, despite its hefty duration.
Strange to see
RichardWilliam
I'm really looking forward to Dune: Part Two in 2024! The first part was visually stunning and had a great storyline. I can't wait to see how the next installment continues the epic saga. Also, while we're on the topic of great entertainment, have you guys heard of Omegle?BadFluffy
A disappointment in some major parts. Everything that was problematic in the first one is only getting worse in this one: the pacing, the costumes, the adaptation from the book but most crucially the lack of charisma of Chalamet.Adherb66
100%Cthulhu1
My favourite part is...