DUNE: PART TWO - Movie Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 05. 2024
- Website: www.deepfocuslens.com
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/deepfocuslens...
Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens
Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens
Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens
Email me: deepfocuslens@gmail.com - Krátké a kreslené filmy
On my first view of Dune 1, I liked it, but was quite disappointed; but, on the second viewing, EVERYTHING clicked. Now I’ve seen it 4 times and can’t get enough of it.
Can you explain why? I felt empty after watching it.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Dune 1 laid the groud work and took its time. Dune 2 is where most of the stuff comes to a head. Part 3 will hopefully conclude beautifully the Paul arc without butchering too much the off the wall stuff in FHerbert's books that really ramp up in the third book.
@@azmodanpcWait, there's a 3rd film planned? Does 2 take us through the end of the first Dune book?
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Yup, the second book is more of a coda to the first one (Dune part 1 and 2 cover all of the first book pretty faithfully), Frank Herbert wrote parts of Dune Messiah (second book of Dune) before parts of the first one were even finished. He later regretted that the two books weren't seen as one, since in Dune Messiah we really conclude Paul's arc and the stuff in this book really nail all the points that did not come across really well in the first book (that was confused with a savior / chosen one /hero's journey even back then). Denis really wants to hammer home the central theme of dangerous mesianic leaders and its implications with the third movie that I hope will include a little bit of the third book (the second one is smaller in size and has less stuff going on but its implications are bigger imho).
@@azmodanpc Ok thanks. I read the first book many years ago and stopped there.
I have to disagree about Sting being creepy as Feyd, i found him hilarious, to the way he grins, his stupid underwear and the "I will kill him!' just a goofy character but memorable i guess
Envious much?
Agreed, It was on the camp side of an already quirky Lynch film.
@@DucatiKozak I liked how he said "I will kill him!" like 3 times too many and David left it in the final cut.
Exactly Sting seems like a cartoon and Austin seems like a genuine blood thirsty psycho
He's an angry q ball.@@BladeRunnerJP11
Both movies… at their, core are amazing. They are a visually stunning exposition bordering on reprisal of a time that once was. I value this person’s opinion. A very eloquent review, I must say, but as someone exploring Dune in any form for the first time, I was blown away. The visuals, the acting, the score, the cinematography… all of it… culminates in a concoction reminiscent of what a blockbuster used to be. Excellent review though… it was very smart, thought out and well spoken.
Maggie always makes a good argument for her position, even if it's based on purely aesthetic reasoning.
Sorry but there is NOTHING unsettling or interesting about Sting - plus his character has - what - 3 or 4 scenes amounting to around 4 mins in Lynch's film.
Yeah, I don't get this take at all. Just because is memorable simply because it is terribly done, doesnt mean it's noteworthy.
Austin killed it. Seeing it again asap
Even when I disagree with you I always appreciate how clear you express your viewpoints, even more so than reviewers I do agree with.
The thing I most strongly disagree with you on is Austin.'s performance. As someone that watches Masters of the Air each week, when I came home the night after seeing Dune 2 to watch the newest episode, it only highlighted to me even more how impressive he was as Feyd. I couldn't shake that it's the same actor.
Christopher Walken was one of my few nitpicks. I love his old work and the man himself, but he was terribly miscast as the Emperor. He's become a caricature of himself and he's at a point where he will not strive to be anything more than that. Brian Cox or Jonathan Pryce would've been a better fit.
Butler is a good character actor (except for Masters of Air, which is too safe and saccharine for me to watch). The problem with him in Dune 2 has nothing to do with his acting but in the way the character was written. He was underutilized and underdeveloped, which made him out to be a bit of a caricature.
Cox would have been interesting
or Terrance Stamp@@Saurkraut_6
as someone who doesnt know walken's prior work, he's ok in this one i guess
@@cptpepper7731 For someone like me who have not read the books, I found that his theatrical approached worked, because he came off as alien in a way that you could imagine a human being 8000 years into the future could be. He even did some of his acting through the voice, which seems silly that such a thing would be remarkable, though it is when most of the actors just sound typically Hollywood, or icons like Walken and Skarsgård that just sound like themselves.
Assuming the 3rd film is made, Walken and Pugh will have MUCH more to do
walken is 80, so better get quick at shooting it
the emperor doesn't appear in dune messiah.
@610vegas His daughter does, so surely they'll find a way to shoehorn Walken in, if only in flashbacks
i don’t think walken will appear
@@jackdriscoll8387 At this point CGI actors have become an accepted reality so even if he passes they can still put him in. Hopefully better than Carrie Fisher.
Sting was more interesting than Austin Butler? I have no response to that. lol
Right? lol WTF.
Right! How can u take her seriously after that lol
Just got out of the theater for Dune part two, and I’m being as real as real can get when I tell you this is the truest spirit of science fiction that I have ever witnessed.
I can’t believe what this director has pulled off and it is clearly a mixture of his ultimate passion and total genius as a filmmaker. This was more than watching a movie, it was from the soul. It was like a spiritual/religious experience for me and a new bar has been set. I cannot believe what I just saw.
WORD
Absolutely a religious experience, hell yeah.
cornball
Cornball is not bad. The world needs more cornball these days. Let the cornfields grow tall and spooky. @@Krypt123456
Haha you lost me at Sting
Agree with some of your criticisms. Hard disagree with Austin Butler though. He’s the best part of the film.
The gladiator black and white was amazing.
I dunno... It kinda seems like you have a bit of an axe to grind with these new Dune films because you have some sentimental feelings for the original Lynch film.
I do agree with your opinion of that older film but these new movie are still good. Really good. I think you're being a little hard on them.
Not Sting over Austin Butler...
Could not disagree more about Austin Butler, everything you’re saying he *didn’t* do I felt like he did in spades.
I think very few people will agree with Maggie on this one.
Haven't seen the film yet but just from the few clips I've seen of him as Feyd-Rautha he was unrecognizable. I was worried he was gonna sound like Elvis but nope totally transformed into the character.
He was psychotic in the movie. 😮
She's hating for the sake of it
@@_jy9 Typical DV fanboy response
Thank you for this review. So far I’ve only seen reviewers raving about how this is “the greatest science fiction movie ever made”. I found it very good but I also had issues with the 3rd act feeling rushed and oddly enough there was way too much “tell” than “show”, but this was also true for part 1 imo.
greatest sci fi movie ever made? Are these people taking the piss??
To be fair the conclusion in the novel feels a bit rushed as well.
I've noticed a very strong difference in opinion among my friends on these flicks. Those who have read the books (myself included) really enjoy them while those who didn't thought they were lagging or somewhat empty.
The difficulty of adapting this book rears its head. The anti messianic message gets lost if you don't see the whole arc of Paul. Like watching Lawrence of Arabia and stopping at the middle mark.
Grew up on Dune 84. Read the book once for college english class. Really enjoyed dune pt1 and 2. World building was amazing.
I’ve read and re-read the books and the first movie was bland and disappointing to me. All the weird and mind expansive ideas are left out, making the movie feel empty and superficial. This is supposed to be the future and humans are supposed to be genetically bred mental computer assassins, fighting over a life sustaining drug that gives you visions from the excrement of a giant worm. This is a movie for the current culture minute. I wanted to enjoy it and love it but I was very dissatisfied.I liked the score and cinematography though.
Yeah I think more on the mind-expansions stuff would have been cool.@@fun-with-purpose1436
Never read the books and I loved all the weirdness and epicness of the movie
Hard disagree but that is the fun of opinions
Life Of Brian in space
I walked out thinking of Life Of Brian, I’m so glad I’m not the only one.
There was a spaceship in life of Brian.
That’s actually a pretty good description though
@@yarsivad000.5
Oh you lucky bastard! 🛸
🤣🤣
Your insights always impress me, thanks ❤ love your reviews
I enjoyed Austin Butler's performance much more than Zendaya's squinting. It was weak
I’m so glad I found your channel. Your critiques are always so well thought out. Of course it’s a well made film with the visual wow factor but I felt the exact same way about the lack of emotional core with the characters
I loved the movie and so glad I went last night to watch it. I rewatched Dune part 1 just before seeing the second and that really elevated it from my first watch. I’m so surprised you didn’t connect with it. That’s too bad.
Because it was boring.
@@LordMalice6d9The 2nd film was definitely not boring! It covered the plot so well with stunning visuals & action sequences that were unique and thrilling.
@@DucatiKozak You sound like a commercial .. you forgot to add "It's the best science fiction movie ever made .. A true Cinematic Masterpiece." 😂
@@Fiveash-Art _i is very smart_
@@deleted01 Smarter than the people who think this movie is a 'masterpiece'.
this film is amazing imo. one of the most immersive theater experiences i’ve had in a long while
Seriously, for me Christopher Nolan and Denis velinueve can make the theater watch a must
@@MahhhdeeeMost Christopher Nolan movies are boring. And I like his earlier work, like Memento.
@@Mahhhdeee I guess my guys are Martin Scorsese and David Fincher.
@@LordMalice6d9 boring?! Thas crazy talk
@@Mahhhdeee I already said that I genuinely enjoy Nolan's earlier movies before he became a big budgeted Hollyweird darling. Memento is one of his best movies, and I also like the prestige. But his more modern movies starting with The Dark Knight are boring and feel so much longer than they are because of all the padding and filler scenes.
i felt exactly the same . Sound effects though were excellent. Gave me the impression that the warms were crawling beneath the theater. Do "the zone of interest" review please. it is my favorite 2023 film
I really don't think we watched the same film. While I generally agree with the take on pt 1, Dune pt 2 fixed every "gripe" I had with the first and elevated literally every part of production. It had emotional power that was lacking in the first and for the first time in decades, I left the theater feeling like the movie changed cinema for me. Cheers
I normally agree with your takes but I have to say I completely disagree with everything you said here.
I can't speak for this movie, but in the books Pugh's character Irulan is familiar to the reader throughout the first book in small passages that introduce each chapter. So we know that she will become a historian of Paul's reign long before we meet her at the very end, where Paul reveals his plan to marry her to secure his throne. In the second book she has a very small part and she is impetuous, and so Herbert plays with the reader's expectations (and more importantly, predictions) when it becomes clear that the wisdom and knowledge she conveys came to her much later in life, during the reign of Paul's son
Small part? She poisons Chani.
@@kurtrivero368And takes part in the plot to assassinate him? If I'm not mistaken. Her sister goes full revenge mode in book three.
@@kurtrivero368I meant she has few appearances "on the page." She's definitely an important part of the plot against Paul in the second book
I cannot agree with this review. Agree completely with the strange choice of Emperor, but otherwise some good actors being involved in new roles for Part II. The story remains very close to the book. If you haven't read the book you should. Also read Dune Messiah as there is clear indication that this is not the end of these films. I do think that Villeneuve has created a unqiue world. I do think the technology versus nature angle is well done. The plot twists follow the book. But you don't need to have read the book either to appreciate. Those in the seats next to me clearly hadn't read the book. I think that this is better upon multiple viewings much like Villeneuve's Arrival. This is an ambitious project to take on for a book that is so complex. I think Villeneuve has done an admirable job at bringing a visual spectacle (I saw in IMAX theatre and was thankful for it) with this story of politics and power. Like your detailed reviews, and will agree to disagree.
heard one say that they though Arnold should have been the Emperor.
I completely disagree. I was very emotionally impacted on a visual and visceral level. And Dennis Villeneuve was able to capture and show Frank Herbert’s message and themes from his books in a way that was clear, thought provoking and brilliant. Paul is not the Messiah or a savior, and Dennis gets that point across. Dune is the story of the “good guy” winning, becoming the absolute worse case scenario. I also felt that Austin Butler was incredible and way better than Sting, even though Sting is a lot of fun.
One of the strongest parts of the film is the unease and feeling of the momentum that is building into an unstoppable tsunami. Like a snowball rolling down a hill
@@cannibalholocaust3015 - I agree!
I LOVE how you mentioned Shadow of the Colossus. One of my favorite games of all-time!
I think If Bobby was grown-up from Bobby's World...
*Dune would be his imagination😏*
Huh? I felt every nerve in my body during that last fight. Took me a good hour to re-enter reality after this, and that just doesn't happen in cinema today.
she'll say the same thing about dune messiah one day , she is the needle drop of movie reviews , wasn't surprised one bit
@@andremelandray7102yeah you’re kind of right on that
Yeah I feel like she can be pretty brutal im not sure what kind of movies she would consider to be great
@@connar-zm3gxShe has recommended me some great films in the past that i wouldn't have discovered otherwise ,i'll give her that , but , anything with hans zimmer scoring , she will bash it , right there was a clue , second , it's hip to be different from the rest these days , bashing is a cool thing to do it seems , especially mainstream
@connar-zm3gx the majority of her favorites are films and directors I've never heard of, as you might expect. I feel like an unsophisticated philistine.
i thought that Walken, Pugh, and especially Butler were great
My favorites were Paul Jessica and feyd
If you read the book the first half is 100% world building. Its hard to make into a book. That said they also cut out way to much. They needed more mentat scenes, the dinner on arakis with the spice guild and smugglers, etc. The second one is really good and does the book justice
Your review is the perfect example of no two people view the same thing the same way.
As someone who not only read the book, but also had the privilege of meeting the author, Frank Herbert I can tell you Part 1 completely captured the entire essence and scope of the book. Let me first say, it took me three times to read the book in full, because, unlike Mr. Herbert, who was one of the most gregarious people I have ever met, who, although serving only 6 months in the Seabees loved to regale you with war stories. He could captivate you with a single sentence. Indeed, my own review of the book is that it is perfectly titled, because it is such a dry read. But epic, nonetheless. He was not the best at writing emotions, but his world building was incredible. So to me, Part One is the perfect introduction to his world. And Villeneuve gave more emotion than Herbert ever did, because the book is nothing like the man.
Anyway, so I completely disagree with you on Part 1. I did not comment on your review of part 1, because I had hopes that, after seeing Part 2 it all would click for you, and you could reinforce my belief that you are the best 'online' movie critic on CZcams. Alas, again, this is a perfect example of one person's trash being another person's treasure, as I absolutely loved part 1 so much I went back and read the book, and the book clicked so much better for me this time.
...just one guy's opinion...😁
But, as always, thank you for your thoughts, I do appreciate your conviction.
Also, as far as I am concerned Villeneuve has not made a movie I have not absolutely loved, and I am on pins and needles to see and love (most likely) Part 2...
Part two is a perfect film.
Absolutely spot on analysis of how people see things differently!
One person’s trash is another person’s Treasure is a brilliant summation!!
I agree and want to say that not all stories are about the characters' emotions. For me, it was helpful that I didn't connect with the characters too much. It kept my focus on the big scale so to say, made me feel like I was watching things from afar and contemplating. It gave a unique and "cold" feeling to the movie, which I really enjoyed.
SPOILERS! I liked this movie enough to go watch it again on a bigger IMAX screen. I think it's one of the best scifi action films I have ever seen. It was emotionally satisfying with EPIC cinematography and fantastic action. My 3.5 quibbles are: 1. The editing in the beginning was too quick, especially during the transition to the emperor and the princess. 2. Zendaya is so out of her acting league, when she screams something like "I'm doing it for MY people not for him!" I just about laughed out loud at her amateurish delivery. (Also, that heavy breathing during her big battle scene: rolls eyes) At least she wasn't the only one wearing FLIP FLOPS like in the first movie. 3. The Harkonnens and especially the Sardaukar were totally nerfed in this this film. The only Fremen I remember dying were shot down from an ornithopter during the first spice harvester attack. I don't remember any dying in hand to hand combat. 3.5 I want the Fremen to always be training in the background of every scene. Or show some other way that they become "unstoppable desert warriors" besides just sitting around all the time. Bonus gripe: Christopher Walken was completely miscast as the emperor (maybe Ralph Fiennes?) And yeah, I wanted it to be longer also. I was afraid we would not see much of Rebecca Ferguson based on her being mostly missing from all the trailers. I think Arrival is a better film overall, but this is one of the best scifi action films ever!
I'm going to go watch this today, but I'm not really that excited about it. Glad there are some honest people out there with opinions. Thank you.
Another criticism delving on the lack of "texture" as you call it, or "weirdness/oddness" compared to the Lynch movie. World-building can take many forms and is not exclusive to quirks or the unexpected. I personally find the circus-tent approach of Lynch's Dune and the TV series emptier beyond the camp and cult value of individual images. I personally think I'll better retain the sets and locations of Villeneuve's Dune than anything in other adaptations - they look more lived in, real.
Dune Part 2's Feyd is a complete character, from the looks that evolve out of a ruined planet with a dark sun, and fitting gladiatorial physicality, to the exposition as a psychotic yet intelligent individual. A key point is that in Dune Part 2 they made Feyd look - almost - beautiful, providing a fine line between attraction and disgust with fear as the lever; a far more complex depiction than the camp/cult value of seeing an oiled-up rockstar in a bikini, or the basic charm of a frat boy like in the TV series.
You absolutely nailed it here.
DV's Dune had pretty much weirdness, which was tots believable. The movie was so real that I had an impression of watching a documentary on sand people how do they survive in a harsh environment. Also, House Harkonnen was weird af, but very realistic.
Zendaya as Chani stands out the most for me. It will be interesting to see where she could go from here.
Thank you for your review.
I was utterly distracted by the Watchmen book on the shelf. "MHCTAW... huh..? OOOOOOHHHHH the picture is reversed!!!!"
LOL. Once I had that sorted out, I had to go back and watch the video. Nice review.
I agree with a lot of this. I'm a big fan of the novels, so I get the benefit of knowing what exactly is going on and why. I think it would be. a confusing watch for those who have not read the books.
The film was admirable on scale and vision but lacked in emotional connection with the audience and suspense.
I'll never be able to take Timotheee seriously as a tough guy.
You’re just jealous of the skinny king. You wish you were Wonka
Jesus wasn’t a “tough guy” but he has followers.
@@kurtrivero368
Yeah and they couldn't stop from being nailed to some boards, at least 1 betrayed him, and not a peep from King BRB for 2000 years.
@@kurtrivero368 Well. I admit I haven't read the Bible cover to cover (not a fan of fairy tales), but I'm reasonably confident Jesus wasn't engaging in hand-to-hand combat or knife fights to the death. I have, however, read several of the Dune books and I can assure you Paul is indeed supposed to be a tough guy (almost comically so). I'm not surprised at your confusion, evangelical Christians seem to have a very tenuous grasp on reality these days.
I know from Rebecca Ferguson’s comments she didn’t read the book. The sisterhood is the most powerful and most dangerous group in the dune universe. She thinks the Director increased their power to update the old story from 1965 when of course women were second citizens.. She assumes Frank Herbert treated women as second-class citizens in his books. The bad old days.
She's full of shit and you can tell she hasn't read the book(s). The
Bene Gesserit are powerful, feared and complex in the book. Assumes? She sure does.
Yes Herbet Wrote a book where all of Humanity was ruled by an absolute Matriachy in secret and then has it end with them being one of the two biggest bads of the franchise.
I remember Ferguson went off on similar tangents during the media meet-and-greets for the first movie (about the book being out-dated and not having any prominent roles for female characters, etc), which made it clear that she hadn't read the book, and was following modern-day studio mandates for actors to hit certain social talking points popular with modern audiences. I remember watching one of these particular junkets for Part One where Denis was sitting right next to her. His face told a picture when she started spouting the same nonsense. I'm sure he or someone from the production staff must have politely informed her she was wrong, lmao. Thankfully she never went down the same road when promoting Part Two.
I always come to your reviews when I want to disagree with a take lol. I just knew you’d dislike this one.
Edit: Nothing wrong with that of course, you articulated your points very well.
There's a general problem with CZcams film reviewers.
The advertising budget for 'blockbuster' movies is now up to a hundred million.
With the time of the CZcamsr film reviewer in its ascendancy.
The advertising cash and 'distributer luxuries' now spread that love over to them as well.
CZcams reviewers ( that are big enough ) are now all in their pocket,
and are nothing but mouthpieces for Hollywood.
CZcams film reviewers are just influencers.
That's why the buzz for Oppenheimer, Barbie and Dune2 were so blanket.
Every CZcamsr wanted in on the hand outs.
I appreciate your thoughts. I think I liked it more than you but I agree pretty much with everything you said. My gf hasn’t read the books and even she said it felt rushed and anticlimactic by the end. It’s a visual masterclass but they did leave me a bit cold.
“I will not go south”
“Ok i will go south”
3 atomics and the Harkonens are dead. Barely an inconvenience.
It took a lot of soul-searching, even tears, before he decided to go south. And once all the Fremen tribes were united, they were an overwhelming force against the Harkonnens.
I never read the book, but I never got the impression that it was written to be en epic sci-fi action movie like Star Wars, or even the StarTrek movies. I heard it was going to be very difficult to make a movie out of it because it was mostly about world building with a basic messiah story attached to it. So I felt the movie did what it needed to do and wasn’t expecting more. It isn’t my favorite sci-fi film, but It was a very good movie interpretation of a novel that is difficult to interpret for film.
I read the 1st two books in high school.
Wow I’m blown away by how much I disagree with most your assertions about this movie 😂
When it comes to mainstream filmmaking, DFL and I are not on the same page at all. For instance in another Warner Bros. tentpole, The Batman, I found Robert Pattinson and Zöe Kravitz to be the weakest elements in that film and could not connect with the praise she was lavishing upon them.
You are wrong. The recent movie is riding the hype wave and the praises some people keep pouring at it are a disservice if the reviewers refuse to criticize it. Even if then film is extremely popular it must be criticized to further improvement of movies in the future. Even universally acclaimed films like Empire Strikes Back, ET, Everything Everywhere At Once, I don’t know the Marvel Avengers endgame film, all have shit in them that could have been avoided. Reasons why it may not have been avoided in each case are also important so we can judge how forgivable the bad parts are.
Similarly, movies which we can in retrospect call “bad”, will have some elements that are good which for fairness should be pointed at. For example who here has seen Ang Lee’s Hulk from the 2003? I’ve seen it with friends at the time and we were all disappointed. But when new Hulk movies came out, like the Edward Norton Hulk, and Avengers stuff enabled us to see what Ang Lee did which they failed to do. For example it much more successfully captured the anger and angst of Bruce Banner/Hulk despite all the ridiculousness it has.
Even the award winning, but ultimately not very popular Dune sci fi channel miniseries in the early 00s deserves credit for what it did right.
Anyway, no excuses to suspend objectivity due to spectacle or popularity.
@@StopFear You sound like you're saying the praises are a disservice to the industry, and only the negative reviews will benefit future films. That's the attitude of someone who didn't enjoy this movie. If you didn't like it, just say so.
The truth is, praising the accomplishments of a successful movie is just as much, if not more beneficial. Dune is the movie that makes me (and so many others) believe going to the theaters is absolutely worth it.
I loved it; you were disappointed. It's okay to have different opinions. So don't just look at people you disagree with and call them a "disservice".
Movie criticism suck in general. It's only actually well thought out when you watch a long video essay, or an article, from someone commenting on a movie they enjoy. Other than that, it's just superficial and void commentary, and just highlight how uneducated people are about cinema. They watch movies to "connect with characters and story", and in the process they are dismissive of the main point of cinema: image and sound.
@@StopFearart is not about perfection. Considering the film references you used to make your point, it tells me you're not very educated on the art of cinema.
I saw Dune 1 in the theatre, I watched it again on blu ray at home a couple of days ago and was blown away.
I guess I needed the comfort of my own home but I found it incredibly intense and amazing.
My first reaction to Dune 2 in the theatre was also not overwhelming, perhaps when I see it again on disk my mind will change.
Wonder what your thoughts are about “Enemy”, (which was influenced by “Persona”), it’s one of my favorite films…
Maggie I suspect you are going to get a lot of blow back on this one. I think this is exactly the movie for our times. I think the postmodernism of David Lynch, the 'subversions' of traditional tropes, even Tarantino's hard edged postmodernism, are all feeling over. There is a sincerity here that might be hard for your Millennial throat to swallow, which is one reason why Villeneuve is a director for our times. As someone nearly 70 years old I got this one immediately. (And I've seen everything from Milliés to Poor Things. I walked out of this one humming. A film about insidious nature of false belief and corruption for a credulous corrupt age. So for once we nearly completely disagree. And here's the point I don't think you were watching the same film that many other folks are going to watch. But I appreciate the dissenting view.
I don't know what you mean by our times here, respectfully. I agree with Maggie completely on her complaints and I'm 26. I don't think it has anything to do with postmodernism - I just want to watch something that I find to be original and a lot of elements in this film felt like things I've seen other pieces of media do better. It doesn't matter if it achieves that by being subversive or totally sincere.
@@akshatsaxena4137
Our times: The post-Covid 2020s, which have become very different than the Teens.
Dune (novel) is the original Star wars was the imitation.
Which films were better than this? Just curious.
I'm saying postmodernism as a paradigm is dead, including all the jokey referential stuff. Yeah it will remain in some form as everything does. But it can no longer hold the commanding heights of cultural life.
Perhaps you don't see what makes this so unique. I can't convince you. Age has nothing to do with. I only mentioned my age to say I've seen thousands of movies in my lifetime. This was different than all of them.
Don't take my word for it. Look for more reviews on Dune. There are tons of them for a reason.
@@TheAnadrome I don't think these films achieve what the first 2 LOTR films did, for example.
I had never watched Star Wars OT up until a few years ago, and when I did I found them goofy and dull. I don't care for those movies at all.
I think Denis himself has made better films than this. I find Arrival and BR2049 to be more successful for the sort of tone and removed nature that his films tend to have.
These movies needs to get through a LOT of plot and are constantly introducing new characters. So despite the fact there's now 2 of them, and both are 3 hours long, the characters do not feel very multidimensional.
I feel like I'm told why Paul or some character is making the choices they are, but I don't feel like I buy it. That happens constantly for me.
Just curious, but if he's the director of our times, then wouldn't he be embraced by millennials? I was thinking you were Gen Z but you're 70 years old. lol I understand what you're saying but remember, the message of the film is one thing and the approach taken to convey that message is another. I think that's what doesn't click for her and quite frankly me as well.
I'm 55 and hardly a millennial, agree with her review completely, and think your comment doesn't make much sense. Villeneuve Dune is a bit exemplary of "millennial filmmaking": make it big, loud, overpowering, have some obnoxious, somewhat pandering characters spouting-off at authority figures in a way that they'd be smacked upside the head if that environment was real (I'm thinking of the stupid scene with Chani mouthing-off at the thousands of worshippers).
I'm glad I saw this in IMAX, because without that overpowering sensory backdrop, this movie was LIGHT on emotion, inspiration, character consistency and passion. Soulless is an easy way to summarize.
You’re of course allowed to have an opinion and I respect that, but I must say I don’t care not only for your review but for the framework which you seem to be operating from in crafting your review and which hinders any real value to be gleaned from your critiques. A few of your points just don’t align with my personal feelings and understanding of the films you discuss here (Dune ’84, Dune: Part 1, and Dune: Part 2), and that’s completely fine, but you also have many thoughts or feelings that seem to be bolstered solely by the fact that you never seem to really stop to discuss or even think about/consider the intention of the film and the filmmakers and what the film is aiming to communicate, and if you had then you wouldn’t have come away with the need to point out largely non-valuable gripes that you ensure are always kept distinct from the main points of these cinematic excursions. You can of course take issue with the aims or intentions of a piece of art, but until you have confronted and considered what those aims are you cannot get that far. Because sure, these films are intended to be pieces of entertain too, and if they did not work for you in that regard that's totally fine, but they do have very real things to say about the world and humanity, much like Herbert's original novel, and in my opinion the second you want to detract from a piece of carefully crafted art, the burden falls on you to also carefully consider not just what you think about individual things working in the film and but what the film is doing and saying as a whole. Like for example, why is this film more “clean” or “glossy” than you expected or hoped? What might that be working towards communicating or reinforcing? This film and the 1st did not spring up on their own, in a vacuum, but are carefully crafted and considered, intentional pieces of cinema working to illicit and evoke strong feelings and thoughts on many varying facets of life and human systems in order to communicate large ideas about humanity, morality, ethics and our relation to our world and each other. To deny this fundamental fact is to strip away much from the relationship you have with the films the intrinsic dynamic that all art has between the creator and the audience. Now, I’m not saying that your initial, visceral reaction/feelings on a film are not valid or valuable, but to seemingly just stick with those and not yourself consider the aims of the films upon reflection of your experience, is to miss out on the largest part of engaging with cinema. Many times in the video you begin to discuss the production and act of making these films, like the casting for example, but you always stop short of genuinely thinking about how the large thematic and narrative aims of the film inform and color every decision made and nuance present. It’s always something like, “I don’t understand why they did this and this and that”, and “this didn’t work for me”, or “I wanted more of that”, but you never engage with or consider why these things are the way they are, because they all have very, very, very specific reasons for being; and I just think that’s a shame and I don’t understand much of the value in interacting with cinema or any art in this way. You do otherwise have an engaging ability to articulate exactly what viscerally worked and didn't for you on a surface level, even if I do almost wholly disagree with your thoughts. Like c'mon, the whole film builds with an immense momentum and tension to an intensely powerful, disturbing and sadly inevitable final act that is immensely effective in my opinion and left me reeling, and considering the implications of, in a way that most other Hollywood blockbusters never seem to manage. Also on a side note, saying that Dune: Part 1 was not largely received very well and didn't have an enormous impact on or linger with the majority of people who saw it, is just kinda silly and not really true. I will stick around and watch more of your videos because it only feels fair to me to not judge your work off of one, but instead to place this video into the context of your channel and seek to understand your work. And hopefully your other videos see you operating from less of a seemingly bad faith, solipsistic position because, again, what is the point of engaging with art otherwise?
In a Nutshell, and to put it as simply as I can , it’s a case of Horses for Courses isn’t it??
As a previous poster mentioned that we all see and connect with things completely differently, and that is SO true!
I’m an avid fan of the work of Dennis Villenouve, and I think his “ Blade Runner- 2049” is one of the greatest Cinematic Spectacles that I’ve seen, even managing to surpass the Original Classic……but Dune, unfortunately both Parts 1&2 just didn’t connect with me??
Now I’m not sure whether that’s a case of not liking Villenouve for this particular movie ( although I still found them both Visually Striking) or rather, as I suspect the case to be, just not being able to connect with the original source material- in this case Frank Herbert’s Novel- I repeatedly tried to read it years ago, but just couldn’t get into it.
So the comment on here that really resonates with me, was on how we all see things SO very differently on all levels, and the quote of “ One person’s Garbage is another person’s Treasure “ is absolutely bang on the mark I think!
My only criticism is House Carrino and Princess Irulan being underused, but that’s basically how it was in the second half of the Dune book. Even though Irulan is narrating and talking about the story. I think Part 3 will be exploring Irulan a lot more.
According to Frank hurbert himself, he said the entire dune book is basically all through irulan, said something like “every words is through her” which I found cool
@@Mahhhdeee - Right, and it was great seeing her narrating the story of her book in the film. She was basically making an audio book.
She's the historian who rejected joining the Bene Gesserit. Spoiler for Dune 3 : she knows how to hide from Paul's prescient abilities.
@@esoteric_1 - I know that.
She was boring af
I think I gotta try watching part one again. Could never get through it cuz I kept falling asleep. The second one looks pretty good.
Go watch Godzilla, much more your speed.
You need to see Dune Part 1 again and and I wonder if you read the book?
oh my god, I disagree with you here, Austin Butler's performance as Feyed was much creepier and more terrifying, but I found Sting's performance was more Jokery I didn't feel tense when I saw it, my only nitpick issue, (SPOILER ALERT ) the last fight scene between Paul and Feyed didn't feel it was personal between them, especially for Paul, who didn't meet or interact with Feyed before, I didn't see anger or hate between them which could make the scene tenser than already is
That's because the fight is not personal. Its hard to hate a faceless Harkonnen when you just discovered you are one and Paul has literal foresight of what is about to happen. It was even foreshadowed in the move having Paul clearly dream the killing blow.
Dune pt 1 took many viewings for me to fully appreciate and what it’s really good at is giving you the feeling of being there in that world. It’s like it’s there to give you the basic story but mostly to let you marinate in the atmosphere of it all. In this way, it’s like Blade Runner. Seems uneventful on the surface but it’s true purpose is in being a tone poem.
I think this is a more sophisticated approach to book adaptations than most. The Lynch film feels like being force fed every page of the book, where this one feels like it evokes the book in the ways films are best at
I really liked it, but you have a way of being so thoughtful and insightful with your criticism that I enjoyed your take. So enjoy your videos!
I was done with this review with the complaint about 1 lol.
This should have always been a tv series. There's just not enough time in film format to properly adapt such a dense and complex saga.
I feel like this is just not for you. Like you saw it in completely different way
excellent review. i loved the movie but agree with pretty much everything you said. i think maybe he(D.V) was maintaining an aspect of the book which was not particularly character based. incidentally i think Sting in the previous incarnation was terrible, but agree completely on zoning out in the final knife fight
Amazing spectacle, awesome world building, some breath-taking sequences, a strong score...but the emotional core just barely misses the mark for me, which is doubly disappointing considering just how well it hits all it's other marks. I think Chalamet does well as the reluctant hero and Zendaya is convincing as a fiery warrior, but their love story is severely underutilized. At the end when Paul, despite being victorious, gives Chani that defeated look...it ALMOST hit me in the feels. Hopefully the third movie can focus a little more on the emotional character building and less on setting up spectacular cinematic sequences.
The problem with minimalism is there is nowhere for the details to hide.
Brian Eno's "Prophecy" theme was sorely missed when Paul takes the "Water of Life." 😢💦🐁💧🗡
Anyone wonder what happened to Hawat? During the movie I keep wondering that.
It's a real shame they didn't illustrate that, it would've added so much more emotional weight in the film and connected parts 1 and 2 better. If you want to really know then I'd advise you read the book. but if you don't care...
*Spoiler below, you've been warned*
Hawat is taken hostage back to Geidi Prime, because he's one of the greatest mentats in the Landsraad, the Baron decides to use him as a replacement for his previous mentat Piter De Vries who was killed in part 1 by poisonous gas from Duke Leto suicide tooth. The Baron and his team brainwash Hawat into thinking it was Lady Jessica who killed his beloved Duke and so Hawat assist Harkonnens in trying to take out the Harkonnens enemies. The Baron however has poisoned Hawat, and keeps feeding him the antidote to keep him alive until he outruns his use to the Baron... 2 years of service to the Harkonnens pass, and after the great battle at the end, it's not till the very very end, The Emperor, Irulan, Reverend Mother Mohiam, the Spacing Guild, the Benne Gesserit, the Harkonnens, The Fremen, Chani, Stilgar, Paul & Jessica (basically all the chess pieces in the entire book) are all in that room, Hawat finally sees the truth, he walks up to Paul and embraces him, but is slowly dying because Baron stopped feeding him the antidote. Hawat cries and apologies to him and Jessica for being so blind, he had a poison weapon he was supposed to kill Paul with in that moment but instead he commits suicide and dies in Paul's arms. Reading that part in the book made me cry. With the death of yet another powerful member of House Atreides, it gave Paul even more wind in his sails with regard to the Jihad.
I did read the book.@@enriquepelenato4956
I actually agree 100%. These films just arent engaging on a personal level. Don't feel anything for any of the characters. Most of the emotional beats are flat. Everything on the screen seems like its just telling me i should be eating this up rather than organically making me.
Yeah it's almost as if the legend of Dune is bigger than the reality of actually telling the story.
I just saw it with my family. We all kinda agree with your take. There was a lack of emotional connection with the story and characters, even though its all very impressive to look at and hear.
Did you read the book?
Emotional connection with story and characters is the wrong way of watching movies, and it will inevitably lead you to enjoying mediocre films that can't ever be classified as actual art.
@@thomast.4966You have no idea what you're talking about, boy😂
@@thomast.4966what? 😂
@@NAmania yes, I have. Film is an audiovisual art form, and as such, story and characters are at best secondary to its enjoyment. At least, that's how it should be.
Thank god this review exists. I was starting to feel crazy with all the inexplicable love this one is getting. I think it's because Villeneuve is an insular film-maker and we are now living in the insular age of smartphones and lockdowns - they are a match... but certainly leave a strange taste in the mouths of those who are accustomed to richer offerings.
"Something just isn't clicking, something just isn't right..." this is a time where we look inward :D
Comparing Lynch's Dune to Villeneuve's is like comparing Ace Ventura to Citizen Kane... both fun in their own way but common lets be objective here.
Villeneuve is such a boring sterile director ... I forgot about part 1 the next day. Lynch's version might be a mess, but it's a beautiful mess .. and way more interesting and memorable. The hype over this director is off the charts ridiculous.
@Fiveash-Art I appreciate your P.O.V but what other Villeneuve movies are you referring to as sterile??? For me his movies make me forget I'm watching a movie total immersion if anything he's underrated IMO of course.
@@fwdyd How is he underrated? Didn't his movie The Arrival win best picture one year? It also seems he's being touted as the new Christopher Nolan by his fan club. I also don't care much for Nolan and think he's also pretty overrated. Not as much as Villeneuve though. I've seen The Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, and Dune. That's three for three. I think he's boring. It's not because he's a cerebral director who makes slow burn thoughtful 'cinema' either. It's because he sucks. 😂 He makes beautiful looking movies, but all the tension from the story is removed because I don't care about the characters, the way they're written, the scripting, the direction, the dialogue. But that's just my opinion. I can appreciate people think he's great, I just don't like his movies. His movie are cold .. Kind of like a lot of post modern art. It's just not my thing.
@Fiveash-Art Bro, you're breaking my heart 😄 isnt lynch considered post-modern AF though?
@@fwdyd Sure, pretty much everything late 20th century could be considered postmodernism. I said 'most' postmodern art. Not everything. Specifically I was referring mostly to the gallery scene and the plastic arts like sculpture, painting, architecture etc .. not so much film, music or literature. I know I didn't really clarify that, but that's where my head was when thinking about this stuff.
I knew I was gonna disagree as soon as the review started xD
I loved dune 1! I can't wait for Part 2!
Its funny they cast Austin Butler in this because to me he gives off young Christopher Walken vibes. I feel if Butler gets one more big breakout role he's gonna become a megastar. Elvis and this prove he has range and he clearly is drawn to the more character actor type parts. He could be the next Johnny Depp whereas he's a good looking guy but doesn't settle for generic leading man roles and instead stretches his acting chops with quirky unique characters.
Austin is already a megastar
He's on the precipice but he's not A-list like Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves or Leo DiCaprio for instance. Cinephiles know who he is but casuals especially the older generation don't know him by name. At most they'd go "Oh that Elvis guy". He doesn't have name recognition yet where if you said his name everyone knows immediately who you're talking about. Give it a few years and that could be the case though.
Pretty cinematography and production design can't make up for a story that lacks any heart or drama. None of the character's motivations were worth rooting for, so all the stakes felt inconsequential. Reminded me of my experience watching the northman
Its hard because there is no hero in Dune or good guys. Its definitely not for everyone
@@worlddd7777 there are countless examples of good movies without obvious good and bad guys. Princess mononoke, pulp fiction, and fight club have morally grey characters without sacrificing their humanity
@@gusandthetv But the point is that Paul needs to sacrifice his humanity for the golden path and do horrible things
@@worlddd7777 right, but he didn't really consider doing anything else
I never understood why this wasn't made into a proper series. The Dune books are an almost endless source for material.
I believe it's because of the budget tbh
Too expensive and lets hope that Amazon doesn't get any ideas.
What would the series be? Every episode Paul shouts from a mountain while sand worms jump up and down, then two guys have a sword fight for some reason and a princess cries? There really isn't much to Dune.
Typical budgets for large scale shows are 15 mil per episode. Is that really enough for Dune?
@@benjamindover4337 Are you just talking about the first book or the whole series?
Timothy Charmless and ZenDiesel were miscast as Paul and Chani. But I’m a Dune books maximalist so I didn’t give many f’s about this film.
i found myself agreeing with many of your points but i also really enjoyed the film. one point that i totally disagree with is that villeneuve’s interpretation of Feyd-Rautha wasn’t sufficiently visceral.maybe i’m a weirdo but i thought the performance , particularly in his introduction getting painted on getty prime, was rousing to say the least. i was semi-off-put by the polluted apparently (not actually) toothless skinhead look but simultaneously aroused. i thought it was a high point of makeup, sound design, performance and filming(shot in infrared). I thought austin butler was totally chameleonic in that role.
Agree with you that Paul’s character arc and Chamalet was strong. The visuals and audio were top notch, I think you should give them more credit. The distortion I experienced watching that stadium fight under that Black Sun in Giedi Prime was otherworldly. Definitely puts special effects of other high budget Hwood films to shame.
when I don't like a movie which seems to be critically acclaimed, im glad I can come here to see a more mixed review
You nailed it, well done. The sound design was good, and the special effects outstanding, and nobody does tension quite like Villeneuve. But apart from that, it was lacking.
Part 1 was such a slog 😴
As much as I really enjoyed the film, I agree with many of your criticisms.
It’s not perfect, but man, Villeneuve is a filmmaker I have huge faith in, and I hope he gets blank cheques for the rest of his career.
Jesus, let's disagree on everything.
If only Villeneuve could tone down his visual ambitions and put time into giving his actors some directing instead. The general direction Villeneuve seems to be going for, in regards to the acting, is dourness. And once in a while a character should express unhinged rage through one sentence. This does not make for such a engaging film experience.
I think Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece. I'm more engaged in that world than Dune. But that's me!
I feel exactly the opposite of everything you say. Indeed, a pure matter of taste.
Very good review thank you.
Completely agree on Austin Butler's villain role. It's not a bad performance but it felt too familiar to me. I haven't read the books but I feel like his character had so much potential in terms of being chaotic and unpredictable. But that wasn't really explored all that much. A lot of his threat came from other characters reacting to him or talking about him in a fearful or impressed way. The makeup also did a lot of the heavy lifting to make him look weird and fucked up on the exterior. But on the interior he just felt so...empty? Or generic? I dunno. The film spent a good chunk of the runtime to establish him as the main antagonist but he never lived up to it. It was a solid performance but a flat, forgettable character.
Loved the rest of the film tho. The expression "epic saga" gets thrown around a lot when we talk about major blockbusters. Often undeservedly. From a visual and a theatrical point of view, Dune Part Two is a film that actually deserves that description. Watching it in IMAX was a jaw dropping experience I will remember for a long time.
Maybe there is a bit of projection on your opinion of the anticipation around this film. A lot of people in my personal circle were excited about this before it came out, and it was definitely one of those movies where people at work were talking about it and discussing whether they would be seeing it in theaters.
Mostly agree. This was a 7 or 8 movie. The word i think is ‘bloodless.’ I do think the Feyd performance was creepy and quite good in the film, though.
Dune has so much political intrigue and world building it really needs to be told in a long episodic format...the sci fi channel brought very true to the book series with Dune and Children of Dune, but the production quality will turn some people off. You really need a series that perhaps begins with a prologue to help set up the universe and explain the outlawing of the thinking machines and creation of the Benegesserit order and the Mentat order and their own rivalry as well as those of the great Houses.
Saw it the other day and LOVED IT!! It finally delivered what PART ONE could not (not that it was a bad film by any stretch). It brought to visual the magic and sheer magnitude of the word of Dune from the books. Denis is a master filmmaker and IMHO this is his most majestic and visual rich film today - which says something about someone who’s done BR2049. Absolutely outstanding fit and highly recommend to be seen on the biggest screen possible.
For me, the Dune Universe is better and more interesting than for example LOTR or Mad Max. There are many people that care about it.
Here I am who loves LOTR, Mad Max, and Dune equally for different reasons.
She obviously wasn't talking about you in particular, but rather about society in general.
I enjoyed it, though perhaps not as much as others have. I will confess that I watched the first two episodes of Shogun a day before seeing Dune 2, and I think the exceptional storytelling of that show stole my heart just before Dune 2 could, lol 😅
I agree partially, the changes from the book to some characters were jarring and unecessary besides Stilgar. That said the cinematography and effects were incredible and the sound mixing was far better this time around.
After watching Dune I’m more convinced than ever, that some Movies just Connect with some people and others just don’t…..Unfortunately, Dune just doesn’t set my World alight, as much as I do highly regard Denis a Villenouve as a Film maker!
For me he’s absolutely best was Blade Runner 2049- absolutely brilliant, a breathtaking Cinematic adventure, and one of the extremely rare cases of when a Sequel can improve upon its predecessor- and how does one improve on such a Classic as Scott’s original Bladerunner- and yet I feel that Villenouve did just that!!
Sicarrio was brilliant in a very different way, and the film Arrival was also excellent……but Blade Runner 2049 for me, remains his greatest achievement on Screen as yet!!
To me what doesn’t work is Timothée Chalamet. I am suspect to the amount of research he puts into roles and how much he analyzes his scenes. To come up with how he is going to “act” his reacting to how the scene plays out or give reasons to his body language. He can recite his lines comfortably and it kinda ends there. Zendaya and Javier Bardem were actively acting circles around him and it takes me out of the moment.
I liked the first part a lot, but the Lynch version did leave a much stronger impression because of its absolute weirdness (and a few really bad parts).
The one thing I thought was really terrible in part 1 was the fact that they never were able to show and let us feel the nauseating heat of the environment. They just talk about it, but it never shows, they just count on the fact that the audience already knows it. The Lynch version did this better.
There is even a scene with Paul standing outside (with the gardener, I think) wearing a very warm looking felt/moleskin suit which left me completely baffled.
Very true... also the scarcity of water... the importance of melange, literally the most important things in the book and I didn't get that feeling once.
thank you for this nuanced review. the blind messianic praise for this one has been on one hand a little surprising because while in spectacle it delivers, the writing and dialogue and character arc and world building and even some acting choices leave a lot to be desired. but at the same time considering the literal messiah in this movie it feels strangely apt.