i review DUNE 2, please don't kill me
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- Dune 2 starring Timothee Chalamet and Zendaya is out now...I've seen it...
I review it!
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @marcusflemmings
Follow me on Instagram: / marcusflemmingss
My films: londonnewwave.com
Follow me on X: / marcusflemmings - Krátké a kreslené filmy
What I noticed about Denis, is that he is great with visuals and how to set up a shot (mostly), but not so great with story/characters. And the fact that he excels on the visual aspects of filmmaking, causes most people to ignore or not notice his weaknesses.
Kind of like Zack Snyder
Agreed
Yeah, the movie Arrival is also overrated
I can't agree with this - his storytelling is superb! But I'm not a fan of this film and Im not a hufe fan of Blade Runner 2049.
@@MarcusFlemmingshave to agree with you completely on Blade Runner 2046. Now, I feel my hate towards it is fuelled due to my absolute adoration for the original Blade Runner, but moving away from that, I still feel its a film that was made by a fan but couldn't quite stand on its own two feet as an original gripping piece of cinema.
Interestingly, Denis recently admitted he would never tackle another movie set in someone else's universe again due to his experience making Blade Runner. Not that he should be ashamed of it (as there are noteworthy elements from it), but yeah sounds like he feels more comfortable and creatively free when he is tackling his own universes.
I love your point about the lack of character actors! I’ve noticed this with many movies lately as well, and it does hinder immersion. Especially when the actor is playing the same character in every movie, it makes the character feel less unique. I hate to say it, but many actors lack range, and that’s fine. That’s why we need less well known actors to lend their own personality to their characters.
SO true! It really stuck out for me....way too many well known LEADING actors in this film. It's like you're just waiting for them to appear on screen. Another great comment from you!
You say that now, but watch The Last Airbender series, all no-name actors. The acting is so bad it's not even funny. The show is trash. So picking unknown actors simply doesn't work.
@@mistadopeman unknown can be good! However, I personally meant character actors....rather than leading actors :)
Zendaya ruined the movie for me. She doesn't seem like a dessert warrior. She looks like a bratty rich kid from California
hahahhahahahaha! Many others have agreed - I like her!
I don't know many desert warriors to judge that so harshly. For me she played her role very well, despite the changes from the book.
@@andreasmerkel5717 I liked her!
As someone who has never seen another movie with Zendaya, I thought she was very decent.
Better a "bratty rich kid" than Chani from the novels.
What a breath of fresh air this video was. You’re a great creator and it’s super refreshing to hear somebody actually offer a fair analysis of this movie that extends past “it looks great”. Keep it up!
BIG Love! So glad you appreciate the fact that I avoided how it looks..film is about so much more than that.
Man, I love the first and thought it was a masterpiece. I thought no way the second will not be equal especially with all the great reviews but you've articulated how I feel about it. I actually didnt like the first hour either, I thought the dialogue was getting pretty bad. It was baffling because the first had beautiful simple text alongside incredible visuals with booming music to make some real poetry. This was a dumbed down action movie version of the first. Faster pace, more action, more things happening and dialogue that explains things on the nose to the point of borderline cringe... Still a good movie but compared to first.. no.
Totally agree with all your comments here! I was thoroughly underwhelmed. Great commen! Stick around!
Exactly how i feel. I struggle to call this a bad film, especially in comparison to most films we do get. But Part 1 was an all time masterpiece on filmmaking, and I wanted/expected Part 2 to at least be close. It was drastically different in tone, style, craft and storytelling. Felt like the heart and care was taken out for studio notes.
@@Biggiiful The first one is great, it intrigued me!
Me and my brother were both feverishly looking forward to this one, and came out of it and we looked at each other and basically said 'is that it?'.
I was completely indifferent and apathetic to the film for almost it's entire running time.
I guess its harder to do character development in films vs tv series. Time just isn't on your side. That's why game of thrones and similar series hit us so much harder.
That is the best description thus far...apathy! That's how I felt...no emotional connection at all.
I am glad someone shares the same sentiment
I love hearing your opinions. I agree with you on the lack of character actors. I want to clarify about that Denis Villenueve quote about hating dialogue. To a fundamentalist, film IS about using visuals to tell a story, not dialogue. When film was first invented there was no sound, the sound came decades later. So at times when you see filmmakers like George Lucas and Denis Villenueve talk about how film isn't about dialogue, this is what they're referring to. It's the purist philosophy that film is purely visual because that's how it started. The philosophy is obviously deeper than that but that's the basics. That's how I've heard George Lucas describe it anyway
Totally agree with you - when film first started it wasn't about dialogue :) thought they did have dialogue via cue cards - but as soon as they found a way to add dialogue vocally, they did it immediately! I really think film is strong held together by what characters do and what they say - especially when the two aren't aligned. That is when work is even more fascinating. Fab comment (Again)
The "show, don't tell" philosophy also applies to dialogue though. It's about tactfully writing *organic* dialogue to provide good exposition, since y'know, people do have conversations in real life haha. The source material for Dune is far too complex to shirk the responsibility to write stellar dialogue. Should have been three movies imo.
DUNE: ...a psychotic universe reigned by extremely sick psychedelics-addicted psychic psychopaths in need of psychiatric psychotherapy...
😂😍😂😍😂😍😍😍😂😍😂
Agree that it isn’t quite there. Paul seems like a Gary Stu with instant abilities, no failures, and no obstacles. When I ask fans, they say I need to read the books to understand. But it’s just bad storytelling.
That´s the classic reply of all those who don´t understand (or refuse to grasp) how film works, and then are upset that a majority of people don´t massively fawn over the same thing which they have loved for years for having READ it first.
"Have you read the books?!" "You clearly haven´t read the books!" "You should/have to read the books!" "In the books, xyz... " ( -> insert all details of how the story in the book completely differs from the movie plot).
NO. Stop bringing up any books when a film just doesn´t work!
The task of a great movie lies in telling the story without people knowing jacksh** about a book even existing.
If I need other media or a plethora of prequels, spin offs, animated series, cartoon, expanded universe XYZ etc. to "prepare" beforehand or fill in gaps, then a standalone film just doesn´t work. Period.
And any novel´s story ALWAYS HAS TO be compressed. Because you can read a massive book saga over many weeks and months - but a film has to hit with the most essential high points within 2 to 4 hours.
paul being a gary stu is the point of the story. the message is to not trust charismatic leaders blindly
TOTALLY agree! I don't get this..."you need to read the books" mentality! No I don't!
Totally agree!
Maybe we'll see that in the third film?
I think the main thing is that the portions of the narrative that had dialogue was where character development was at it's the best. I was at the edge of my seat when Paul was predicting people's dreams and leaning into the idea of being a messaic figure for the first time. I actually like every single action piece within the film too, the way some of the main villain's just die, with no prior tension is kinda of refreshing for me, we don't need to make a big deal of a character that was huge in the first one because, hey, they suddenly don't matter in the grand scheme of the plot, and the power to just do that, I think is a testament to Villeneuve's story telling abilities.
The one thing that I do think is lacking slightly in this film, is it's grounding. The first one was very based in what was physically possible, and the camera only ever shot from a perspective that was physically possible-ish. In this film however, there are quite few massive scale shots, that just wouldn't be Possible without the use of CG, or at least some kind of "filmmaking". And to add to that, I think the cinematography was too tight, not enough wide shots to actually be able to discern what was going on part of the time. This may be an issue with me not watching in imax (as all the tickets had sold out) so scope made it feel tighter, but that really shouldn't be the case
Love this comment! Very measured. One of my fave parts was the shift in Paul that you mentioned. Love it!
I have a feeling there is a 4 hour assembly cut that is far more satisfying.
I think they ran into issues where they felt they were already expecting so much of the audience.
I didn’t feel it was final season Game of Thrones teleportation and time jumps bad, but I did feel at times they didn’t quite stick the landing on presenting clearly how much time was passing, choosing to use dialogue over visual and cinematic language to show the passage of time.
I'm not sure you know...i think a 4 hour cut maybe can't save this narrative..it feels a bit weak. But you might be right!
I was expecting more from it, especially after waiting 2 years to watch it...
Thoroughly disappointing!
Marcus, I just saw DUNE 2 and agree with your review. I particularly agree with you about the lack of character actors and the film jumping from one action shot to another. I felt whipsawed. No smooth transition. It was as if they stitched them together awkwardly. I agree with you about the bad guy. One dimensional. I loved DUNE 1, as you did. While I did enjoy DUNE 2, I was disappointed. Spectacular visuals (riding the worm the best for me) but not a well-woven tapestry of a story. Also, I was glad I had read the book. Can't imagine following the movie without it. Can't wait to see your review of DUNE 3 when it comes out.
HUGE love for this comment! So glad others agree with what I saw - the riding of the worm was wonderful! But for a 3 hour film, I can't be satisfied with just visuals...especially as Part 1 was meant to set things up...this film didn't follow it up well enough for me to justify Dune 1 being was plotting. Do stick around!
@@MarcusFlemmingsI will do and have subscribed to your channel.
Sorry im double dipping haha. So you are totally right with the story falling flat, and this is why Dune is considered unadaptable. The 2 films still didn't cover it all AND wasn't really able to capture the magic. In the book all of the characters have very deep spiritual motives, the fremen have a deep connection to Arrakis. Human intelligence and intellect has evolved from where we are now. The bene Gesserit can control every muscle in their body, the water of life ceremony was supposed to have an orgy at the end, there's all kinds of stuff the film left out because film is a visual medium (see what i did there?) and it's hard to capture the spirit of a book when most of the book is taking place through people's thoughts and emotions. It's so hard to explain how the book works, but it does. The entire undercurrent of Dune is supposed to be how you shouldn't trust people with power, and that was completely absent in the film. Also, the Dune series as a whole is about the planet Arrakis in my opinion, not the Atreides. Great video!
Firstly, big love for the comment! Love this. See, this is why I had to make a clear distinction about the book and the film. I knew there was differences, but I've not read it. And it does actually seem un-film-able...or rather it seems like it would make a 10 hour film of people's thoughts-only. This 2nd film really fell flat for me and it's a shame!
i would love to see a live stream from you man! i just found your channel last night and i have enjoyed your analysis on movies.
this film was a spectacle but it was lacking in the story and themes which could be due to the dialogue. for a story that was simple it was kind of convoluted due to how many moving parts. i understand that the world of dune is massive and the details are what make it feel real but it took away from the characters. they in turn felt more like props rather than people. great vid 👍
BIG love for this, as well! Live stream coming soon!
Well that's a change of perspective. Every other review I've seen has waxed lyrical about what a “masterpiece” this is.
I think it's an excellent spectacle. I enjoyed my afternoon at the cinema, but you raise some salient points.
I feel like I have to watch it again to fully grasp who, what, where the bleep is going on.
The Baron’s demise was not as impactful as it should've been. He was quite the titan in the first movie, but got pushed to the side in this one.
Walken was wasted casting. If you're not going to give his Emperor more dialogue or chances to flex on screen, use a lesser known… But even then, the Emperor was an underdeveloped character, so he'd have fallen flat anyway.
So yeah, I think there are some flaws. Some masterful film making, for sure, but not quite a masterpiece… I preferred it to Oppenheimer though.
I look forward to a third and FINAL Dune instalment.
Love this comment! Very measured :) I don't begrudge anyone who enjoys it :) I wish I did, love Denis V! And it's looks great! But it had some problems...many of the ones you mentioned and a few more. But it also had some strong performances. Do stick around!
Thanks for your review. Been enjoying your channel these last few weeks.
Experiencing pt.2 at IMAX took my breath away. At the time, I was gripped with the world building and sound.
Your comments ring true. I was disappointed about the Barons development after such a strong presence in the first film. What on earth were they thinking with his departure! However, I didn't feel like the story fell flat - I just wanted more.
They certainly squeezed much more action in than necessary. Hopefully this was a studio decision rather than where Denis is headed.
Wish they had an intermission on films over 2hrs!
Do you think they could have made these films even stronger with a higher age rating?
Big love for the first part :) thanks for watching! And yes, I noticed a lack of blood in the film. It felt like the film needed that violence to really solidify it's point. Good spot!
thank you! after watching last night, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. Happy to be a new sub!
Welcome aboard! Great to have you here 😍😍😍
@@MarcusFlemmings Thanks!!
This is the first review I've heard that doesnt ignore the glaring issues with the film. Every issue you had with it, i did as well. I had a few more issues, especially with choreography and character, but so many other review channel's put this movie as the savior of Hollywood and ive Just been stuck thinking im the downer in the group
Big love for this! Stick around!
just a regular person here - who had no idea what Dune was or read the books... Dune 2 left me feeling eh.... not worth the price to see it in Imax. Maybe I would have left feeling better if I paid a cheaper matinee price... but I could have waited to watch this at home.
Kinda feel the same way...which is weird, because I loved the first film!
@MarcusFlemmings I enjoyed the first film.. especially the world building and visuals... this one... im left feeling just eh.... which is odd for me because I would think I would have appreciated the visuals... but idk even the characters I didn't really enjoy.
i put marcus film reviews into a search bar to find this vid
Pahahahahaa! i think you're joking?
top result lol@@MarcusFlemmings
I agree! The visual were amazing, but a lot of them lack context.
I don't feel I got why Paul and Chani fell in love. I didn't feel the time passing.
- "oh, so time has passed? Maybe? Is this a dream?..."
---
- So, he won't ever ride a worm because he is not a freeman, got it. The next scene is he riding the worm.
Pahahaah! The romance wasn't wholly believable but I was on board till the end with it.
As a huge Dune books fan, I needed and welcome this take on the Dune (2). I can never rediscover the story and ive no concerns with spoilers. I'm going to the movie to put fresh images alongside my memory of the fiction. And to hope the movie series pushes further into the books in years to come. Stay fit Jason Mamoa, lots of work to come. And somewhere, out there, is an as yet unknown actor who will become the God Emperor of Dune.
Let me know your thoughts when you watch it!
I found this one so disengaging, but that's been the general case for me with all of Villeneuve's sci-fi films (Dune part 1, Blade Runner 2049, Arrival, and Enemy). Perhaps his quote about his distaste for dialogue reveals a lot since my tastes seem polar opposite: one my favorite film directors of all time is Tarantino who focuses on dialogue above all else. Dialogue is what engages me above all else in the characters.
My enjoyment or lack thereof in a film basically boils down to whether or not I'm deeply invested in the characters, and Villeneuve's sci-fi films never managed to get me so engaged in the characters. Even David Lynch's campy version of Dune was a hundred times more successful in getting me attached to the characters and so eager to discover what happens next.
If we compare the scene when Paul conquers and rides the sandworm in the Lynch version vs. Villeneuve version, I already knew enough about the books in advance for both to know Paul would succeed. Yet Lynch's version managed me give me that sense of elation and triumph as Toto's unforgettable soundtrack kicked in. In Villeneuve's version, it's one of the coolest action scenes I ever saw but I felt very little since I just didn't care what happened to Paul anywhere near as much.
Thanks for the comment! I actually love Denis...so can't quite agree on those first points. However, Im not a big fan of Blade Runner 2049 and Enemy! Do stick around!
@@MarcusFlemmings Cheers! It might just be my tastes which are a bit skewed since most of Villeneuve's films are so well-received. I figure I'm the oddball.
I've been thinking about it a bit more since I left the comment the other day and if we analyze films in terms of setups and payoffs, I never got the strong impression of a very powerful payoff in most of his films and I think my tastes are very drawn to this type of storytelling.
For example, let's return to the scene of Paul conquering and riding the sandworm. In both Lynch and DV's version, the scene helps Paul to become accepted among the Fremen and helps seal the idea that he's the prophesized one. Yet in Lynch's version, there's a corresponding big payoff when we see Paul lead the assault against the Sardaukar on a giant sandworm. In DV's version, he just rides the sandworm and then he never rides a sandworm again. So there isn't as much of a connective thread to tie that scene to future scenes. Perhaps viewers who are more visually-oriented and interpret a lot of meaning from the visuals might see more of the connective threads between scenes that I'm not seeing as much.
As another example, the fight between Rabban and Halleck didn't seem so climactic to me despite the amazing visuals and action, since I found nothing to invest me so much into Halleck's vengeful grudge against the Harkonnen except mostly expository dialogue. Similar case with the epic duel between Paul and Feyd; Feyd was such a ruthless and psychotic antag, yet he was only introduced around halfway into the film and we see very little interaction between him and the Fremen to make his final encounter with Paul nearly as interesting as I think it could have been. Similar case with the Emperor; he isn't even introduced until the second film and we barely see anything of him to make the final conflict between him and Paul so compelling, and the lack of focus on the politics between houses makes Paul's choice to marry Irulan seem rather out of the blue.
So I got the impression overall that there's a lot of setup without the corresponding big payoffs, or payoffs that should have been much bigger but without the corresponding setup. DV's Dune films were especially egregious to me this way, yet I felt the same thing (albeit to a lesser extent) in films like Blade Runner 2049, Arrival, Enemy, and even Sicario to a small extent.
The pacing of all his films feel a bit odd to me, and not because they're slow (I enjoy a lot of slow-paced films that really take time to breathe in certain scenes when the slower pacing seems relevant to the film as a whole), but actually because they seem slow in some places and very fast in other places in ways that always seemed a bit off to my tastes. Most of all, it's often difficult for me to articulate why the slowest-paced scenes in his films take such sweet time in ways that strengthen the film as a whole and have direct relevance to the other parts of the film. So I'm often left with questions like, "What was the point of slowing down the pacing for this scene?" and, "What was the point of speeding up the pacing for that scene?"
I agree with you 100% Loved Dune but this was missing something. Same goes with Walken. Don’t think he didn’t have to be in it, but dialogue-wise and even visually, he didn’t get enough gravitas like the Baron. Walken’s more than capable of being scary (think true romance or king of New York)
King of New York is fantastic!
All I could think about when Christopher Walken was onscreen was whether he was still wearing Butch's watch up his ass. The rest of the movie was so bad I can't even describe how much I hated it. Here's a movie that nobody will see that deserves a lot more views: American Star. No special effects; just character development and a story that takes two hours to develop. Nobody will see it and millions of people will watch this steaming dog turd. Life is unfair.
Boo hoo….you’re not like everybody else! What can’t anybody see that? Life is so unfair, waaaaah!
Just googled American star...shall investigate further!
Oh dear :(
There were quite a few things I didn't like in Dune 2. It 's not a bad film by any standard, but I agree with you when you describe it as underwhelming. I think you would have disliked the movie even more if you had read the book, but I definitely agree that you should NOT have to read the source material to understand a movie. Otherwise, you just didn't do a good job at adapting it. It's that easy. For better or worse, I might be "burdened" by having read the book three times, but I have often enjoyed adaptations that were not absolutely faithful to the source material. Still, my expectations might have been a bit too high because of that. On to (some of) my points.
I could not buy the romantic relationship. I think it lacked chemistry, and Chani was too antagonistic to make me believe that she could ever fall in love with Paul. At least not with the scenes that we were given.
I think too much time was spent on Paul and Chani to the detriment of other interesting stuff that we could have got from the book.
I agree that Feyd Rautha wasn't intimidating or terrifying but rather one note and shallow. I don't think that was the actor's fault. I think he was actually quite good with what he was supposed to do. And since I mentioned a Harkonnen.
I had found Baron Harkonnen already lacking in the first movie, and this one wasn't any better, maybe worse. He had nothing of the highly intelligent, manipulative, ruthless and scheming character of the book.
I didn't like the character of Stilgar here. Compared to the books he is a buffoon. Instead of the stoic, intelligent and dedicated Fremen leader we got a blind and somewhat silly follower. Why do we need to dumb down characters? For laughs? If you can't write humor for a no nonsense character, then you might want to work on your writing skills. Classic movies like Lawrence of Arabia (this comparison is intentional because of the basic similarities between these two stories) did not need to dumb down the characters to give us a laugh here and there (it didn't need a love story either for that matter).
I did not buy Paul's shift from trying to avoid his destiny and then just accepting it. I felt like there was no actual reason for it. I am probably wrong but that's how it felt to me. I also could never believe that the Fremen would have followed him. They barely knew him???? Apart from Stilgar's tribe. And he was there for, I don't know, six months? The book gave us many details how he immersed himself in the culture, how he won the Fremen over through his actions and words. And....he spent 2 years (!) among the Fremen and gained their fealty. (Lawrence also spent 2 years among the Arab tribes, just saying).
I don't think it was too much action. In fact, I rather thought that the end battle was veeeery underwhelming. They maybe should have cut one other fight scene and spent more time on that. Speaking of time.
There was a miniseries from the year 2000. It can't hold a candle to these movies in purely cinematic terms and it isn't flawless, but it managed to adapt more scenes and details from the book with less (!!!) run time while never really feeling rushed. The series looks terrible by today's standards and the acting isn't much to talk about, but I could feel the heart that they put into it. This one felt soulless b, comparison. That's why I hate the excuse that there wasn't enough time to put in everything. Sure, you can't put in everything, but you could definitely put in more than what we got.
By the way, hard agree on John Wick 4 being waaaaay too long. There is no reason for a John Wick movie to be longer than two hours at most. Why do we get so many overbloated movies these last few years? Like Dune 2, I just don't get where all these "masterpiece" claims come from.
Huge love for this comment! Of course, I agree with you on these points - I will never be reading the booking as I'm a visual person but it's a shame that there is such a gap between the two still - it does feel like the book is still un-filmable. Or maybe it's just a bad book series :(
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 😅
Shogun is better and I've only seen 1 episode!
@@MarcusFlemmings lol very happy to hear you like it!
I'm desperately searching for a fan who appreciated the artistry and the spectacle of the movie, but felt a bit empty regarding the story and the characters. Yes, the book is ideas heavy, but it has a heart as well. This majestic visual experience left me in awe but totally uninterested in the characters. I m at the point of not caring what happens next(i mean, I know, but I'm not curious what Denis will do with it)
Even as a book reader, I'm aligned with your points. Great review!
Huge love for this!
Baron was such a diss
YES! Unbelievable!
@@MarcusFlemmings it was a shame
I think I like the movie more than you do, but I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. For me, all the problems I had with the film boil down to 2 things:
1) The "Dune isn't for everyone." factor. This story is really big and weird and esoteric in a lot of ways, and even its biggest fans will often tell you "Dune isn't for everyone." And no matter how good the adaptations are, I think that factor is always going to be in play to some extent. I love the concept of the story: a negative example of a messiah, showing how trying to manufacture a religious "saviour" can very easily go bad, and often does. I also love a lot of the sci-fi concepts. The way they're realized in Villenueve's movies is really cool and visually impressive on a filmmaking/effects level. It's all very inviting for fans of good storytelling and filmmaking. The spectacle of a big blockbuster movie will often make us think a story is automatically meant to be for everyone, even if we're told it's not... we still instinctually feel a certain expectation for big blockbusters (same thing happened with Game of Thrones getting so big and creating expectations of certain conventions in storytelling, but then the story turns out to not be meant for everyone because an author like George RR Martin or Frank Herbert wanting to do something more unique, regardless of whether it will appeal to everyone). So with Dune, the story has all these really weird and kinda out-of-left-field aspects to it... it's set in the desert, which is just a dry, barren, uninviting and unsatisfying setting (it's what Anakin and Luke Skywalker wanted to GET AWAY FROM, which is why Star Wars is more satisfying aesthetically... I echo 3PO's sentiments: "What a desolate place this is.")... as far as I can tell from all the versions I've seen (this one, Lynch's, and I've read some of the book), the characters just aren't all that likeable, no matter who's playing them. We have nobody who really feels like a relatable character, IMO (closest may be Chani? But I can't say I ever really felt connected to her, for some reason. Best may actually be Oscar Isaac as Duke Leto, but he's only in the first one. Same with Momoa as Duncan. But nobody in Part 2 gives us this kind of likability). Everybody is so inured into their cultures or characters' perspective, and they're all very hard, militarized, cold, religious, old-fashioned cultures... which is good for realistic, immersive storytelling if you're willing to go with it, or you want to just observe it and judge it from a removed perspective... but it's just not that inviting to most people. I mean, when the coolest and most well-known thing from your story is a giant ugly penis/butthole worm that shits out a drug (and thematic equivalent for oil) called "SPICE!"... you might have a problem on a mass appeal level. There's no plucky Luke Skywalker and charismatic Han Solo, or cute loveable Hobbits in the beautiful Shire, or even a wholesome family like the Starks and witty characters like Tyrion Lannister, no bright colorful superhero costumes, no Hogwarts or land of Oz. And hell, even on the villain level, there's no cool Darth Vader or active threat like Voldemort or a Joker type... it's an ugly fat guy who floats for an unexplained reason and just dictates shit to other ugly people. You don't get a lot of excitement or pleasure from this story. A lot of it is intentionally offputting. There's not much, if any, reprieve from the hard, dark, dramatic, thematic, cold, high-concept sci-fi tone (except a few moments from Javier Bardem being kinda funny). And arguably, it shouldn't have any of that. It shouldn't be any different. That's just the kind of story it is, and it just leaves you kinda cold and weirded out and contemplating majorly depressing issues in society about power and religion and the human soul... "Dune isn't for everyone."
2) The simplification of the adaptation. If you listen to what a huge Dune fan like Comicbookgirl19 (or DanikaXIX) says... Dune should ideally be an epic long-form series like Game of Thrones. Trying to make movies out of it is trying to shove 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound bag. So the movies, as well made as they are... are really simplifying and shortchanging the full depth and size of the story. And I think that's a big part of what's causing most of the more objective flaws with the movies. It doesn't really feel complete to me. I feel like it's missing something. Like we're just seeing a cliff's notes version of the story, and not feeling the full depth of any of it. Maybe all of this depressingly dark and dramatic journeying through dry barren deserts with unlikeable, ugly, weird characters would feel more worth it, if the story were more satisfying on a level of depth and meaning, But in simplifying it for the format of cinema, you take away what actually makes all of that worth it, and we're just left with the offputting aesthetic, but not enough of the substance to justify putting us through it.
All of that being said... I still enjoyed a lot of the aspects of the movie. It's an impressively produced/directed movie, for sure. Villenueve has a very masterful and consistent style of filmmaking that he hasn't lost at all as he's grown in size and budget of his projects. It's tough to imagine a better movie version of the story on a directorial level. Most of the issues lie in the screenplay, or in the roots of the original story itself. The first movie had some cinematography and color grading problems, but this one looked pretty great throughout (as great as barren ugly desert settings can look, I guess... Lawrence of Arabia notwithstanding, but this is Lawrence of Arabia in Space). A lot of cool stuff done like the flashing lighting of the "fireworks" or whatever they were during that scene with Feyd and the Lea Seydoux character. That arena scene shot in infrared! The score and sound design of these movies has been really cool too. Timothee Chalamet's performance is great. All the acting is pretty solid. Austin Butler definitely transformed for Feyd. A lot of the action was great. There's a lot to like here as a movie. It just doesn't quite come together as a fully satisfying package on a story level and overall experience. Maybe it will with the trilogy completed with whenever they do Part 3/"Messiah", whatever they'll call it... there could be a more complete feeling by then, and it could feel more narratively climactic, which might help make more lengthly build-up of 5 hours of Part 1 and 2 feel more worth it... but I've also heard that Messiah is even LESS for everyone and fans aren't even sure how they'll make a movie out of it and all that kind of stuff... so maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up on that. Dune might just not be as much for me as I'd hoped it would.
Wow! This is a passionate comment! And a brilliant one -- it is basically Lawrence of Arabia in space. But Lawrence is better!
Your point are valid. But it reads more like this movie just ain’t for you. And this is totally fine. Dune is more about ideas and story than character. The characters are perfectly serviceable. But if story is all about characters to you, these movies will disappoint. I’ve always been more lore, world and story oriented than character oriented (cuz I don’t much like people in real life haha) so for me Dune 1 and 2 are both 10/10 movies. They are up there with lord of the rings for me. Maybe not quite but close. One cannot deny the scope and grandeur of these dune movies.
@@jesserochon3103 I feel what Dune misses, what I've seen so far, is heart. LOTR has heart. Again, its just personal taste :)
I think the issues where mainly editing and directing choices. There where tons of plots holes where peopme are jumping around locations and say they will do things or something happen but then appear next scene. I was like wtf
Yes! AGREED! I reminded me of the last couple of seasons of Game of Thrones.
was waiting for this one. Firstly Villeneuve saying he hates dialogues and focuses on visuals would make Tarantino real angry. In his movies dialogues are what makes it so interesting and compelling. Dennis is amazing but somehow he failed to capture the mindset and ideological battle of the characters in Dune which could have been established through clever dialogue writing making it a great political film. That is where I think he failed to establish which the book does very well.
Yeah, like I said I've not read the books so I can't comment on the differences - but it felt like there was something missing in this film...and it seems like you may have confirmed that there is :)
I was thrown off by the ending. When I read the book I didn't think it was a cliff hanger. But this movie feels like a cliff hanger. Also I don't agree with many of decisions in terms of not spending much time showing Paul doing missions over years and having a kid that died.
I'm agree. Villeneuve has a problem with the ending, because he seems more entusiastic for the future than for what it's happening. In the first i didnt complain because it was the first half, but this time i can't just accept this.
The film doesn't let the protagonist struggle. Usually, that's an issue but people are overlooking it this time.
What? He has a kid that dies???
I'm on board with this!
Agreed here!
I really enjoyed it, maybe more than the first. I think maybe what you're feeling is a pacing issue as well. I noticed it too. There is a bunch of narrative ground covered, and Denis is primarily a visual storyteller. So the long drawn out visual montages, the beautiful vistas, the thundering audio and ethereal slow scenes, are all taking a good chunk of run time from developing the narrative.
That said I absolutely enjoyed it. The universe is immersive, beautiful, terrifying. The characters are morally complex and both archetypal and human.
Love that you enjoyed it! And I enjoyed it too - but I prefer the first :)
I’m a big fan of science fiction, but I believe there is two different types of Sci-Fi. One is a more traditional story telling with traditional characters and themes of good vs evil films that is easy digestible, something like Star Wars is a extremely good example. Then the other is really high level Sci-fi which are usually highly detailed and throw lots of specific information at you. 2001 space odyssey is a really example, usually more abstract and can be less emotionally fulfilling. I think Dune falls into this category, which is a cinematic achievement but will stop it being truly loved like your Star Trek and Star Wars.
Star Wars is more fantasy with sci-fi elements. Also, Dune is a chosen one story. With politics in tow. What will prevent it from being truly loved (by me) is the casting is all wrong. They always get the wrong ideas with Duncan and Gurney. I don't know why their dead set on ruining those characters, but it's happened twice. I didn't watch the Scy-Fy version. So it doesn't count to me.
@@gamervet4760 I would say Star Wars is in reverse, more Sci-fi with fantasy fable elements. It’s roots are in the Saturday mornings serial, ie Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.
You know, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't know anything about Dune so I guess I'm maybe looking for something that it's not?
@davidkhan1626 Yeah, but jedi, sith, lightsabers, the force is all fantasy stuff. That stuff is integral, and you won't find it in hard-core sci-fi. Advanced forms of telekinesis, nano swords, and just good vs. evil is what you usually find in sci-fi.
@@MarcusFlemmings That could be it. That and the lead is just scrawny spit fuck. Like when the fuck is Paul ever going to be a man? Is he Spider-Man?
Loved this!
BIG love! Stick around!
Very good review..love your point of view here. Vehemently disagree about books and movies “needing” to stand on their own however. In my opinion, there are many,many movies that are now considered classic that are far more dynamic and impactful if the source material is read..just a few in my mind are Blatty’s Exorcist, Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (Apocalypse) King’s Shawshank, Benchley’s JAWS. I agree somewhat that the movie SHOULD hold its own..and these listed do..but I dare anyone who has not seen it yet to read the exorcist and then watch the movie..argued by many to be the scariest movie of the 20th century..the book makes it look like a Disney film (exaggeration noted). To me, unless you experience Dune on the page.. it will never have the same level of impact..too dense, too layered.. film is an almost impossible medium for this space opera ..hats of to Dennis..he damn near gets there. Good stuff brother..enjoying the content!
BIG love for this comment! I don't agree with you, but again I love a cogent discussion :) there's no way a book should have to support the film. That's just not feasible. Both pieces of art should stand alone on their own to feet. I shouldn't have to read a novel for a month before i can watch the film and visa versa. If the film version of the book isn't doing the trick then that's a bad adaptation :)
As much as I love movies, the first best medium for experiencing Dune remains the book, so yes, you can say that you shouldn't need the book, but the book is such a work of worldbuilding that you still owe yourself that reading experience, as well as some clarification of the movies. The book is so rich that features of it such as the Order of Mentats, the Butlerian Jihad, and the ecological vision of Dr. Pardot Kynes get consistently downplayed or obscured by all the movies, yet these remain worthy and powerful concepts to be familiar with. This is not a question of books being "sacred," it's a question of vast rich data playing out in the theater of your imagination in a non-prefabricated way. (And like it or not, movies do inspire some people to read.) I also have to ask: you know Villeneuve well enough to call him Denis? Dang! Seriously, though, my own problem with the movie is that it lapses into the "Let's fight some big mean baddies" pattern which could have been made far more unique by the ecological vision I just mentioned. And, yes, you can call the movie overcast (in terms of wasting great actors, not dark or stormy weather). On the subject of movies versus books, I'd be interested in your reaction to 1962's The Manchurian Candidate (the original). I've loved it so much and for so long that I finally bought the novel and was shocked by how messy the novel felt compared to the magic of the movie. Ideally, movies would always be such magic, but movies are such delicate tapestries of dozens of elements fitting neatly together that you can't always count on them to do the best storytelling -- and yet, once in a blue moon, the right movie can liberate an otherwise foggy book. That may yet happen for Dune. Whether that will happen as soon as the remainder of this century, I don't know.
Wow! Another stunning comment from you sir! So much to tackle there. Firstly, a book and a film are so different. One shouldn't have to be with the other for the other to be as good or better. That's when adaptation needs to be succinct. Secondly, I've only seen the Demme/Washington Manchurian Candidate and not read the book :) and lastly, Denis!!!
I feel like both parts with 5+hours lenght have substance enough for one shorter chapter of a book, not the whole book as it should have.
Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
Hell yea live stream bro. When we droppin!
We bringin; it! As soon as 10k followers hit!
Hey, what you think of Dune World, and Planet Dune?
lol
Just messing ;) But i've seen THOSE :D
Not seen them :((
@@MarcusFlemmings I don't think you are interrested in mockbusters.
In response to your video's title, I'd like to refer you to Liam Neeson's monologue over the phone in Taken.
Hahahaha!
I know for a fact i will love this movie and your video, but i refuse to watch this before i see the movie sir, keep up the good work.
Hahaha! Yes, let me know your thoughts after you've seen it!
Timothy, get back to your backstreet boy, modeling fashion-victim adventure....Zendaya, go look for Mommy.
Mr.Villeneuve, films need dialogues . Your movie is a Valium.
Oh dear! Didn't like it?
The characters were lacking in Part 2. Part 1 was actually better in this respect in that there was Oscar Isaac, Jason Momoa and much larger parts for Skarsgard and Josh Brolin. Javier Bardem gets pushed to the side and is relegated to almost comic relief in Part 2 in favor of Zendaya who has much less acting chops and a much less interesting character.
So I actually love Zendaya BUT I agree with you - Javier is sidelined after the 1st act. His greatness is act one had me in excitement and that just dissipates. Love the comment! Stick around!
I was really looking forward to this movie and was so disappointed by a lack of characterization, story pace and I know you say it was action scene after action scene but I didn't get that at all. I was frankly bored and nearly left the cinema. Such a shame that everyone is saying it's awesome when it's blatantly not.
Totally agree! It's not a bad film but I was expecting a GREAT film - thanks for the comment! Stick around.
7:00 Thank you so much!
The Nolan Thing. Peppered... And we miss the Point.
The Impact. The Emotional Impact.
Have you Ever Watched Nicolas Winding Refn Pusher Trillogy?
I've seen 1 and 2 and have a video about them on my channel :) thanks for the comment! Stick around!
I really suggest reading the books if you want the full experience of Dune weirdness.
Hmmmmm
Great review and the point of view!
Huge love for this!
One of my primary criticisms of the book and the movie, is the incredibly fast pacing, especially toward the end of the book. Many major moments told impressionistically, lacking detail and flow. More descriptive than surreal, you feel like you’re reading a history book after it occurred rather than seeing the events as they unfold (which is what you’re actually doing). In the movie, a lot is expanded upon, but the pacing has to be super fast to tell the story adequately, and imagery does a lot of work to make up for a lack of dialogue.
Fast pacing. Did we read the same book?
Love this! I can't even say anything about what you've said as I've not read the book. But the film's pacing in the 2nd half is really poor.
You thought this film expanded on the books? Expanded? Really?..
@@plo617 I mean it does on certain aspects.. Obviously some aspects it cuts out or just lessens and that's understandable, but it does expand on certain things.
@@lightvader4618 Okay, I'll bite. What area did the film expand on from the books? I'm genuinely curious.
I found it overly verbose and at times tedious, as if we’re expected to really, really take it very, very seriously. Even when he’s riding a worm, following the very serious debate about whether he’s ’ready to ride a worm’ .. It was ok, some nice visual moments ;)
Incendies is my favorite film of his.
Incendies is maybe my fave film of the past 14 years.
You should read the books, the movie's issues are in the script not the book. Check out the Sy-Fy miniseries, that is a truer portrayal of the source material.
Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
As much as I tried I just couldn't really get into either of Denis' Dune films, I saw them both in imax and it was fairly disheartening for me since everyone is frothing at the mouth over them. For me there just wasn't a balance between the storytelling substance and the visual spectacle that it was, the latter felt way more prioritised than the former, plus I felt like a lot of the performances were really hollow and lifeless. Both are impressive in scale no doubt but I just couldn't feel engaged with it.
I loved number 1 but 2 wasn't as good for me. Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
Outstanding...first time to your site. Glad I was pointed here. I'm a film/art/book/ music aficionado. Whoa..cogent/subjective use in proper context in our world, is a balm... I'M IN! ☻️ Looking forward to subscribing and definitely do live stream. We denizens of New Orleans are at ground zero for the exploration of Art in America...i.e.Louis Armstrong/Mahalia Jackson/James Booker. My Brother/Young Blood youse good☻️😄 I'm Stan De Man... I'M IN!
Haha! This comment put a smile on my face! Love it! Huge love for this!
I am a die hard Dune fan, read all the books twice, seen all the films and saw Dune 2 yesterday.....loved Dune 1 by Denis.....and totally agree about Dune 2, the "Noise" so loud , this is the desert! A quiet place.....not just Raban screaming, even Paul at the end and love Timothee, he is a great Paul, he just needed more screen time....even the sound track is so LOUD.....and 75% of the film is explosions and helicoptors thopters more like Apocalypse Now with Napalm burning everywhere than the story of Dune and the amazing planing and training of the Benegeserit, mind control, complicated political strategies, manipulation... and where is the daily life of the Fremen, beauty of life in the harsh desert....ecology...as you say the future., possible futures Paul speaks of but does not describe...the undercurrents as you say missing....just Fremen sitting around in the seitch or blowing up Harkonen (so where did the Frelen get all their thopters and fire power? Fremen are about the krys knife)....and why did we need to see Raban banging a guy's head on a table for what seemed like several minutes? gratuitous violence, Zendaya great as Chani, Ferguson I love, but feel she was wasted sitting around looking good in her tatoos...no development of Josh Brolin and the smugglers...what happened to Jason Mamoa not even at the premiers in London or NY? Not the Dune I expected, hoping more from Dune 3....need to go back and read the books again to add the wonderful backstory again to the images from Dune 1&2.
Love this comment! I've not read the books so haven't got that connection so glad we have the same thoughts!
On part of the books you should probably know some things:
- Frank-Herbert was not a writer when starting to write this saga. The first book especialy feels way more of a phylosopher trying to write a novel. It's a weird mixture of appendixes, short stories hidden in appendixes, and the core story
- there's never much left out of the books actualy. They are not long to start with. There are a bunch of internal monologues, especialy filled with Paul's internal strougle, which gets expanded/revealed more in the next two books (Messiah and Children).
- probably the best of his book is Emperor, where it is still this whole mesh of political, personal and semi-religious drama, but his writing is substantialy developed. Though it, and especialy Heretics (and most probably Chapterhouse, which I've not read) turns into action-novels. And Frank is not very good at that to be honest. And Heretics and Chapterhouse are more written for the money and fame, they feel more like an addendum. Still progressing the story, but in ways you don't necessitate to know.
I'm reading God Emperor right now and holy shit, it's Dune on steroids (which I didn't think was possible?) maybe I'm just further into the series so I'm able to pick up on Frank Herbert's beautifully written subtext, but it's addicting. I started it in the middle of February and I'm almost done with it. Sucks to hear that heretics and chapterhouse aren't as good 😢
@@jevinday Heretics and Chpaterhouse are more like different. Not necessarily worse, just different.
Changing style at the 5th book is hard to accept, but as it becomes more pulp, people might like it more.
Fantastic comment!
Agreed, only maybe it made sense for book 5 to have different pace and style since its 5000 years in future, and yes, it is definitely most action pack Dune book ever. Book 6 was back to slow pace and philosophy and dialogue with very very little action.
@@worlddd7777 Ha. I might take a look. I opted out as soon as I heared "space jews". I mean where did THOSE come from after 6 book, right?
I enjoyed Dune part one and I thought part two was great - and, at the same time, I agree with your criticisms. The unmentioned villain’s arch conclusion was underwhelming. Bautista did appear to be over-acting (or over yelling). I guess I go to see movies knowing no film will be perfect. Is that a sign of the times? I don’t know. Raiders of the Lost Ark is perfect to me; so is Rocky, Godfather, Jaws, etc, etc. Who’s to say?
I will say that I loved the visuals, the VFX was amazing, and I felt it flowed from Act to Act well for a near 3-hour cruise. However, some parts did seem rushed - like it was cut for time more than for story. The tragedy is Denis said he will not create a longer cut for DVD. Maybe, he’ll change his mind.
Over yelling 😂 and yes the VFX was incredible! But I do expect that of films nowadays...so I need more than just nice visuals!
It would help greatly if you stated your main thesis statement about the movie early in the video and then get into the specifics.
I actually hate reviews that tell you at the start what their overall opinion is - but thanks for the comment!
@@MarcusFlemmings It's the exact same thing as writing an essay. Do you give all the specifics first and then your main overall assertion? If so, that would be a terrible essay. It's the same thing with youtube videos (regardless of whether it's a review or not).
@@leafyutube This review seems to be working out well for me, tbh! It's my most watched and commented on review of my channel - but appreciate the advice :)
I honestly loved the film and stayed in awe halfway through the credits, I'd have to agree that the storytelling is sort of compressed and some characters had no depth as they were introduced and then easily killed. They were bland and flat, really didn't feel like they served a purpose but I think that it paid off in the end. The story nevertheless some storytelling flaws due to Dune being hard to be adapted as a film turned out to be pretty well. If Dune the messiah surpasses this I will gladly call it one of the best trilogies out there. (DO A LIVESTREAM!!)
As always, love your comments! I didn't dislike it, I just really didn't love it. And I can understand why people love it as well :)
@@MarcusFlemmings I'd have to agree with you on the formula used in the film that consists of showing action sequences after action sequennces then a small dialogue sequence with a huge reveal that advances the story. It was very obvious and I too would have loved the story to explore more the themes of religion, politics and the whole messiah complex but I think It would come down eventually to the runtime of the film which was pretty well used nevertheless. Also please do a livestream!!
@@raregaming8069 livestream...pending!
Agree entirely. Take away the visuals and what’s left?
Not much!
Okay hate on John Wick 4 is all I need to know 😂. Appreciate the honesty especially from a fellow film maker.
Ooooooo! Forgot I said that!
Lead him to paradise
Take him there! Oh...me?
So curious to know how much Marcus knows about what happens in the rest of the Dune saga . . . . hehe
I know nothing about the rest :) I've heard bits and pieces but I'm avoiding spoliers!
Good to know! Loving your videos man! 😁
@@SilverPoseidon big love sir!
Yo! Marcus a heads up... I'm going to see this again in IMAX Again. Watch,"To Sleep With Anger" and it will add more context. Listen also to Brian Eno..."My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts" Help Me Somebody...thanks again for your take, which is YOUR take
Enjoy the 2nd watch! Brian Eno is a genius!
I really liked this movie and thought it was improvement on the first part - but I still felt a lack of emotional investment
YES! I loved the first...the 2nd not so much. It's a technical marvel with a flat story! Great comment! Stick around!
i agree. the film was just okay.
So glad, I'm not alone here....it's a shame...I wanted to like it so much!
PS: Jason Mamoa was at London Premiere and caught covid, isolating at home....
Another great comment! Yes, it definitely a feminists tale...!
Denis Villeneuve hates dialogue and loves visuals. Okay, it depends on the type of film. There are films like Dune that live from visuals and sound, others live from Speech like "The Scent of a Woman". In Dune you remember the images in the harkonnen arena or when the sandworms penetrate the storm, in The Scent of a Woman you remember Al Pacino's speech to the committee. They're completely different films, both great, but it's doing both an injustice to compare them. And about the deviations and missing characters... it's a feat to fit a 1000 page book into two films. This is also why Tom Bombadil is missing from the film in Lord of the Rings and Arwen, who is very present in the film, hardly appears in the book. That's artistic freedom and I can't criticize it.
Scent of a Woman...what a amazing shout out!
Yes, storytelling was poor, on top of changing things from the book to make it more "modern".
Not my fave film this year - thanks for the comment! Stick around!
I went to see _Madame Web_ and it was a lot better. 8/10.
HAHAHAAHAHA! That HAS to be a joke?
As it is sometimes with Nolan, i do think the characters are quite flat. which can work at times, but at least having one character that have more than two dimensions wouldnt hurt Dune. especially when the world is so pale. It was the same with the characters in blade runner 2049, but the world of blade runner balanced the coldness of the characters up, being that it was so rich and "colorful"... Dune is cold, empty and sharp, so getting emotional invested in characters that are the same, is a challenge..
Totally agree! I actually think Javier Bardem's character is the most dense of them all. But he's not the central character - which is a huge problem in the film. Blade Runner 2049...I'm not a huge fan of anyway.
@@MarcusFlemmings true. Javier easily is the best character.. sometimes i wonder if they prefer it for some reasons, the lack of depth in characters. and if - why? Is it because we should focus on the spectacle? as in Dunkirk, would more character-depth make the movie less? wouldnt Tenet have gained from it? its interesting. isnt character what makes it something else then two hours of paintings. its something i actually am curious about:)
@@benjaminbjrklund743 Totally agree - I think we're in an age where directors are experimenting with less character and using visual more to tell the story. But forgetting that the characters are the key thing. It's what we engage with the most!
I'll go waiting for a show and nothing more. I love the book, it is difficult to adapt it because of the way it is written.
It is good to hear opinions that are different from the majority, it is the basis of criticism of any work of art.
Totally agree! Criticism, when constructive, can bring us to a better level!
Timothee’s acting was way too flat. All zendaya did was frown constantly. Basically this movie was things happen that look cool with visual effects but the tension was poorly executed
I can't disagree with you on both of those - although I'm a fan of both.
D. U. N. E. = Dune Part 1: D. "Dreams" / Dune Part 2: U. "Uprising" // Messiah Part 1 (Dune Part 3): N. "Nightmares" / Messiah Part 2 (Dune Part 4): E. "Ending"
Gosh...so many!
Yo man. I’m interested to hear yer comments and I probably agree but I’m not gonna stare at yer face for 24 min.
You can also play me in the background - thanks for the comment!
@@MarcusFlemmings yer right and I probably will listen when I do dishes. But what I really mean is if yer numbers are down on this video then that's probably why. Cut is some visuals. Change yer angle. I'm rootn for ya buddy.
@@rg3825 There are visuals ;-) and the angle does change - thanks!
I almost fell asleep during it
I drifted a couple of times!
@@MarcusFlemmings 😂
@@MarcusFlemmingsgreat analysis man keep it up!
@robyee3325 😍😍😍❤
noic
u look like a very passionate about cinema guy, love to listen u
hello from russia
I am! Thanks for the nice comment! Stick around!
It's not the source material... he chose poorly.... yes that is my opinion.
Thanks for the comment:) stick around!
Maybe this one would have been better as a top-tier limited series. I'm loving Shogun right now.
Episode 1 of Shogun I watched last night and it's fantastic so far!
this video would be more interesting if it wasnt too long
Thanks for the comment! Do stick around!
Villeneuve makes boring, sterile movies. I haven't enjoyed a single movie I've seen of his.. Dune is three for three. The Arrival was a boring pretentious slog, Blade Runner 2049 was terrible, and now these Dune movies. I'm done trying with this director. I just can't believe the hype.
I love him! BUT...Blade Runner and this film aren't doing it for me.
100% agree! IMO Villeneuve is the most over-rated director in the world right now. While he is capable of putting together some incredible shots he also leans heavily into very cliched imagery at times, especially when trying to convey emotion (Arrival is a good example of this - so much of that film looks like a mediocre Volvo advert, especially the “my unborn child” sequences that left me feeling very emotionally manipulated in an obvious and not good way). I also think he doesn’t know how to direct actors very well. His last three protagonists all have a similar glassy eyed “stoicism” that I think DV believes passes for “depth” and seems to be his go-to style. But when you cast an actor like Chalomet who isn’t very good at expressing internal emotions without dialogue or action it just creates a feeling of detachment, resulting in a sense of style over substance. I just couldn’t buy TC in the role of Paul at all, it genuinely ruined this film for me! And lastly - shouldn’t knowing how to write and/or handle dialogue be an integral part of what defines a great director?
@@MassimoConnolli Na .. just make big wide shots with sepia filters that look like 90's perfume ads and you're all good with the zoomers. You don't need story, character development, or tangible human interest. Just make it look like an Obsession ad. It's sooooooooo artsy and sophisticated. 😂
Compared to Netflix Rebel Moon, the Dune 2 was crap.
I think you're joking...?
Currently not, Rebel Moon is the far superior movie, and I dare say the up coming sequel will also be hailed as a master piece in a way Dune 2 can only dream. Now I must return to washing my hair with jelly donuts.
@@MrJuliandedmanyou must be kidding me !!! Having said that Dune is anchored by superior text and material
@@MrJuliandedmannow if you have said that The Last Jedi was the best Dune Adaptation, you would be correct hehe
Dune is very complex story with no good or bad guys, no hero to save the day, no happy ending. Paul story can be compared to Hitlers rise in Germany and Fremen are something like nazis. its very hard story to put on screen. Not to mention that main character of Dune story isnt even born yet.
Could the Fremen be ¡sr@€lies - the oppressed becoming the oppressors?
Gosh, another 4 films like this....? I'm out!
@@MarcusFlemmings Yep, way too hardcore SF for general audience.
Litterally just got out of the theatre... I agree with you completely.
Too bad, cause so many other reviewers were so totally stoked on this movie, I had my hopes way way up.
Not enough time for the characters to set up really intricate relationships with eachother. Needed more political dialogue and feel like more of a giant chess board where the action pieces act as a turning tide. The book does this wonderfully, it's verrry cerebral. I LOVED Austin Butlers performance, as opposed to you. And Javier Bardem's character didn't do it for me personally. But the storytelling is lackluster, and it's kinda heartbreaking....
The problem is obvious. The original movie version and eventualy the tv-series both realised the optimal length of the adaptation. Villainouve simply ran out of material to adopt it sounds, just as I predicted, so part 2 became an empty, bloated mess. Visualy still stunning, but empty and bloated.
I hope they realised their mistake, and keep making continuations, so I can add a third part of my movie Dune universe. Because the 1st movie and the 2nd tv-series worked just fine for me, don't see the reason to substitute them for this current thing. Why fix what's not broken.
love this comment!!! This is why I love film :) The chess board analogy is exactly what I wanted...Game of Thrones style!
@@AmityvilleFanJust flat out lying. This ain't at all an empty movie and actually has quite a bit of substance. On the other hand I truly hope by "original movie" you don't mean the 1984 Dune because that is completely dogshit compared to this and if you're somehow implying that it's better than these newer films then that's just absolutely outrageous. 1984 is a much worse adaptation since it completely misses the main themes of Dune. It's also just a flat out much worse movie.
@@lightvader4618 Oh, the toxic fandom arrived.
Obviously I didn't say anything is better or worse than Villainouve's version, as I've not seen the new adaptations. I've not seen them, because I've not found reason for it, for the previous adaptations satisfied me.
The 1984 MOVIE-version was totaly good, the only failing point there was rushing through wth was with the Beneg Geserit Mother. And they obviously didn't care to even hint the fall of Paul.
Aside that, is was a perfectly fine and entertaining adaptation of a pretty miserable book.
Then SyFy came, re-adapted Dune for 4 hours, they realised this was too long, so the next miniseries adapted Messiah and Children. And it totaly worked. Was not a masterpiece, but totaly did work.
Therefor I don't see any eason to spend my limited time with a new adaptation that might not even get to continue adapting the story. I've seen the story adapted. I was satisfied with the adaptation. Why bother starting to watch a series that might be cancelled before it gets a conclusion?
---
But here is a question to you: what did the 1984 version miss from its adaptation according to You?
@@AmityvilleFan 1984 completely failed on one of the main themes which is the false messiah. It doesn't have that as it portrays Paul as the actual messiah which is just flat out wrong and completely goes against the themes. So it's a bad adaptation by that alone.
Also if you've not seen the new films then how in the hell are you making any judgements and being like "as I predicted it seems like an empty and bloated film🤓"?
Thank you for this balanced and proper analysis. I felt the movie was simply and sadly too much spectacle over substance, lacked emotional depth and meaningful character relationships. I could not feel connected to any character or location.
Exactly how I felt and it's a shame...because I really wanted to love this film!
Jav ier bar dem?
indeed!
Thanks for calling out Dave Bautista, it felt like John Cena in Fast and Furious... too much and too unrealistic. Though I'm afraid I have to disagree with the storytelling. Hear me out but in my pov instead of diving deeper into the undertone concepts, I think part 2 is more of Paul's story rather than Dune.. his villain origin arc, and I say it because the film feels like a subvert of the Child of prophecy/Chosen one trope. He goes from humble prodigy who rejects fate to self-proclaiming himself the messiah, getting his revenge without mercy on his story's antagonist, and with his future sight accepts that the only option is to destroy his enemies before they can destroy him at whatever the cost( kind of like Eren from Attack on Titan). turning him into a sort of antihero. and I think the undertone concepts will be explored more in the 3rd when we fully dive into the politics like the other great houses and the effects of the holy war outside Arrakis. But I'm with you on the character actors.. movies are getting more about who you recognise rather than who they are in the movie (stray shots to the Ghosted movie). For the transitions i think a few were intended smash cuts though.
Love this comment! Very measured...the thing is with the story...and I'm assuming you've read the books? I felt like there was a huge hole in the story where there were things that I didn't know but had to know from reading the book. I could just feel it!
Haven't read the books but I got the gist of it off CZcams. I'm with you, it's now like an extension of the lore rather than the director's own take. Lowkey feels he wants to stress us with questions or plant easter eggs for the lore that go full circle later.. like in the first movie the kangaroo rat had more cameos than Stan Lee but the Muad'Dib reference only makes sense in the next. I just digested it like Tenet and allowed there are some things I will not understand 100%😂@@MarcusFlemmings
Frank Herbert said he based Paul's character off of Muhammad and his early Islamic wars which also involved waging a holy war on the Byzantine Empire. I really felt that gritty historical tone in this.
Paul is someone who both is trying flee from and embrace his prophetic identity. By the end he seems to have embraced it but it's ambiguous whether he truly believes the story of himself or is leaning into a mirage to achieve his political ends.
I agree with your argument that I don't need to read a book to understand a movie, but I started watching David Lynch Dune where is retells book plot and explains by detail dune lore universe, so I started to appreciate Villeneuve vision wayyy more and how subtle he by "show, don't tell" expressing his vision of Dune especially first part.
I kind recommend to you watch Lynch Dune and then Villeneuve to see a difference.
Thanks for the comment :) I may one day watch it :) not in the near future! But I've seen clips, there's some clear differences. But I guess all adaptations will have differences really :) do stick around!
Well done Marcus for not following the herd and putting this overblown epic in perspective.
I fully agree that it's overloaded with big name actors...character actors would've done just fine.
So glad you agree! And I love Villennue but this film just misses the mark, for me! Thanks for the comment!
Dune Part 2 is trash. It is just visuals.
I do'n't think it's trash! But compared to the first, I was disappointed! Thanks for the comment!
I am sorry but I don’t get it the hype. I almost fell asleep and wanted to leave. It’s so boring.
Hahhahaha! I wouldn't go that far myself...but I feel you! Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
This review is similar to deepfocuslens. Two critics i really respect
Ah, she's my fave critic! I'm gonna watch hers now :) thanks for that comparison!
Sorry bro both movies were bad
I enjoyed the first one :) but many haven't enjoyed either!
Bro I respect your takes but either fix your mic or pronounce their names correctly.
Thanks for the comment! I'll watch your channel for the correct pronunciations!
Wow, I’ve never seen a person be so wrong. But with Dune 2, guess your eyes and ears were closed? The story made complete sense without having read the books, what movie were you watching? From Cinematogroahy, to storytelling, to world building, to scale, to character development, to score, to humor, to emotional moments, to sound design, to just epic moments-this movie is a celebration what movies are capable of. As far as I’m concerned I think this is one of the greatest films ever made. This movie felt like watching Return of the King, or Empire for the first time. This movie is immediately and all-timer.
That said, of course there are some issues, but minor in the gradscale. Sure, I’d love a directors cut that kept in the details of what happened to smaller supporting characters, but ultimately feel like got cut for time. The pace of this movie is perfect, edge of my seat the entire time.
Funny, I found the first film an huge disappointment, no character development, things happen to characters before we actually care, poorly setup the world, key elements of the universe put in text on the screen instead of being shown, and an incomplete story. it was more of a slow visual spectacle, then a full movie.
Guess ur eyes and ears were closed on Dune 1
@@FallTissel you’re in the minority if that’s what you think. Just take a look around, and listen to the feedback vs the first movie, even the director was disappointed in it. Didn’t say it was horrible, just wasn’t nearly as good as this. But now, 1 is way better because of 2. Starting to feel like a LOTR moment.
Thanks for the comment firstly! Secondly, it's not an all time great film for me. I don't even think it'll be the best film this year. We're only in March :) something will be better than it. I just watch Poor Things a few days ago...it's better than Dune 2. So I don't agree. But it doesn't matter if I agree, many people love the film and time will tell beyond our thoughts!
Another "everybody else says it's good so I have to like it" comment.
Nothing that he said in the video was wrong. This film has some serious issues due to good old fashioned bad storytelling.
@@paintspot1509 Riiiiggghhhtttt, that's exaclty what I said. I didn't talk about any of the aspects I thought the film nailed. To be clear, I saw the film two days before release day (I live in LA, it was a premiere), before any reviews, opinions, or the incredible excitement happened around the film. My experience was informed by sitting in my seat, and keeping my eyes and ears open.
Let's start here, there are plenty of things Marcus said that are wrong, but there's plenty of things he said that are right where he heaps praise on the film. Yes, the acting is amazing, the visuals are amazing, yes, there are scenes that are all time world class. But no, you don't need character actors to make a move a success. The fame of the actors in this movie don't matter at all in the story, not once did I stop to think about the individual actors when they appeared on screen, sounds like his problem, not with the film. None of the acting, except for Christopher Walkin, even indicates who any of these people are outside the bounds of the film. But even then, by the last scene I was not thinking of the Emporer has Christopher Walkin, I saw him as a feeble old man, fearing a loss of his power.
What else did he get wrong in this video? I said this in my original post, in case you missed it: "THE STORY MADE COMPLETE SENSE WITHOUT HAVING READ THE BOOKS." No the storytelling is not bad, it's excellent, it nails every point it intends to, and even the complicated nature of how this universe works, who has power and doesn't, what is valued, and more importantly the complicated nature of freedom fighting, vs saving humanity, vs personal desire, vs political intrigue. Marcus takes a reductive perspective of "BeCausE ExpLoSiOn n000 SssToRY." Which is insane to me. They build so many relationships, break important relationships, see character changes, see the implications of actions; they build intimacy, understanding, and audience camaraderie; hint at concerns of religious adherence, champion and celebrate moments of triumph; and even make real and believable things that are so easy to make cringe like talking unborn babies. Psh, "Bad Storytelling?" Define that. You say i'm speaking in generalizations, but you say nothing of specifics.
No there is no problem with action sequences, or their pacing. Sure they montage the success of ending the Harkonan spice harvesting, but I didn't see an action scene that wasn't excellent, well placed, and did show some aspect of their reality. The balance between action and the story was fantastic. No the action scenes weren't "noise," each of those scenes served a purpose, the first to show the Harkonan threat, show the capabilities of the Freeman; then ones to show the bonding of the characters; then to show the results of Paul's training arc; then to reintroduce characters; then to show the success of their war campaign; then to show the Harkonan counter offensive; then to get to the emperor. All of that action was needed. Sure Dune is hard-scifi, but it also deals with the reality of and the impact it has on political, soci-economic impacts of the machinations of human nature when it comes to power and control-which involve action and war.
No, Feyd Ratha, was not pointless. No he didn't do things "randomly." Him killing people without care show his lack of care or consideration for anything or anyone outside of his honor, his pride, or his desire. The Bene Gesserit even mention it in the film, that he finds pleasure in pain, which lends to the partial lack of humanity and of his character. But he also respects his enemy, and enjoys the game. It was a great role played perfectly, that I accepted and believed in the context of the movie. All of the that was character explanation, not the filmmakers "doing," to much. Feyd to strikes a balance of being insane, but incredibly clever.
I do think they could have done more with the Barron, but they were also moving up the power chain of recognition in this film. While the Baron plays an excellent villian in the first film, there is a recognition that he is also a pawn, but a pawn of who? The second film is an answer to this question. To the crown, and to the Bene Gesserit, they are the real powers of this universe. And Paul's ascension usurps all of that.
Just because the OP can't keep up with what's happening in the story in and between action, doesn't mean everyone can't. I, along with many people, really loved the pace of this movie. It is the fastest moving 2.6hrs I've watched in a long time.
The parts I think were the worst was: they didn't emphasize enough the change Paul goes through, that he's literally becomes a completely different person, living in all timelines simultaneously. The filmmaker's didn't do a good enough job of closing smaller character story lines, balancing the magnitude of the various antagonists, showing the other great house, or shifting from local conflict to universal conflict. But in the grand-scheme, it did an excellent job for what was put on screen.
I only mentioned the audience reaction to the film as a support of my points, not a point in an of itself. And sometimes the majority is right. Feel free to read and learn.
It is a shame if you didn't find your way to enjoy something as awesome as this movie. But not everyone enjoys having fun in life, I suppose. Later.
Timothee was a terrible cast
I like him - he is probably the best option for the role :)
I agree. I was disappointed. Dune 1 broke my heart because I loved those characters. Dune 2 left me nonplused.
Totally agree!
Weak film
Thanks for the comment:) stick around!
@@MarcusFlemmings First part was better story; but this film is just storyboard
I agree except with Zendaya, which you praise. She was the ONLY fremen who didn’t have an accent. Why? Because she can’t fake an accent. It was absurd hearing her talk next to Bardem and the other Fremen. Made no sense. And they dressed her up like a boy and made Paul look like a feminine girl crying every 20 minutes. Watch it again and count how many times Paul cries and compare to Chani who wears an offensive lineman uniform into battle- makes no sense. Just gender bending woke garbage. Distractions. Chani was otherwise written well and more complex than in the books, but needed a real actress to play her, maybe any random Moroccan or Persian or Arab woman, who has a real accent. Or an American who knows how to act.
I agree with you...she didn't have an accent. To be fair, I didn't notice. She doesn't lot of her acting with her eyes. Which I really love. But you make a fair point!