When watching movies, I always try to differentiate between my personal enjoyment and the inherent merits of the movies. There are a lot of bad movies, which I totally and thoroughly enjoy watching, and some really great movies, which I don’t enjoy that much, but still can respect/appreciate.
With this prelude, I totally do not get the positive reactions to Denis Villeneuve’s Dune movies. At the time I am writing this question, part two has 94% critique and 95% audience score at Rotten Tomatoes, 9.0 at IMDB.
In my opinion, Dune 1 and Dune 2 have obviously high production values and good special effects. What I do not like is the acting, the pacing, the total flat/simple characters and the whole narration, which is for me a trivial love story between Chani and Paul, plus becoming a leader and get some revenge. I could simply replace the ‘Dune’ theme with a standard war theme and a few tribes, and I would have exactly the same movie. Also the battle scenes at the end of part 2, they are for me totally cookie cutter war movie/battle aesthetics. (Total waste: There are big Sandworms after all, and combat with personal shields etc.).
My question is, especially if you very much enjoyed watching the Dune movies:
- Why did you personally enjoy the movie?
- Do you think this movies have some inherent merits?
- How do you like the acting/plot/pacing?
Your description of the issues sounds just like the book. Which I also hated.
It is a long time ago, when I read the books, and I liked, that they where very political and changed the narrator often (if I remember correctly). To say, I kept them in good memory w/o the urge of reading them ever again. ;-)
The books are full of intrigue, subtle plots and other plots.
It’s a book that when read a second time you come away with an entirely new experience armed with the knowledge (and familiarity) of the first read.
Dune 1 (haven’t seen part 2 yet) just captures the feel of all the forces, pressures and consequences of the book.
It goes for a “show don’t tell” kind of storytelling that really works to get a feel for it.
Not that the works merit direct comparison since they’re so different it harkens to the Lord of the Ring trilogy where you don’t get a lot of the details of the book but you get the heart of the story, world, lore and relationships of the people.
Paul is reserved, intrigued by Chani and his visions.
Jessica acts out of love over duty
The Duke brings his family to a place of what he expects to be dangerous but is also powerful and the political maneuver putting them there was airtight. Hence his duty to go, his worry for the family, the importance of being there.
All the players, all the parties, all the pressures are there. The only ones not focused on, at least in the first, is the guild which fits what was shown so far anyway.
It’s a mystery.
No, I’m in the exact same boat.
It’s an absolutely stellar production of a completely mid story set in an amazing world, which is ignored in favor of the blandest character-drama-chosen-one-lovers-of-destiny drivel.
I can’t stand it. I went back to Trigun for my desert sci-fi fix.
Some people are able to enjoy just the cinematography and world building, with the story and characters serving as mere excuses to explore those other things. And they are done exceptionally well here, which I think is impressing a lot of people.
And a lot of people really never think past surface level aspects when it comes to writing. Anyone can tell when the acting or CG is bad, but a lot of people can only tell that the writing is bad, when it goes from good to bad within the same production (Game of Thrones). If it’s bad from the start, most people don’t care. If something is cool, loud, pretty, dramatic, or shiny enough, it is able to entertain.
And I’m not even saying that’s wrong. Different things are important to different people, both creators and readers/watchers etc.
We all have that one thing we enjoy for all the wrong reasons. In the same way some things can be widely popular, and still not hit home for some of us for all the wrong reasons.
The tropes it’s drawing on are universal:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
I loved the original book. I just think it’s unfilmable. A lot of it is about getting inside peoples heads to hear their thoughts and machinations.
I found the art direction, costuming, and casting of Lynch’s movies brilliant. Even the soundtrack was a nice surprise.
But the new movies seem very sterile, slow, and dull. I’ve also never understood people’s fascination with Chalmet. I find his performances to be just fair.
The movies have made money, so they are talking about making more of them from the second and third books. I think this is a mistake because the story in the sequels really goes off the rails. I do look forward to laughing at Chalmet playing Mr. Worm Dude.
I think the Bene Gesserit tv show they’re making sounds like a far better plan. The “fill in the blanks” backstories in the Dune universe are interesting, and leave more room for original storytelling.
I just wanna say I agree with your critique and I think it’s overrated. I haven’t seen the second one tho
I read Dune years ago now and have only seen part 1. I may misremember the book some and that may be affecting my personal feelings of it but I’ll give my input nonetheless.
Pretty much, I feel Villeneuve and his team have done the most faithful depiction of the first part of the book to date, in terms of matching mood and description of the spaces, as well as the behaviors exhibited by characters. the scenes that really drove this home for me were the hunter seeker in Paul’s chamber and Jessica’s interaction with Shadout Mapes. Unfortunately much of the relevant exposition which explains the details of the situation are missing, since they’re internal monologues of Paul and Jessica.
I can’t blame Chalamet for his acting here. Paul shows Jack shit in the books and you mostly get what he’s thinking and feeling, once again, from his thoughts. In this case, Chalamet is being pretty faithful to Paul’s demeanor in the books - whether he means to or not. I do remember him being alittle more expressive in the second part of the book, so it’ll be interesting for me to see if that comes across in part 2.
TL;DR: Dune is a novel packed full of culture, intrigue, and philosophy, and Denis tosses basically all of that out the window in favour of style and atmosphere.
As a massive Dune fan who has also only seen part 1, I’m very conflicted. It’s obviously the most faithful adaptation but that’s a pretty low bar to set. There are so many little changes from the novel that it’s hard for me not to feel Denis doesn’t really get Dune. I also have tons of small complaints with the script just in a general sense, weird moments that are distracting and pointless even ignoring their relation to the novel.
My biggest issue with the script is that it feels like Denis is focused on creating this super epic atmosphere. We have many beautiful shots of space ships or terrain accompanied by booming music. It’s cool, but it feels like a massive waste when the movie also has rushed scenes that could have been so easily adapted to film.
For example Stilgar meeting Leto. In the movie, Stilgar walks in, Leto says something along the lines of “I respect you” and Stilgar immediately spits on the ground to indicate his respect for Leto.
In the novel that scene has Duncan explaining how he tried to save a dying fremen but wasn’t able to and that the fremen gave him his crysknife before he died. Stilgar then dramatically interrupts saying something like “Do not unsheath that knife!”. What follows is an interaction between Stilgar and Leto where Leto deftly shows his respect to Fremen and their culture without capitulating or showing weakness. Only then does Stilgar spit on the ground giving us the dramatic scene where Duncan has to quickly intervene to prevent violence.
I don’t think I’m doing a great job of making my case but the difference to me is stark. The book uses this one scene to feed the reader knowledge about Leto, Stilgar, Duncan, and the fremen. But the movie rushes the scene and we learn next to nothing.
I could go on but I’m just ranting at this point. Dune is a novel packed full of culture, intrigue, and philosophy, and Denis tosses basically all of that out the window in favour of style and atmosphere.
I think it’s because he knows how to put his own spin on a story while respecting previous works in that space.
The “cookie cutter” parts of dune are only that because everyone has copied dune since the books came out.
That’s like saying Houdinis’ tricks were cookie cutter traps.
Lord of the rings comes out
“Oh look, another movie about elves and dwarves.”
Lol exactly
I fear the Greeks around two thousands years back already had the cookies which inspired Frank Herbert. ;-)
Ha, true true. Like music, how you put the notes together is what matters. Dune put them together in an inspiring way.
Just for clarification, so you enjoy Villeneuve’s Dune movies?
I do. I haven’t seen the second yet though. But I imagine I’ll enjoy it more than the first just because I remember that section of the story less. Part One is tough since it’s the part that everyone knows more and has been repeated more often in culture. Also, it just kinda… ends.
