Please go watch the Dune movie. I need them to greenlight Part 2.
Also, it's really good. Exactly the sort of amazing visual and audio experience that theaters are made for.
Please go watch the Dune movie. I need them to greenlight Part 2.
Also, it's really good. Exactly the sort of amazing visual and audio experience that theaters are made for.
General summary/review:
Do you like Dune? Do you like good SF? Do you like good cinema? This is a good movie. You do not have to have read Dune in order to enjoy this though.
The cast is outstanding. The director is the same guy who did Blade Runner 2049 and Arrival. He brings that same sort of grandeur and visual storytelling to this film.
Only substantive critiques both spawn from there being a LOT of Dune to cover:
It is very much a Part 1 of 2. It concludes at a reasonable part in the story, but does not tie things up. It is not a self-standing film so much as a very appropriate bookmark spot "To be continued".
There is a lot of exposition they need to fit into the earlier parts of the film. I noticed it sometimes, but it was handled and spaced out well. Not getting in the way of the experience.
For the nerds/True Fans:
I'd say it's a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. Obviously take creative license at times, but clearly for the purpose of making it better fit the different storytelling format. The biggest changes I noticed were in the Harkonnens. Baron Harkonnen has some of his more... extreme or "of their time" quirks toned down. I find this actually makes him more intimidating and sinister than in the book, while maintaining a certain sense of the fantastic hyper-reality of the Dune universe (he's over-the-top like a Shakespeare villain not like a Bond/Disney villain). They seem to have folded several Harkonnen characters into one for Dave Bautistas role.
The treatment and adaptations put me more in mind of the changes made adapting The Exapanse than any other book to movie adaptation. Very much understanding what the core of the story is about, but leaning into what the new medium actually does better than books can.
I'm still damaged by the Dune movie from a few decades ago.
Yeah, this one avoids the rather twisted Harkonen "behaviors". 
It is visually very impressive. I would say my only critiques are: some of the dialogue is whispered and can be very hard to hear (may not be the case in a theater). It's only half a movie, which I am sure will make it a better story in the long run, but still a bit of a ding. I suspect the story will still be hard to follow for those who have not read the book or seen the original.
I did not read the book, but the original seemed to explain some things more. Mostly by the use of a voice over, which I know is a bit of a cheat/sin in many movies.
One big change I did note is they show a more obvious affect on the story for the "witches", which was not clear, or not shown in the original.
Overall, impressively done movie. Same director as Blade Runner 2024, so a similar style, but keeps some of the design style of the original (which I suspect is in the book)
I could have seen this last night, but we saw Bond instead. It was, "meh." Did I see the wrong film?
Arrival was a great movie
I'm looking forward to Dune, although I have never really managed to get into the books
It was very good and covered pretty faithfully what seemed to be about the first 1/4 of the book. The 2nd section/movie is where all the great stuff happens, or at least it did in the book.
They actually did a good job of explaining the necessary details that are easy to explain in a book but tough in a movie
I thought my grandson was playing the lead. They look, talk, act and move so much alike.
A lot of my friends are recommending it. I barely remember the first one except Sting in a diaper and that guy from Twin Peaks. SWMBO reminded me it's on HBOMax so I'll give it a watch tomorrow night. When I have 3hrs to spare.
I've not read or thought about Dune much at all over the past 30 years, which probably the last time I picked up a Dune novel. Probably half of it went over my head.
I went to see the film tonight and it was totally worth the price of admission. .
I plan on re-reading the book.
I almost slipped out after the kiddos bedtime to watch a midnight showing the other night. I'll have to figure out a way to see it in the theater. Hopefully an uncrowded one I'm still pretty sketched out by indoor crowds right now.
My whole family watch it except for my youngest. They all hated it. They found it boring and slow. They will not watch part two even with a bigger improvement in action and pacing. I thought it was fine and did follow the book for the most part. YMMV
DUNE has been disappointing me since the mid-70s when I first read the book. I want it to be good but it is just too big to lay out without becoming a DUNE nerd and dedicating your life to the whole thing. Then when a second book would come out, you had lost the thread of the first one and nothing really made sense. Almost as hard a read as James Joyce's Ulysses.
Interesting factoid if I remember correctly is that the book was published by Chilton. The same Chilton that published mostly car manuals.
Streetwiseguy said:I'm still damaged by the Dune movie from a few decades ago.
I left the original Dune book I was halfway through on a bus in 1982 and never bothered to finish it.
Then I saw David Lynch's horrible '80s Dune movie.
Its going to take some internal pushing to make myself go see this.
dculberson said:I almost slipped out after the kiddos bedtime to watch a midnight showing the other night. I'll have to figure out a way to see it in the theater. Hopefully an uncrowded one I'm still pretty sketched out by indoor crowds right now.
We got back from a mini vacation on Thursday. Caught a matinee showing on Friday. That worked out great, as there were only a handful of other people in the theater.
I kinda want to watch it again in IMAX now.
I disliked the book when I read it in the 80s. I finished it, but it was a bit of a slog. The 80s movie was all kinds of bad. I doubt I will go see the new one.
NOHOME said:Interesting factoid if I remember correctly is that the book was published by Chilton. The same Chilton that published mostly car manuals.
Truth.
My son saw it yesterday.
For a little context, my son is a professional filmmaker who has earned 2 Emmy Awards. He is extremely critical of films and their quality.
My son says it's one of the best films he has ever seen.
He also says it should be seen in iMax. I'll be seeing it soon.
I'll probably have to wait until it's available to rent on youtube, then I'll watch it
I enjoyed reading the books and I thought the original movie was good.
The movie didn't look anything like any other sci-fi movie of the time which is just fine because it's a little tiring seeing everyone trying to make the next Star Wars.
Sine_Qua_Non said:My whole family watch it except for my youngest. They all hated it. They found it boring and slow. They will not watch part two even with a bigger improvement in action and pacing. I thought it was fine and did follow the book for the most part. YMMV
Thinking about the very polarized opinions on this... I can see it. I think the reason is that this really is a work of art in a way that few films (or anything else) are.
Like most art it's somewhat challenging and asks more questions than it answers. However, I don't think it ever descends into self satisfied pretentious faffery (I'm looking at *you* Yorgos Lanthimos with 'The Lobster'). It really is *about* things.
I get the "slow" thing. It really takes it's time. To me, it never felt like it dragged though. Rather it raises questions or presents things and then gives them a few moments to sit there and breathe for them to sink in while you think about them. It's not pretentious because it really is about something, but it is art because it doesn't tell you exactly what the meaning is or how you're supposed to feel, because it wants you to come to those conclusions yourself.
For example, early on, there's lots of shots with looking at the bull's head and the statue of the matador and bull. We see Paul and Leto spend a lot of time looking at and considering these things. The movie demands some attention because the background is only briefly mentioned indirectly in one scene, "Grandfather fought bulls for sport..." ... "And look what happened to him." That's the bull that killed Paul's Grandfather. So, what does it mean that it is so significant to them? What does that say about the story? Well... that's not easy to put into words. That's why it's film. But it's also not something pretentiously intellectual that you need a degree to understand.
I also get the issue with "not enough action". I thought there was quite a bit for what it was, and it was all meaningful. But I think a big part of that could be the fault of the trailers, which made it look like this was going to be Star Wars, not a mystical version of Game of Thrones without all the sex. Makes me think of what happened with 'The Babadouk', where audience were disappointed because they were expecting a creature feature, when what they got was a psychological thriller exploring loss, family, and mental illness. It was a fantastic movie, but audiences went in and did not get what they were expecting.
I think much of why I enjoyed it as much as I did was that I actually didn't watch many trailers and didn't put any stock in them to tell me what the movie was going to be like. I watched a couple spoiler-free reviews, and the only expectations I went in with were "awesome visuals and score, and solid acting."
I will watch it again, but it sadly left me feeling kinda disappointed. Especially at the fact that it dragged horribly at points while only telling a fraction of the story. Does everything need to be a decade of sequels now?
Sure, it will win awards, but that certainly isn't proof that it was a great movie. The art direction and sounds editing are superb and deserve recognition. The casting and directing in general were not as perfect. Also, the titles and fonts seemed spot on.
As a fan of the books and the original movie I was excited for this but it ultimately didn't feel like it is living up to its legacy.
tb said:As a fan of the books and the original movie I was excited for this but it ultimately didn't feel like it is living up to its legacy.
I'm hoping that it will with part 2.
Sine_Qua_Non said:tb said:As a fan of the books and the original movie I was excited for this but it ultimately didn't feel like it is living up to its legacy.
I'm hoping that it will with part 2.
I'm really hopeful for Part 2 as well. I felt like Part 1 kept getting better as it went along because early on it was busily doing the heavy lifting of having to convey a LOT of fairly heady exposition and worldbuilding. By the last half to third of the movie, that work was done and they could just roll with things.
All that work is done already for Part 2, so they should be able to just hit the ground running.
Beer Baron said:Sine_Qua_Non said:tb said:As a fan of the books and the original movie I was excited for this but it ultimately didn't feel like it is living up to its legacy.
I'm hoping that it will with part 2.
I'm really hopeful for Part 2 as well. I felt like Part 1 kept getting better as it went along because early on it was busily doing the heavy lifting of having to convey a LOT of fairly heady exposition and worldbuilding. By the last half to third of the movie, that work was done and they could just roll with things.
All that work is done already for Part 2, so they should be able to just hit the ground running.
This is true, it definitely felt like the dune for people who have never heard of it version...
You'll need to log in to post.
