While Dune: Part Two offers a breath of fresh air amidst the release of lackluster movies in 2024, it attempts to juggle too many story elements at once and, consequently, lacks the depth of Dune.
I think the problem is that the first Dune flushed out every bit of foundation they possibly could, and to some opinions it came across as slow and reaching nowhere... And the second Dune seemed to take important story-building timeframes and rush them, almost like watching a "previously on" montage. I think that difference between time dilation and compression makes the second one feel less deep than it could have. I don't think that really took away from the story we were given, it's still incredibly well done
Had Denis not insisted on making the first film a series of extended beauty shots and vignettes with little connective tissue and depth, and not done the same during the first half of Part Two, perhaps he could've actually... Adapted the book in its entirety! The miniseries did it with an hour less than Villeneuve had to work with. So... What's his excuse, really? He obviously streamlined it needlessly. However, it's also very telling that the trailers released for both films before their respective delays (the first due to COVID, the second due to the HWood strikes) contain shots and dialogue not seen in the finished film (but that, in Part One's case, do appear in the leaked 2018 script). It could be claimed that the first final edits of these films, before their delays, were the actual adaptations, and what we have now - are... Interjected edits, shall we say? If that is indeed the case - What's the use of re-adapting Dune if you David Lynch Villeneuve twice?!
Plot wise the movie could have done better. There is allot of important plot point that was skimmed or skipped over. Chani was supposed to have had been in a multi year long relationship with Paul, had a child and had basically been a wife in all but name. The fact that this all the movie happened in a time span of a of months not years. We deserved to see Paul’s sister as a young girl not as a fetus.
In response to reactions of my unpopular opinion of this new adaptation, I am going to upload the entire SciFi Channel miniseries, Dune, and Children of Dune to my RU-vid Channel. It will take me about a week, due to restricted data upload. I hope this provides entertainment to people who cannot find these miniseries anywhere else available.
Chamber of Secrets in Harry Potter was the most direct book to movie they made and it was awful. Prerequisite for audience understanding full source material isn't going to make you money on a box office budget. Telling a story will. The first movie was fairly boring but this movie tied it together and visually was the best VFX movie I can remember.
With all due respect to you and your opinion, why must you bring politics into the review? It felt uncomfortable and out of place, and left me with a slightly bitter impression of you. Otherwise, I loved your insight and I do agree with you about how the first one was slightly better than part 2.
Hey, I get it. A lot of things that weren't politicized now are, and it's exhausting. In my view, a significant amount of movies today are overtly political in a way they never were before. The Oscars and several studios, including Disney and Amazon, have put DEI quotas for movies in place that fundamentally change the incentives for movie-makers from making a good movie to making one that achieves "equity." They are the ones politicizing movies and, often times, the movies suffer because of that. So, when I see a good movie, like Dune: Part Two, that lacks any overt, woke aspects I call it out because it legitimately makes the movie better. We see this reflected in ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB all of the time: audiences generally do not like overt political messaging of any kind in movies. I understand you may not share the same view, but I'm at least glad you got some value out of the other parts of the video.
I completely disagree. If your films don't standalone as well as respect each other, You didn't make a film. Making one big movie spread out over 3 years does not make a good movie. It makes a lazy one. Too much was cut out, and needlessly, at that. If you look at the dreadfully slow pacing in Part One - there's all the proof you'll need.
What I missed was more screen time with the emperor and the princess. And Guild Navigators who were completely absent through the entire movie. I think that too much time is devoted to the Fremen. Like you said destruction of one of their underground cities lacks emotional weight. And I think that actress who plays Chani was a weak choice, I don't feel the chemistry between her and Paul at all, she is pissed of the entire time. But all and all I think the movie is great and I would give it 8/10.
So much of your stated issues with the film would objectively result in a lower score than the one you gave. YOur review sounds far more like a 7/10 to me
@@humbleopulence Also mentats are completely absent in the second movie. I don't know, I consider all of this minor complaints. Because the good in this movie was on the masterpiece level. I would give the first movie 7/10, the second one 8/10, all and all 7,5/10 for the adaptation of the first Dune book. It is great but not excellent.
I didn’t say there are no politics in Dune. I said Part Two does not attempt to push partisan political messages. “Be weary of charismatic leaders” is not a partisan political message.
@@pjberish The warning of charismatic leadership is very libertarian at its core. Herbert was a Republican and had strong political beliefs which influenced his works. He described President Kennedy as one of the most dangerous presidents for that very reason, and he considered Nixon to be a good president because he personified distrust in government. I'm not saying that you say there is no politics in Dune. I'm saying that your claim that other media are pushing an agenda and Dune would be a glorious exception is simply untrue. It's simply a different agenda than e.g. feminism or racism. You may share the political agenda presented in Dune, you may find it so utterly normal that you don't even perceive the media as pushing an agenda. Either way: Dune, by design, pushes a political agenda. It was written for that very purpose. To claim otherwise ignores anything the author has ever said about his own work. Heck, Herbert wrote Dune Messiah in part only to completely deconstruct Paul as the hero, as he always wanted him to be an anti-hero and was irritated that many people reading the first book would think of Paul as the classical hero.
I should have been more precise with what I said in the video. I generally find the insertion of any overt, partisan political messaging or ideologies in movies to be a turnoff. Modern movies are often influenced by woke ideology in a very in-your-face way and I'm glad Denis Villeneuve chose, for the most part, to faithfully adapt the source material. If you had people place Dune on the political spectrum it's not obvious to me that people would immediately know where to place it. I suspect the average placement would be somewhere in the middle.
Youre going in with the book in mind. I can definitely agree that some things felt like it either should have had a bigger impact (the destruction of a sietch) or it felt rushed (the death of Rabban) but it was definitely a defining film overall. It was a long movie but at no point was it boring or spoon feed exposition. The "show dont tell" method (the riding of the sandworms and how exposing the holes between the scales prevent the worm from diving) was used quite a bit and the acting (walken was definitely a funny choice) was good enough to convey the missing inner dialoges. I think it waa a solid 8 to 9 out of 10. The weird choice of walken and some scenes feeling rushed/missing impact do detract and break the immersion here and there. However, its only but a couple scenes in an almost 3 hour show time. I think its at least on the same playing field as Lotr.
I am excited to watch it again; perhaps I'll have a different opinion the second time around. I wasn't that impressed with LOTR the first time I watched it but my opinion of it improved with each viewing.
@@pjberish I don't think you were off base or anything, I just think that the 2nd move had book bias going against it esp since the first movie is what captivated you enough to want to read the dune series. So I think unintentionally, expectations may have been placed on how you wanted things to play out in specific scenes/keynotes. Maybe I didn't convey that thought process well enough. I think a 2nd viewing might help piece together parts that were glossed over in your mind because this director definitely tried to limit exposition in part 2 and wanted the actors to do thr heavy lifting in their mannerisms, body language and facial expressions. I agree overall with your complaints and triumphs of the film, I just think you gave the negatives a heavier weight against the score than I personally would.
How could he not, though? He read the books. I read the books years ago, am I supposed to forget them simply so I can enjoy the film? Were the films not primarily made for the core audience that would carry the hype forward? So why is it only non book readers are happy about these films? I came out feeling uninspired, insulted and most severely disappointed. I know I'm not the only one. And when even my non book reader friends remark that "So much FEELS missing from the second half" - that's not a good sign. The hype for this film is simply unjustified, and time will very soon tell just that.
