Dune (2021)

[ahalpert]

1.

Was that because of the film itself, or because of the lore of Dune? I don't immediately see them as separate, but from an analytical standpoint, I can see that this film by itself would be different if it were its own IP. Genuinely curious about your opinion on this, because you are a self proclaimed SciFi lover. You and I would go into Dune with some sense of just liking the ideas behind everything. However, from a film making arts and science stand point, does the film still hold up to critical scrutiny? After all, the 'Dune' name carries a lot of pressure to be excellent. Other than a big budget feel, does it deliver? And if so, I am interested in your thoughts. You always have great things to say. So thank you in advance.

I feel like I can answer this question pretty scientifically because:

1. I don't like David Lynch's Dune. Actually, I'm not sure if I ever saw it in full. I may have... But I started watching it a few years ago and turned it off. My memory is pretty much shot these days on account of the small kids and the sleep deprivation, etc, so I don't remember the viewing very well but I remember being turned off by the special effects and not enjoying the dialogue or the style. So, if it were just the lore of Dune that lured me, then I reckon I would have liked that movie as well.

2. Memory loss also gave me a chance to enjoy Dune anew somewhat. What I remember most about reading the books as a kid is just how much I enjoyed them. I also remembered the litany against fear, that somebody spit on a table in a gesture of respect that was initially misinterpreted, and that somebody rode on a sandworm at some point. But that was pretty much it, so I got to enjoy the story in the Villeneuve film without measuring it against the novels too much.

3. I was really excited to see Avatar and came out incredibly disappointed.

The Avatar comparison is enlightening because it illustrates how lowly filmmakers prioritize writing the "story" (ie plot, action, characters, dialogue) relative to novelists. Cameron said he wrote Avatar in about 2 weeks. (No surprises there.) Meanwhile, Dune became a cult classic as a complex novel before it was ever adapted as a film, largely because of the rich world-building, complex characters, epic plot, etc. Filmmakers are so eager to skip to the end of the process, the part where we push the red button. But the first part--writing the story--is almost the entirety of this whole other medium (literary fiction).

So, in that sense, yes it is the story of Dune that made the film great moreso (perhaps) than Villeneuve's contributions. (Although history has shown that this is not an easy story to adapt to cinema.) And I think that the story he draws from made all the difference in the quality of the film vs Blade Runner 2049, which I enjoyed but didn't move me or inspire me to the same level.

And let's give credit where it's due. Much of the sensibility of Dune 2021 is pure Villeneuve. The organic, curved, abstract forms of the spaceships are atypical for American sci-fi and reminiscent of the ships he used in Arrival. The pace of the fight scenes and dramatic movement also felt atypical. (I'm rewatching Star Trek: Discovery Season 3 right now before Season 4 premieres, and so many of the fight scenes devolve into endless light shows. They lack clarity of action or dramatic purpose. The excitement and adrenaline seems like the point, rather than some character development or plot development being revealed in the action.)

4. I didn't really like the LOTR movies, which arguably have WAY more lore and cult underpinning them than Dune does. (Of course, I never got past Tom Bombadil when I read the books, and I'm not a fan of the lore itself outside the movies...)

2.

As a feature film, do you think a deflated ending with a cliff hanger can warrant it as a good film? The formula feels more series than feature. Sequels are fine, but each film should have a stand alone approach. Not that that it is a hard fast rule, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels had a cliff hanger ending, but in a sense, that sort of made the film end in a fun way. The way Dune is done, I feel I would appreciate more as an HBO series than pretending these are feature films in anything other than length. You could probably cut the film in half and make two episodes of it.

Personally, I like non-ending endings. I like it when the hero rides off into the sunset, somewhat like at the end of The Dark Knight. I'm a fan of vague continuity, when done right.

I mean, you're in a bit of a tricky spot here because if the sequels never got made, then you'd be a dissatisfied viewer (albeit with a piqued curiosity). But the alternative would be to wrap things up in a bow, which I think would either feel forced or require much more time.

I think he played his cards right. I think this was the perfect set-up for a sequel, and I think he was right to commit to that approach.

The deflation of the ending for me was not marching to Sietch Tabir and seeing a guy riding a sandworm. It was being captured by the group and challenged to a duel by the guy he kills. It was more about the pacing there or my adrenaline coming down, or Zendaya's acting or something. I'm not making a sweeping critique so much as quibbling with minor directorial decisions, perhaps. It's also hard for me to judge because I watched the movie in 3 sittings with my wife when we had time. Part 1 was up to the destruction of the city, part 2 up to spinning in the sandstorm, and part 3 took us to the end. So, I didn't get a chance to ride the emotional waves of the movie in one go.

Also, I thought that the scene of them spinning in the sandstorm was so brilliantly handled and intercut with the Baron Harkonnen stuff... Tough act to follow.

3.
One area I feel I am contradicting myself is the Dune IP vs Original IP influence. If this were it's own IP, I wonder if I would be more or less forgiving. In a sense I might have less anticipation through the slow drawn out scenes to hold my interest. But at the same time, because it is "DUNE"! I have unrealistically high expectations. Does that make sense? Do you have any perspective on that?

It's impossible to say how we'd react differently if we didn't walk in with that baggage. None of the slow scenes felt drawn out to me except maybe Leto and Paul walking in the graveyard, which I blame on some uneven acting by the two of them and that the dialogue was somewhat expository.

Probably the best way to answer that question in a sort of vacuum is to see how someone else enjoys the film who doesn't know the story. My wife loved it and had never read the books. She watched it before I did and then watched a series of youtube backstory explainer videos. By the time she started watching it again with me (late at night of the same day she had watched it in the morning), she probably understood the world of Dune better than I ever had as a kid.

But ultimately, you or me as a viewer just want to be personally served. That's why so much of the new Star Trek pisses me off (both films and shows): because they jettison so much of the spirit that made me a fan in an effort to woo young, non-fans. So, whether or not you would have liked Dune more if it were its own IP is sort of a moot point. All that matters is if you enjoyed it, if it did something for you, if it fired some neurons. If not, then it's a failure, at least for you personally.

I definitely was excited about it and wanted to enjoy it. But the same was true (possibly even moreso) about Avatar (which I saw in IMAX 3D on opening night) and that didn't prevent me from hating Avatar.

1.

Such a good movie. Too many good things to say about it, so I'll just say that it delivered me the sort of cinematic adventure I always yearn to re-experience; to be fully invested in the action and the outcome. It made me believe. Twas so much easier to get that when I was a kid.

Was that because of the film itself, or because of the lore of Dune? I don't immediately see them as separate, but from an analytical standpoint, I can see that this film by itself would be different if it were its own IP. Genuinely curious about your opinion on this, because you are a self proclaimed SciFi lover. You and I would go into Dune with some sense of just liking the ideas behind everything. However, from a film making arts and science stand point, does the film still hold up to critical scrutiny? After all, the 'Dune' name carries a lot of pressure to be excellent. Other than a big budget feel, does it deliver? And if so, I am interested in your thoughts. You always have great things to say. So thank you in advance.

2.

the final act felt a little deflated but the very end set an excellent tone to lead into the sequel

As a feature film, do you think a deflated ending with a cliff hanger can warrant it as a good film? The formula feels more series than feature. Sequels are fine, but each film should have a stand alone approach. Not that that it is a hard fast rule, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels had a cliff hanger ending, but in a sense, that sort of made the film end in a fun way. The way Dune is done, I feel I would appreciate more as an HBO series than pretending these are feature films in anything other than length. You could probably cut the film in half and make two episodes of it.

3.
One area I feel I am contradicting myself is the Dune IP vs Original IP influence. If this were it's own IP, I wonder if I would be more or less forgiving. In a sense I might have less anticipation through the slow drawn out scenes to hold my interest. But at the same time, because it is "DUNE"! I have unrealistically high expectations. Does that make sense? Do you have any perspective on that?

[ahalpert]

Such a good movie. Too many good things to say about it, so I'll just say that it delivered me the sort of cinematic adventure I always yearn to re-experience; to be fully invested in the action and the outcome. It made me believe. Twas so much easier to get that when I was a kid.

especially good battle scenes and space scenes. Gorgeously composed and lit. Always moved the story forward and never bored me. Never devolved into endless spectacle.

quibbles: heavy on expository dialogue in the beginning, which is totally understandable; some uneven acting from Oscar Isaacs, Timothee chalamet and zendaya; some desert clothing looked too new to me; the final act felt a little deflated but the very end set an excellent tone to lead into the sequel

I may try to see it in theaters as well while I still can

OldCorpse I'd almost argue that Hans Zimmer makes Villenueve's decisions feel more like hesitation or lack of direction, rather than choices. Hans' music often lends a sense of anticipation of payoffs and scenes that never actually land in a Vilennueve film, as they might in a more traditional Hollywood style narrative. If you listen to the more ambiguous and looming music of Jo'hannsson in films like Arrival, you can see how those work with the less defined movements of a Villenueve narrative.

I thought this score beautiful....and I’m definitely not a fan...certainly for my ear his best...difficult to describe the emotion invoked in me by the score and imagery combined, but it really anchored the film for me. Thought the combination quite mesmerizing!
I would also say that undertaking this film would be no small task for any director, but I thought he was patient and made excellent choices in how to approach something, that in the end will only truly work as some sort of mini series (apparently he sees it as 4 films).

I think Zimmer does good work, i just don’t think his work is in sync with Villenueve. it’s like they make different films.

Zimmer is always ready to make an entrance and bring the action, but Villenueve is much more set back and letting moods deep into the bones. Zimmer never let’s that happen.

Sicario and Arrival showcase that sort of seamless interplay of director and composer. Those films had issues too, perhaps more in script than in anything else, but the films were still rather succesful works.

[fboonzaier]

Zimmer seems like a good Chameleon, and given the right direction can do the task. Zimmer and Nolan for example pair up well, with the styles and leadership seemingly combining in an appropriate way.

Jóhann Jóhannsson seemed a much better collaborator for Villenueve.

I thought this score beautiful....and I’m definitely not a fan...certainly for my ear his best...difficult to describe the emotion invoked in me by the score and imagery combined, but it really anchored the film for me. Thought the combination quite mesmerizing!
I would also say that undertaking this film would be no small task for any director, but I thought he was patient and made excellent choices in how to approach something, that in the end will only truly work as some sort of mini series (apparently he sees it as 4 films).

Nothing about this movie was surprising to me. From the very start it struck me as a very, very bad idea, with about zero chance of being successfull, just as I predicted with BR2049.

The reasons were clear as day. First, source material. In the case of BR2049, I thought there’s about a snowball’s chance in he|| you’d be able to make a sequel to an acknowledged masterpiece like BR and have it compare favorably or even anywhere within a mile or a galaxy. Same with Dune insofar as a starting point. This is a very poor source for adaption to the screen - the novel just doesn’t operate on a cinematic level. It’s been tried before - many times - and failed. At best, given the intellectual nature of that novel, you might stand a chance in a TV series, but a 2-3 part motion picture at a huge budget for general audiences? Nope. Doomed from the start.

Then you have the director, and that seals it. It’s already an almost impossible task, and then give it to a no-talent like Villeneuve? The chances of success here are between zero and nothing. So it wasn’t a hard call to make that this enterprise was doomed, both in the case of BR2049 and Dune.

Villaneuve needs to get lucky to push out a tolerable product. His best is Sicario, and because the idea is very strong, and some of the actors are very good, he can skate by with an OK film - and that’s Sicario, an OK movie (I even enjoyed it!). Of course, it has a lot of the signature Villaneuve failings, which I explored at length in the thread on Sicario, from poor understading of framing and camera placement and generally blocking and staging to casting choices (Emily Blunt, completely miscast as an FBI agent!), but there’s enough good to make it work.

But counting on luck is not a plan and not ability. Lacking in actual ability, DV collapses spectacularly when a great deal of ability is required and you are not going to get lucky because you’d have to win the lottery not once but a dozen times in a row - ain’t gonna happen. Unless you are super talented, you are not going to pull off a sequel to BR or a screen version of Dune. And DV is a very, very poor director.

DV apparently doesn’t have the ability to evaluate material, or he’d never agree to do BR2049 or Dune as those are doomed to fail - but at least part of the responsibilty is on the braindead executives who greenlit those projects in the first place and then put DV in charge… facepalm.

Now that he was put in charge, he has no idea how to evaluate a screenplay - already on paper both those films were sh|tshows - utter trash. Instead of trying to work on those scripts and get other writers and guide them, DV can’t tell. It’s like asking a color blind person to match tiles. He can’t tell what makes a good script or how to develop a script to make it good… he needs to get lucky, and if he doesn’t he’ll fail. BR2049 and Dune were therefore doomed from the first page of the script. It is a director’s responsibility to pick a project and supervise a script - both of which DV fails, as he doesn’t seem to have that basic ability.

DV also doesn’t know how to cast. He can get lucky with a star - Gosling, Chalamet, Gyllenhaal, Adams, del Toro, probably because the studio has input there and there aren’t as many choices for who can open/carry a movie. As soon as options open up into the 100’s and 1000’s, and it’s his pick - he’s immediately lost, and comes up with insane choices and super weak actors. The result is that it’s usually a random collection of actors, and not a coherent performace with chemistry on screen.

DV also doesn’t appear to know how to work with actors (in addition to not knowing how to work with writers), because all those actors really can’t deliver apart from being miscast - you get super limited and listless performances (or outright bad - Jared Leto, ugh!). You may as well work with hand puppets, you’d have more success.

He has no ear for music, doesn’t understand pacing or modulation of scenes and therefore cannot edit, is lost without someone taking charge of camera placement and so on. His staging is a joke (as I remarked before, it’s like placing toy soldiers on the kindergarten floor).

All those are the responsibilities of the director and he’s unequal to the task in all of them. He is good at one thing - and I guess that’s the ultimate 100% necessary talent in Hollywood, and that’s he can get execs to greenlight his projects and put him in charge - that he is undeniably good at. If only the results were better - I’d sooner put a random PA on the set to replace DV and the result would probably be better.

What can we say about Dune at this point? Just as I said about BR2049, it will never be held up as something that stands the test of time, like the original BR - the original will be rewatched for decades to come, BR2049 will rot on some server somewhere, and the same for Dune. Dune will not ever have the status of a great sci-fi movie, to stand alongside BR, The Thing, The Terminator, Predator, Alien and dozens and dozens of other films.

An incredible amount of money is spent, for embarrasing results - what a waste. Too bad it didn’t go to more worthy projects with actually talented people. Maybe it can do OK at the boxoffice if the stars align and there is no competition while it’s shown, the numbers may be fine. But as a work of filmmaking - it’s clearly a failure. Which is not to say that you won’t have fans - there’s hardly a movie anywhere that doesn’t have SOME fans, and especially here on dvxuser, where there are special interests like cinematography or sets, and with a giant budget you can get a DP and super sets, so at least you’ll have that (the sets on BR2049 were very nice - no such luck on Dune though!).

Oh, and spoiler alert - part 2 of Dune will be a giant failure too… predicting this is about as hard as predicting that sunset will be followed by a sunrise the following day. All IMHO, and YMMV, of course, other opinions always welcome and appreciated, this is just my one man opinion .

this post has me agreeing with one sentence and disagreeing with the next


in the short term, i sort of already implied, there may be quibbles and missteps, but overall, i think the film as entertainment was pleasant and moved along with enough emotional fiber to be considered one of the better shows out this year.

I rarely have much to say about the acting or staging of actors, but i’ll mention

The busy work of characters feels fake. The way Jasón Mamoa works on the aircraft in the first scene…. was like watching someone clean in a sitcom. yep, he is working.

sometimes i could believe Timothy was capable of tripping someone so easily, but all of these things are somewhat common in shows and movies, so i can’t really say they are bad, or awful by comparison. we leap past these issues all the time.

the occasional 180 degree flip also makes me wonder if there was much in terms of vision for each scene, or if they just went with it some days.


the Josh Brolin character seemed to have come from a different place then the rest of everyone else. Just made him seem actorly, like he was doing the stage play and everyone else was trying to be more accesible to modern audiences. But Brolin’s character occasionally breaks into more modern humour and speach.


Most everyone at least had good screen presence and carried their roles as well as one can.

way too much blade to neck threats. like why are the guards so bad that they let people get that close, yet also super worried about the slightest movements or appearances of disrespect that they have to threaten killing the offender. just crazy. especially for such a benign type ruler.

Zimmer seems like a good Chameleon, and given the right direction can do the task. Zimmer and Nolan for example pair up well, with the styles and leadership seemingly combining in an appropriate way.

Jóhann Jóhannsson seemed a much better collaborator for Villenueve.

This is a good place to discuss the music as it illustrates these problems in multiple ways. First, again as in BR2049, Villaneuve has the impeccably bad taste to pick the absolute zero talent hack of Hans Zimmer. That man’s approach to music is to throw the kitchen sink in and hope that something sticks. Dense torrents of instrumentation sludge trying to cover for a complete lack of musical ideas, the same overused effects of choruses and somber dirges - this is a man who is so utterly talentless that he cannot muster a single musical theme if his life depended on it. We can all hum themes from Jaws or The Thing, or stuff by Rota, or Morricone, or Chinatown, or Taxi Driver, or Psycho, or Rosemary’s Baby or *hundreds* of movies where a theme elevates the movie (even Spielberg with John Williams), but you’ll never hum a theme from Hans Zimmer, because Hans Zimmer has literally zero composing ability. Talent in music is the ability to strip the music down to just a couple of instruments and still be able to express a theme - that’s how you can HUM the music as a single human with just your mouth! But throwing dozens or hundreds of instruments (in Zimmer’s computerized version) merely covers the lack of a theme under a wall of noise and generic sound “SOMBER CHORUS” - “FOREBODING” - “MASSIVE ARMY OF ZOMBIES” and so on. Really generic and ultimately empty.

So having displayed his utter lack judgment in picking Zimmer, Villenaneuve who lacks an ear for music - he may as well be deaf - is of course comprehensively unable to evaluate the music in the film or modulate it. Ordinarily - if you have even a modicum of understanding of how music works, you understand that you BUILD your effects. So you are usually lower key and amp up as the film’s arcs amp up in emotion, pacing and tempo until you reach a crescendo at your peaks. That is not what happens here. All the music has the same level of intensity in every part of the movie. You have the same droning dirge underlying most sequences, then a hysterical chorus in an action sequence, back to droning, then hysterical chorus, rinse and repeat. The music is the same at the beginning, the middle and the end of the movie. There is zero evolution, zero building, zero escalation, zero modulation. JUST LIKE HIS SCENES. The movie doesn’t build and go places. It’s essentially static and monotonous.

And of course, the bankruptcy of the whole endeavor is underlined by the classic tell of bad filmmaking in use of music. This is when music is used under scenes to give them the ONLY emotional impact and dramatic tension in the scene. The scene is boring as f***, so how about we throw some music at it. Ofen filmmakers will use music selectively under “boring” sequences such as montages of equipment being put together or whatnot - you need the sequence to inform the viewer for expository reason, but it’s boring (just try it without sound to see how lame it is!), so they cover it with a thick slop of music to distract us. That’s just mediocre films that use music in select “boring sequences” - but what can you do when ALL the sequences are boring?? You get the Dune effect - music is present relentlessly under virtually every single scene, because otherwise it would be so painful to wade through that sludge of tedious footage. Terrible music, with zero modulation oppresively present almost all of the time - The Aristocrats of filmmaking, aka Dune. Whew!

What of the special effects? What does Dune have that a million other films haven’t done before and better? Is there any Hobbit or Ring type innovation, how about unusual CGI, or models or even much more than Star Wars from 1977, or over 50 years ago? Sadly nope. And what effects there are, are frankly shockingly bad - when you finally get a load of the sand worm, it’s a dark jumble of hard to see “meh”, like something you might have trapped under your sink when you garbage disposal broke. To be fair, the only OK gadget were those flying copters that looked like giant dragonflies - fair is fair. Everything else was sh|t. Gigantic slabs of concrete everywhere for both vessels and architecture - wow, how inspiring. Costumes - again zero new ideas, the soldiers costumes owed a lot to imperial forces in Star Wars, the humans meanwhile had generic rags, some with faux Bedouine desert themes, all sloppy and lacking in interest or any display of imagination and creativity.

MORE pt 5

agreed. i dislike the Zimmer/Villeneuve combo. they don’t match.

Wife and I saw it and loved it.

Can't wait for 2nd part.

I think this might be how the movie might redeem itself from enjoyable to good. I have hopes the sequels are part of an original plan and not added on as after thoughts, so the movie is playing out more like an HBO series, and less like narrative films.

Just finished watching it. As I expected, a sopping pile of doodoo (IMO). Literally no surprises of any kind. Off for a few beers, and then I’ll do a longer review over the next few days. I wonder how it’ll do at the box office - I think foreign is OKish, domestic something to wait for. I’m sure there will be many dvxuser fans of this considering how many fans of the director there are around here, but every opinion is of interest and the more the merrier!

Was more like warm brownies fresh from the oven. Not a meal, no. Maybe, if being hyper critical, it was box mix brownies, but it was still tasty and fun.

The cinematography is like to get highly regarded. They did a lot of good there.

Simple
Good integration with VFX
organic


But some of the misses, there were some shots that felt unmotivated, and more like "how do we make this scene look good" and less narratively motivated. I'm not against that sometimes, but After seeing Villenueve collaborations with Deakins and Young, I perhaps had slightly unrealistic expectations, that would never really live up to what I might have hoped. That is not a slight on Greig Fraser, but just the wya we can sometimes build these things up in our minds. But if you just sit back, the tones of this film are so lush and for the most part soothing, and seems exceptionally fitting for the vision of this film. Though the commitment to such a basic palette of colors is rather brave, it worked very well, and they found moments for splashes of color.

There are times I wish the composition was a little more formal, or a scene had a bit more depth, and not rely on the lenses characteristics to get away with things. I love lenses, but I feel stories shouldn't be propped up with pretty bokeh and flares to get around difficult sets or times of day. Especially on a project of this scale.

There are times the balance of a shot looks to almost be trying to be symmetrical, and then it is just awry or cocked to the side a little.

I say these things as a critic, but if I had done them, which I never could, I would have been very proud of the work and the final result. A gorgeous feast for the eyes. And once the story sets in, I stopped looking, and started watching.


In an interview, it was said that Zendaya was only onset for 4 days to shoot her scenes!!!!

My Wife and I watched it yesterday, and we enjoyed it. I'm a big fan of the book, and while the film doesn't portray even half of the depth of the universe described in the book, I liked the film a lot. It takes a somewhat minimalist approach to exposition and world-building, but it clearly and accurately follows all of the major beats of the book. My wife enjoyed it, and she hasn't read the book. I'm just annoyed that they haven't already started production on the 2nd part....

I like this. Once I got past my idea of what I thought the movie should be, I enjoyed it for what it was. The director has consistently shown he is good at setting a mood and tone that carries the viewer through the film without waking them up too much. Arrival, BR2049, and Dune, could just sort of hang in there for a few more episodes.

As a stand alone film (which luckily it won't be) I would have been less interested. They keep bringing up the vision of the girl in the desert, but by the end she hands him a knife. Not much as far as "who is she", but knowing there will be sequels, makes that more of a "in the next chapter" sort of thing.

Very simple and stripped down version. Is an interesting take on minimalism and clean. Fantastic design from the costumes to the sets. Some weird things speckled in here and there that keep it from being too simple.

Overall, it is nice when a film feels like a dream, and this film has that feel. Sets a mood, builds a trance, and then gently releases you back to reality.

[fboonzaier]

Saw Dune last night....my wife and I both loved it...thought the director took the right approach and appropriate patience in what is a difficult and brilliant novel to adapt to film...cast was excellent....design so beautiful as is the score...excited to see where he goes with the sequels!