Now that the 3D Blu-ray pack has got cheap enough I finally bought and watched Dune (2021). I realise I’m in a minority of one here but I didn’t enjoy watching it at all. All the recognisable scenes came straight from the Lynch version, so I’m guessing the order of events in both films follows the book quite closely. So unless the new version offers anything new (which it didn’t) then it’s a pointless remake. The film features bland similar looking actors filmed against bland similar looking sets. Many scenes had barely audible dialogue and a good 50% of the film was interminable and unnecessary slow-motion shots. I found it much like Tenet in that a film with apparently a lot of story was struggling to get out despite a two and a half hour run time, both Tenet and Dune were a real struggle to sit through due to boredom and frustration. Plus some scenes just didn’t make sense, like near the start “three guild navigators” were supposed to be visiting (not “stage 3”). Which ones were they? There were five characters with gold visors, was that them? And the “desert rat” that wasn’t a rat. It was a gerboa. Significance? Oh, it’ll all get explained in part 2 - tell that to people who watched Prometheus / Alien Covenant!
How is it that you think films of books work?
Just dropping the purely Lynch-invented shit like heartplugs and weirding modules makes it infinitely better in my view.
But then I gather you haven’t read the book and were unaware that the Lynch version isn’t all that faithful to the book. This isn’t a “remake” of the Lynch film. It’s a new interpretation of the book. A way better one.
Why would Thufir say “three”, then? He was talking about the Navigators needed to bring the ship there, not the members of the landing party. We have no idea who those gold domed people are. Navigators (doubtful), Ambassadors (more likely), Imperial clowns…
Adapting a well-known book is not the same as making shit up as you go along. It will get explained.
Well, finding it boring and hard to hear are certainly legit reasons to dislike the film. I wonder if the DVD didn’t handle the sound well, as i had no trouble hearing dialog in the theater.
But i agree with MrDibble that this film is a much more faithful depiction of the book. And, frankly, despite having read the book, i had trouble following the Lynch version, which i thought failed to clearly present the plot and motivation. I saw it when it came out, it and said at the time that it was a nice illustration of the book, but didn’t (imo) with as a stand alone movie. I find it interesting that you were okay with it despite not having read the book.
I loved the visuals in this movie. I thought the plot simplifications made sense in the context of translating to film. And I’m eagerly awaiting the next installment.
FWIW I had no problem following the plot of the Lynch version, although I can imagine it causing trouble in some cases. The new film however had a major problem getting the plot over and I feel it would be incomprehensible for people coming into it new. Boring actors on samey sets, inaudible dialogue, missing characters, no exposition, no development through linked scenes, endless slow motion to emphasize… something? It was an expensive film, well made, good effects, but a bland incomprehensible screenplay badly communicated to the audience - and above all it was boring. All in my opinion of course!
Who was missing?
There were some things I found slightly interesting. But overall this is not a movie for the ages. But it didn’t surprise me. I read Dune and while it has some interesting ideas, it’s not in my opinion a good book or a well-written story.
My biggest complaint of course was the wretched casting of Timothy Chalamet. That guy is barely a competent actor, much less a lead that can hold down the center of every important event.
My wife and I saw it in the theater (IMAX) back when it came out. Both of us had major issues hearing lots of the dialogue. Between the various whispers, internal thoughts, and Nolan-esque score there was a lot of exposition lost. I was still fine following it because I know the book and story well, but my wife had no idea. We later re-watched it at home on HBO Max with subtitles on and she was able to follow it a lot better. Part of her issue was that she struggled to disambiguate the technobabble and various character names, families and technologies with proper names from the rest of the conversation. She was often left wondering if she misheard something or what. Struggling to understand this movie I suspect is a common issue for that reason alone.
I liked it ok. I have the same general opinion of it that I do the LotR movies - probably about as good as can be reasonably expected from a ~2 hour movie adaptation of a weighty novel but not something that can ever really be adequately put on film.
I did like the Lynch attempt better but not because it was more faithful to themes or anything like that. I preferred it because it was ludicrous and over the top in some hilariously unintentional ways, and the actors looked like they didn’t even know what they were doing half the time. A glorious mess is often more memorable than a generally competent film.
My measuring stick is that I still vividly remember parts of the Lynch version after 30 years while I doubt I’ll much remember this one after 5.
My memory is watching with subtitles even though, like you, I know the book and story well. Or at least pretty well; it’s been a while, but still.
Then again, terrible sound mixes for dialogue are as ubiquitous in film as the teal and orange color palette. I imagine it’s pretty annoying in an actual theater.
Bizarre imagery can certainly stick in the mind; that doesn’t make Lynch’s version better than Villeneuve’s and, in my opinion, it isn’t.
Yeah. I suspect that sound engineers and directors spend all their time editing the movie wearing high-end over-ear headphones with the volume jacked way up. Or else they are in some specially designed sound-proof room with tons of sound absorbing material and perfectly placed surround speakers within arms reach of the listener.
Christopher Nolan has pretty clearly expressed disdain and indifference to the kinds of people using cheap soundbars or built-in flat screen TV speakers to watch movies. But even most standard movie theaters and my expensive living rom home theater setup can’t manage to make these movies legible half the time. I guess artists can’t be bothered with the realities of mass market distribution.
Credit to Marvel here, can’t say I’ve ever left a Marvel movie feeling like I couldn’t follow the dialogue.
It’s funny you say that, because I too thought of Marvel movies as one of the exceptions to the “can’t hear the dialogue” rule. Credit where it’s due.
As I said, a glorious mess is more memorable than a generally competent film.
But I’ll take that glorious mess over the better but merely competent film any day of the week. In that vein, I’d take “Riki-Oh” over the vast majority of movies ever made.
To each their own, of course, but I consider the new Dune far better than “merely competent.”
Agree. I think it’s a magnificent achievement.
I am leaning this way, but I’m going to reserve final judgement until the second half of the story hits the big screen. As it is, i think they’ve done a great job of capturing the book, even though I think they dropped some elements I would really liked to have seen from the book.
Two examples: The dinner scene on Arrakis, where the various factions and personalities play out over the course of the evening is left out. And I don’t think they draw out enough of the characters of Yueh and Shadout Mapes to give maximum poignancy to their individual fates.
Yes, I would like to have seen more about those two characters, too, although it was already a loooong movie.
There’s just too much packed into the novel to really capture everything, especially considering the change in medium.
Haven’t read the books, so I can only judge the movies on their own terms and relative to one another (yes, I know the new one is only part one).
Lynch’s version is awful in so many ways – e.g., the clumsy opening narration with Virginia Madsen, character thoughts in voice-overs, bad acting, bad storytelling, bad eyebrow make-up, numerous cringe-inducing moments, etc. – but it also has some of the finest production design/art direction of any film ever made, as well as some good performances (Paul L. Smith, Siân Phillips and Alicia Witt). There is also the issue of studio tampering, which would seem to have been considerable.
The newer version is both less audacious and audaciously bad. My impression is that the role of Paul is probably unplayable, but Chalamet struck me as even worse than MacLachlan in terms of being annoyingly callow and clueless, repelling audience sympathy, and less than credible as a fighter. There’s way too much fake-looking CG and irritating din by Hans Zimmer. Bautista and Zendaya don’t have much to do, Thanos apes Nick Nolte and charismatic Aquaman evokes Steven Seagal. Btw, I watched it on a big screen TV and recall no sound issues.
For me, the big difference is that the earlier version uses models and miniatures; they may not seem as realistic as CG, but they end up looking cooler (especially when exploding), probably as a consequence of being three dimensional objects under studio lights as opposed to CG-lighting which tends to flatten shadows.
Worst of all, there is no third stage navigator who has just folded space from Ix scene in the new version – imo, the best sequence in the earlier film - as well as the fact that there’s maybe only two minutes of sandworms, a pittance compared to the Lynch version.
In sum, I found the Lynch version both better and worse than the new one, while neither version left me eager to experience more Dune.
And even still, it ended so abruptly. (For obvious reasons.)