I have to start with the main strengths of this movie: the audio/visual aspect. I mean, movies are all about images and sound, so that's what should matter, right? Well Dune: Part Two is one of the most incredible looking and sounding movies I've ever seen. It really is otherwordly. It's full of ideas, boldly expressed.
However, movies aren't just about the audio/visual parts, there's also acting, plot, story, themes and meaning, etc. Not to mention the pacing, cinematography and other specific decisions. This is where Dune 2 has some frustrating flaws, in my opinion.
Let's start with the cast. Most of the actors are great. Chalamet is a rising star. Veterans like Brolin, Bardem and Skarsgård are really good, as is Bautista. Zendaya is less impressive, but not too bad. Butler was very interesting as Feyd Rautha. The main casting issue was Christopher Walken who feels out of place. The Emperor just comes across as "some old guy". Is that what Villeneuve was going for? An anticlimax?
The plot is frustrating in many ways. The main issue for me is ambiguity. It's fine to have ambiguity as you build up a mystery. You draw the audience in, you leave us wondering, you keep options open. Fine. But eventually we need answers. Concrete answers. Maybe those answers raise more questions, but at least we get some answers!
In Dune, the mystery is whether Paul is really "the one", "the messiah", or not. Fine. Build up the mystery. But 2 movies in, and after many major events, we need to know - is he "the one"? What does that even mean?
It's annoying because half the Fremen seem to blindly believe in Paul. They already worship him. Meanwhile, the other half of the Fremen scoff and laugh at the idea. They dismiss it as some rumour created by the Bene Gesserit centuries ago.
But which is it? What exactly did the Bene Gesserit plant on Arrakis? What did they say about the Messiah? Did they say that he'd be a skinny guy called Paul? Did they describe him physically, or just vaguely said a messiah would come one day? If Stilgar is convinced that Paul is the one - WHY? If others are sceptical - WHY? Without any explanation, I'm left to feel that both groups are stubborn and stupid - they've already made their choice and it's not actually based on any concrete evidence. This makes the whole story feel superstitious and superficial.
What about the Bene Gesserit - what do they actually believe? They seem to anticipate "the one". Or is he a messiah or is it Lisan al Gaib or the Kwisatz Haderach? Are these all the same thing or are they each different? Do they know a messiah is coming or is it wishful thinking? What is it based on? If they spread rumours on Arrakis, then based on what? Did they base the ideas on what they truly know or believe, or did they just make it up? If Paul fits those predictions, isn't that significant? Did they just happen to describe a random guy centuries in advance by coincidence?
Because it's unclear, I end up being less invested. I don't know or care anymore whether Paul is the one because I have no idea what it even means. I don't know what the clues are meant to be or what his powers or role are meant to be. This is a major failing of the movie. And it's a stupid cliche, to keep the mystery going, while undermining the mystery built up so far. We need some kind of resolution! He survived drinking that blue liquid - how? What does that mean? Nobody clearly explains any of it!
Another issue is the undermining of the villains. Rabban is too hot-headed and it makes him less interesting. All of a sudden he's raving and angry, randomly killing assistants and shouting that the Fremen are "rats". He comes across like a petulant, angry child, not a fierce and powerful leader or warrior. It reminds me of Kylo Ren, which is about as unflattering a comparison as possible.
Feyd Rautha is interesting, visually and in terms of his voice and demeanor. However, he also seems a bit underwhelming. So he's good with a knife? That's it? He also seems to need to kill people for fun? Okay, that's creepy, but it also shows a lack of control. The T-1000 effortlessly killed people, but only when necessary - he had nothing to prove. Vader killed people, but mainly to intimidate and keep them in line, not as a weird fetish.
Also, Rautha is easily seduced by a Bene Gesserit lady, which implies he lacks self-control. Moreover, we learn that he usually fights against drugged opponents, suggesting that he's not actually that strong a fighter - he needs special treatment to win.
Another issue is Villeneuve's style. On the one hand, I admire his patience and unique way of doing things. But it's a little too far removed from traditional movie-making. Stereotypes and cliches can be annoying, but they exist for a reason. At least once in a while, you should have a corny one-liner, you should have a big, cinematic moment, you should have some levity and comedy, etc.
But Villeneuve seems to film big action sequences the same way he shoots close-ups, dialogue scenes, establishing shots, etc. His style is too consistent, in a sense. Whereas Nolan uses cinematic conventions to great effect. He has big action scenes and then calm scenes in between. Villeneuve's Dune movies seem to have a somewhat constant pace, and distance us from what's happening. It's a bit too matter-of-fact. In other words, he doesn't embrace the big moments, the spectacle, the way he should.
Another issue is Princess Irulan - is she a goodie or a baddie? It may sound silly, but I need to know. She just seems to be neutral, commentating on things but not taking a stance. What does she stand for? Why should Paul marry her? Just for political benefit? Did she condone or oppose the betrayal of House Atreides? Is that not important?
That's one of my biggest issues with Dune 2 - the vagueness regarding morals. You've worked so hard to build-up this world, make me care, make me hate the Harkonnens and Emperor, to root for the Atreides and Fremen, and then you make it unclear what Paul actually stands for? Is he going to bring about genocide now? Is he the messiah, or just some guy? Doesn't he want revenge for what happened to his father and House?
Why let the Emperor survive? If he's so powerful, why compromise at all? Do the other Houses not see the signs that he's a true leader? Do they support the Emperor's betrayal of House Atreides? None of this is clearly addressed.
So, despite all this, how can I give this a 10? Well, maybe it's more of a 9, but the experience was amazing. It transports you to another world, you're completely invested in it, the music/sound/atmosphere is incredible, the designs/VFX are phenomenal, the acting is great, the story is fascinating. The flaws frustrate me in part because I feel so invested. Just as I could write for hours about Game of Thrones or Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings or other epic stories and worlds which draw you in.
I'm especially excited to see if Villeneuve goes on to make a Dune 3, because Dune 2 certainly leaves things open for a sequel and the book has many sequels. I don't think any of them are as popular as the first book, but it could be interesting. I only hope that Villeneuve can finetune his approach just a little. Keep the style, keep the alien feel and weird languages and imagery. But clarify the central themes a bit. Don't answer every question, but answer some.
And give us some straightforward morals - we've earned it. Let Paul be a hero and get revenge. Don't muddy the waters when you worked so hard to get to this point! Imagine if Luke defeated the Emperor in Return of the Jedi only to then turn evil himself and kill all the ewoks - it would just be stupid.
However, movies aren't just about the audio/visual parts, there's also acting, plot, story, themes and meaning, etc. Not to mention the pacing, cinematography and other specific decisions. This is where Dune 2 has some frustrating flaws, in my opinion.
Let's start with the cast. Most of the actors are great. Chalamet is a rising star. Veterans like Brolin, Bardem and Skarsgård are really good, as is Bautista. Zendaya is less impressive, but not too bad. Butler was very interesting as Feyd Rautha. The main casting issue was Christopher Walken who feels out of place. The Emperor just comes across as "some old guy". Is that what Villeneuve was going for? An anticlimax?
The plot is frustrating in many ways. The main issue for me is ambiguity. It's fine to have ambiguity as you build up a mystery. You draw the audience in, you leave us wondering, you keep options open. Fine. But eventually we need answers. Concrete answers. Maybe those answers raise more questions, but at least we get some answers!
In Dune, the mystery is whether Paul is really "the one", "the messiah", or not. Fine. Build up the mystery. But 2 movies in, and after many major events, we need to know - is he "the one"? What does that even mean?
It's annoying because half the Fremen seem to blindly believe in Paul. They already worship him. Meanwhile, the other half of the Fremen scoff and laugh at the idea. They dismiss it as some rumour created by the Bene Gesserit centuries ago.
But which is it? What exactly did the Bene Gesserit plant on Arrakis? What did they say about the Messiah? Did they say that he'd be a skinny guy called Paul? Did they describe him physically, or just vaguely said a messiah would come one day? If Stilgar is convinced that Paul is the one - WHY? If others are sceptical - WHY? Without any explanation, I'm left to feel that both groups are stubborn and stupid - they've already made their choice and it's not actually based on any concrete evidence. This makes the whole story feel superstitious and superficial.
What about the Bene Gesserit - what do they actually believe? They seem to anticipate "the one". Or is he a messiah or is it Lisan al Gaib or the Kwisatz Haderach? Are these all the same thing or are they each different? Do they know a messiah is coming or is it wishful thinking? What is it based on? If they spread rumours on Arrakis, then based on what? Did they base the ideas on what they truly know or believe, or did they just make it up? If Paul fits those predictions, isn't that significant? Did they just happen to describe a random guy centuries in advance by coincidence?
Because it's unclear, I end up being less invested. I don't know or care anymore whether Paul is the one because I have no idea what it even means. I don't know what the clues are meant to be or what his powers or role are meant to be. This is a major failing of the movie. And it's a stupid cliche, to keep the mystery going, while undermining the mystery built up so far. We need some kind of resolution! He survived drinking that blue liquid - how? What does that mean? Nobody clearly explains any of it!
Another issue is the undermining of the villains. Rabban is too hot-headed and it makes him less interesting. All of a sudden he's raving and angry, randomly killing assistants and shouting that the Fremen are "rats". He comes across like a petulant, angry child, not a fierce and powerful leader or warrior. It reminds me of Kylo Ren, which is about as unflattering a comparison as possible.
Feyd Rautha is interesting, visually and in terms of his voice and demeanor. However, he also seems a bit underwhelming. So he's good with a knife? That's it? He also seems to need to kill people for fun? Okay, that's creepy, but it also shows a lack of control. The T-1000 effortlessly killed people, but only when necessary - he had nothing to prove. Vader killed people, but mainly to intimidate and keep them in line, not as a weird fetish.
Also, Rautha is easily seduced by a Bene Gesserit lady, which implies he lacks self-control. Moreover, we learn that he usually fights against drugged opponents, suggesting that he's not actually that strong a fighter - he needs special treatment to win.
Another issue is Villeneuve's style. On the one hand, I admire his patience and unique way of doing things. But it's a little too far removed from traditional movie-making. Stereotypes and cliches can be annoying, but they exist for a reason. At least once in a while, you should have a corny one-liner, you should have a big, cinematic moment, you should have some levity and comedy, etc.
But Villeneuve seems to film big action sequences the same way he shoots close-ups, dialogue scenes, establishing shots, etc. His style is too consistent, in a sense. Whereas Nolan uses cinematic conventions to great effect. He has big action scenes and then calm scenes in between. Villeneuve's Dune movies seem to have a somewhat constant pace, and distance us from what's happening. It's a bit too matter-of-fact. In other words, he doesn't embrace the big moments, the spectacle, the way he should.
Another issue is Princess Irulan - is she a goodie or a baddie? It may sound silly, but I need to know. She just seems to be neutral, commentating on things but not taking a stance. What does she stand for? Why should Paul marry her? Just for political benefit? Did she condone or oppose the betrayal of House Atreides? Is that not important?
That's one of my biggest issues with Dune 2 - the vagueness regarding morals. You've worked so hard to build-up this world, make me care, make me hate the Harkonnens and Emperor, to root for the Atreides and Fremen, and then you make it unclear what Paul actually stands for? Is he going to bring about genocide now? Is he the messiah, or just some guy? Doesn't he want revenge for what happened to his father and House?
Why let the Emperor survive? If he's so powerful, why compromise at all? Do the other Houses not see the signs that he's a true leader? Do they support the Emperor's betrayal of House Atreides? None of this is clearly addressed.
So, despite all this, how can I give this a 10? Well, maybe it's more of a 9, but the experience was amazing. It transports you to another world, you're completely invested in it, the music/sound/atmosphere is incredible, the designs/VFX are phenomenal, the acting is great, the story is fascinating. The flaws frustrate me in part because I feel so invested. Just as I could write for hours about Game of Thrones or Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings or other epic stories and worlds which draw you in.
I'm especially excited to see if Villeneuve goes on to make a Dune 3, because Dune 2 certainly leaves things open for a sequel and the book has many sequels. I don't think any of them are as popular as the first book, but it could be interesting. I only hope that Villeneuve can finetune his approach just a little. Keep the style, keep the alien feel and weird languages and imagery. But clarify the central themes a bit. Don't answer every question, but answer some.
And give us some straightforward morals - we've earned it. Let Paul be a hero and get revenge. Don't muddy the waters when you worked so hard to get to this point! Imagine if Luke defeated the Emperor in Return of the Jedi only to then turn evil himself and kill all the ewoks - it would just be stupid.