Movies DUNE: PART TWO (Passes $600 Million Worldwide; Dragonlord's Review)

[legatoblues]

The theme involved in that plot is definitely present in the books, Hebert was a anarchist/libterterian and really the whole plot of the Dune Saga at least as far as God Emperor is that heros and great leaders are bad. Here though it becomes less "heroes are bad" and more "non native heroes are bad" which I spose has a point as well but seems rather undeveloped.

Zendaya I suspect was probably a casting that was needed to get the budget and honestly Chalamet to some degree as well although I think he did definately grow into the role during this film. I think she was fine in the Spiderman films but not really up to this kind of role which just needed more gravitas. Again though I felt the Fremen as a whole were rather lacking in gravitas, they had a bit of it at the end of the 1st film but in this film there either anachronistic modern young people or weak pushovers.

I don't want to be too negative as I felt this film did suceed really well in some respects and was definitely a step up from the first, it did have a very thrilling epic atmosphere to it and the Harkonens were much more effective plus Chalamet playing Paul not just as a generic hero but someone with some with some really edge to him to the degree you start to question who the "good guys" are is above typical blockbuster fare.

Overall though both films to me did feel like they kind of fell inbetween two camps for me, I feel like both of them could either have been 2 hours each and focused on a smaller number of elements OR really pushed out to LOTR lenght epics at 3 1/2 to 4 hours. It feels like a lot of stuff gets introduced like the above issue with Paul, how it relates to Chani, his mother and Stilgar, the politics with the Harkonens, the Emperor and the Bene G's, etc but not really fleshed out dramatically.

I don't think either reaches the level of BR2049 which had a smaller scale story and time to really focus on its drama.

This is an excellent take and very similar to how I feel.

Still a great movie well deserving of it's praise, I still enjoyed the fuck out of it, but I can't help but wonder about some of the choices made.

 

[legatoblues]

I've been thinking over this a lot in the week since seeing the film, and I keep having everything come back to the same point/root cause - which is the timeline of the film. I'll expand more in spoilers later in this post.

But a short version of what I'm going to say - that is very similar to what moreorless87 says above - is that I think they spread themselves too thin and added too many plot points, without fully exploring them. Maybe they couldn't do it as a 3 parter....maybe they could?

Actually I guess this first part is kind of spoilers for the movie, so playing it safe.

Spoiler

A quick thing about Chani. I've seen a negative reaction to her character, saying it's a change from the book, "strong modern woman" stereotype, not supporting Paul like she did in the book etc.

And while there's merit there, I've come to the conclusion that Chani in the movie is actually PART of Paul in the book. In the book, Paul really struggles with the path laid out for him, the consequences of his actions, and the responsibility on his shoulders. There were hints of that in Part 1 - which I really, really enjoyed - but in Part 2, it felt like he was more concerned with not being able to see the path, rather than seeing the path and being afraid of it. Instead it's Chani that carries the concern and doubt, especially once Paul takes the Water of Life and gains his full prescience. Rather than wrestling with the realities of his newfound knowledge, movie Paul is immediately all in on the Jihad hype train. And don't get me wrong, it's awesome. I was completely sold by the way these scenes were presented. Wether if was the acting, writing, screenplay, all of the above I don't know, but it was one of my favourite parts of the movie. But at the same time, I was disappointed by the way it seemed to leave out Paul's inner struggle......and that's because that conflict has been switched from an internal conflict for 1 character into an external conflict between 2. Movie Chani is book Pauls self doubt.

They may have done this to give Chani more of a role to play, but then I still think they could have done better with their relationship. You can be fearful for your partner, and still be supportive of them. I think what is missing is that Chani doesn't believe in Paul in the way he believes in himself. I would have loved to see Chani wanting Paul to succeed, but fearing for him at the same time. Instead it's a bit one note. (This is hard to word, she does "believe" in Paul....I guess I feel they didn't quite get the balance of the relationship right).

But I still think all of comes back to the same point as all my other issues...

Somewhat major spoilers here

Spoiler

The entire problem is them cutting Alia.

I've come to the conclusion that this is the single most important choice they made when putting this movie together. Everything comes back to this.
Jessica has to be pregnant, that's non-negotiable and a major part of the story. But then condensing the entire movie down to be over before Alia is born has some major flow on effects....and on the whole, I think it's a negative choice - but of course, maybe the alternative would have been worse. I can only speculate.
To quickly recap, in the book, the events of the Dune Part 2 movie take place over....is it 3,4, 5 years? More?
The time between the Harkonnen betrayal of the Atreides and the final counter attack from Paul and Fremen is much, much longer than shown in the movie.

To me, that creates a problem for the Paul and Chani relationship as mentioned before, it creates issues with Jessica's character (actually my favourite character from part 1, I felt she had no where near as much impact in part 2 despite having one of the most important roles in relation to the story.

And perhaps most importantly, is the impact on Feyd.

To be clear, I loved Feyd in thise movie. Austin Butler was superb in the role, and I think they capture the essence of the character beautifully. But at the same time, I feel they got a bit lost in what to do with Feyd. The inclusion of the Bene Gesserit plot around Feyd was a mistake, or poorly handled IMO. They fumbled this....because of the condensed timeline.
In the book, Rabban is set up to fail by the Baron. He is supposed to go in, be a brute, rule with an iron fist....and fail, all to benefit Feyd. Because Feyd is supposed to come in and be more considerate, charming, charismatic than Rabban and get more from the Fremen/Arrakis that way.

The movie doesn't show that Feyd at all, and I would have been ok with that....but it then seems like a mis-step to include the Bene Gesserit plot whilst at the same time excluding the very elements that make Feyd make sense in that context.

The Bene Gesserit put forward Feyd as a potential Kwisatz Haderach, but then in this movie give him absolutely no time to get anywhere near even beginning that journey. The Kwisatz Haderach is a male that takes the Water Of Life, but in this condensed timeline, Feyd will never come close to having the opportunity to do that.

In the book, he has years of ruling of Arrakis, which makes sense in the context of being a potential Kwisatz Haderach. He has time to build relationships and trust, to learn more about the Fremen and find this path for himself. That then creates conflict between Feyd and Paul, as we know Paul is reluctant to regarding the Water Of Life.

Instead of that, Feyd is a very shallow psychopath, and we see absolutely nothing from him regarding his Kwisatz Haderach potential. He has his fight on Geidi Prime, the Bene Gesserit say "yep thats our guy", he orders an artillery strike, and then dies in knife fight.

To be clear, my problem isn't Feyd, it's that they introduced the Bene Gesserit Kwisatz Haderach plot without actually doing anything with it at all. Movie Feyd makes perfect sense without that plot point, but then when you include that point with movie Feyd the way he's portrayed, it immediately makes no sense and makes the whole thing look silly.

....which would not have been necessary without the condensed timeline.

Fuck I'm such a nerd

 

[Loiosh]

It's not two separate movies according to the director. It's one single long movie divided into two. Wo watch both parts.

That's definitely how it feels to me.

 

[Loiosh]

I think both movies were really really good. I was in that world the entire time the movie was playing and it's just different than other movies. The visuals, the world painted, the amount of dialogue vs non dialogue, tone, pacing.

I do have questions though

Spoiler: Question about the Bene Gesserit

Did the Bene Gesserit who advised the emperor to have the Atreides killed know the whole time what was going to happen. She had the Harkanen cousin have a kid, she told the emperors daughter that she would have to marry Paul to continue her rule?

Plans within plans.

 

[Loiosh]

I can kind of see what they were trying to do using her character to bring out the idea that Paul controling the Fremen and the Jihad is not "good" but it felt pretty half assed, not helped by Zendaya not being that good an actor IMHO, really lacking the kind of presence a lot of the rest of the cast had.

I felt the Fremen generally were the weakest aspect of this film, Chani and her friends behaving like American teenagers whilst the "believers" instantly became such pushovers, nobody really seemed to have the kind of hard nosed grit I'd associate with them from the book or even Lynch's film.

Chalamet was I think much better when he accepted his destiny and went much "bigger", he did at that point genuinely seem a bit more like someone people would follow. Some of the sections in this film as well like the worm ride and the whole Geidi Prime bit were I think better than anything in the first film as well.

To me though it still kind of felt like a lot of the drama and ideas were rather undercooked dispite it being close to 3 hours long. Felt like it was caught between being an action blockbuster and a smarter sci fi but not quite merging the two perfectly with a lot of things introduced but not really exploited fully resulting in a film that felt like it was jumping around a lot.

Dune's message is "beware charismatic leaders", and through the series this becomes more and more overt, and yet people keep calling it a "white savior" story.

Villeneuve had to hit people over the head with this message because people are either stupid or don't want to think that much when enjoying a film.

 

[Hog-train]

I can kind of see what they were trying to do using her character to bring out the idea that Paul controling the Fremen and the Jihad is not "good" but it felt pretty half assed, not helped by Zendaya not being that good an actor IMHO, really lacking the kind of presence a lot of the rest of the cast had.

I felt the Fremen generally were the weakest aspect of this film, Chani and her friends behaving like American teenagers whilst the "believers" instantly became such pushovers, nobody really seemed to have the kind of hard nosed grit I'd associate with them from the book or even Lynch's film.

Chalamet was I think much better when he accepted his destiny and went much "bigger", he did at that point genuinely seem a bit more like someone people would follow. Some of the sections in this film as well like the worm ride and the whole Geidi Prime bit were I think better than anything in the first film as well.

To me though it still kind of felt like a lot of the drama and ideas were rather undercooked dispite it being close to 3 hours long. Felt like it was caught between being an action blockbuster and a smarter sci fi but not quite merging the two perfectly with a lot of things introduced but not really exploited fully resulting in a film that felt like it was jumping around a lot.

I guess I'm in the minority but I liked Zendaya as Chani. She's tanned and that is fitting for the Fremen and thought she did the role well.

What other actresses would be good for the Chani role?

 

[moreorless87]

I guess I'm in the minority but I liked Zendaya as Chani. She's tanned and that is fitting for the Fremen and thought she did the role well.

What other actresses would be good for the Chani role?

She does look the part I'd agree and perhaps I'm a bit harsh on her as it was maybe more a choice with the character and the other young Fremen? I just felt making them too obviously modern was a mistake and really undercut a lot of the tone of the film when they were in it.You have a film which is trying so hard to build up its self serious take on the world and then a group of essentially modern American teenagers sniggering at it.

The flipside of that is I think the Fremen who did believe just came across as pushovers, willing to accept the prophecy at face value rather too easily.

I spose thats tied in again to the film introducing ideas such as Bene G's spreading a legend of a savour for their own benefit but not IMHO really fleshing it out dramatically.

 

[Cole train]

Just saw it

Yea its a must see in theathre really, overall 8 or 9 out of 10 for me.

There are changes from the book but i felt they were alright considering its movie and all that, could have had 3 films about the book imo

Tv series would be ideal of course

 

[moreorless87]

Dune's message is "beware charismatic leaders", and through the series this becomes more and more overt, and yet people keep calling it a "white savior" story.

Villeneuve had to hit people over the head with this message because people are either stupid or don't want to think that much when enjoying a film.

To be fair I think the first film did pretty much go with that, Keynes basically asking the white outsiders to save her people whist the character in the book was wary of his people being exploited.

It was definitely good that the the sequel brought up this theme, it would be more a question for me of how effective it was. It feels to me like the film is pulling in two different directions, part of it wants to a righteous heroic story but then it introduces these elements as well. Perhaps part of it is the nature of the film as well? it greatly cuts down on the books internal monolog and doesnt highlight as much what Paul's abilties actually are, being able to see the future(or potential futures) by extreme calculations of probability which is then agumented by the knowledge of genetic memory. In the book basically the idea of the heroic leader as a negative exists mostly within Paul(and some talk with his mother) own thoughts.

Bringing that plot more "into the open" with Chani and other Fremen is I spose easier film making but it does kind of feel like it drops back into looking to give the audience a morally righteous character to back. I feel like it does also end up making the Fremen following Paul look more simple minded, in the book the culture that leads them to follow Paul runs so deep theres no question of anyone being above it(at least until the following books) but having Chani and co have such a "modern" view of the situation feels like it undermines the idea that religion in the Dune universe is basically a tool of the agnostic ruling class.

 

[Monte Moku]

Going to see this with a good friend of mine next weekend. We're going to watch the first one at his place, get super baked, and then watch the sequel in the theater. Should be fun!

 

[method115]

Going to watch the movie this weekend alone. My wife tried to watch the first 30 minutes of the first one and said no thanks. I told her it wouldn't be her kind of movie but she wanted to try so I give her that. My only friend who's into the movies works this weekend so can't watch it with him.

Going to finish rewatching the first one tonight after work and then Saturday afternoon catch the sequel.

 

[Hog-train]

She does look the part I'd agree and perhaps I'm a bit harsh on her as it was maybe more a choice with the character and the other young Fremen? I just felt making them too obviously modern was a mistake and really undercut a lot of the tone of the film when they were in it.You have a film which is trying so hard to build up its self serious take on the world and then a group of essentially modern American teenagers sniggering at it.

The flipside of that is I think the Fremen who did believe just came across as pushovers, willing to accept the prophecy at face value rather too easily.

I spose thats tied in again to the film introducing ideas such as Bene G's spreading a legend of a savour for their own benefit but not IMHO really fleshing it out dramatically.

I agree the movie did not explain the prophecy well. The Fremen took to the prophecy right away because the Bene Gesseritt implanted it into their cultural lore and religion eons ago. But there is only a passing mention in 1 or 2 sentences to this in the movie.

Also I liked Javier Bardem as a Fremen leader.

 

[Cole train]

Btw harkonnen scenes on gedi prime were best for me, like dam son the visuals

Irulan and lady fenring were hot as well

 

[Loiosh]

To be fair I think the first film did pretty much go with that, Keynes basically asking the white outsiders to save her people whist the character in the book was wary of his people being exploited.

It was definitely good that the the sequel brought up this theme, it would be more a question for me of how effective it was. It feels to me like the film is pulling in two different directions, part of it wants to a righteous heroic story but then it introduces these elements as well. Perhaps part of it is the nature of the film as well? it greatly cuts down on the books internal monolog and doesnt highlight as much what Paul's abilties actually are, being able to see the future(or potential futures) by extreme calculations of probability which is then agumented by the knowledge of genetic memory. In the book basically the idea of the heroic leader as a negative exists mostly within Paul(and some talk with his mother) own thoughts.

Bringing that plot more "into the open" with Chani and other Fremen is I spose easier film making but it does kind of feel like it drops back into looking to give the audience a morally righteous character to back. I feel like it does also end up making the Fremen following Paul look more simple minded, in the book the culture that leads them to follow Paul runs so deep theres no question of anyone being above it(at least until the following books) but having Chani and co have such a "modern" view of the situation feels like it undermines the idea that religion in the Dune universe is basically a tool of the agnostic ruling class.

You've read the books, right?

That sentiment gets so extreme Fremen try and assassinate Paul. Villeneuve simply escalated the timeline, and gave Chani more agency. They also made Stilgar more of a fanatic.

Yeah, it felt a bit too "modern", like William Wallace being about freedom before that was actually a thing, but I was completely OK with it.

 

[Loiosh]

I agree the movie did not explain the prophecy well. The Fremen took to the prophecy right away because the Bene Gesseritt implanted it into their cultural lore and religion eons ago. But there is only a passing mention in 1 or 2 sentences to this in the movie.

Also I liked Javierr Bardem as a Fremen leader.

I could have sworn they really leaned into the Bene Gesseritt seeding prophecies in the film.

And yes, Bardem was fantastic.

 

[Sek]

I've been thinking over this a lot in the week since seeing the film, and I keep having everything come back to the same point/root cause - which is the timeline of the film. I'll expand more in spoilers later in this post.

But a short version of what I'm going to say - that is very similar to what moreorless87 says above - is that I think they spread themselves too thin and added too many plot points, without fully exploring them. Maybe they couldn't do it as a 3 parter....maybe they could?

Actually I guess this first part is kind of spoilers for the movie, so playing it safe.

Spoiler

A quick thing about Chani. I've seen a negative reaction to her character, saying it's a change from the book, "strong modern woman" stereotype, not supporting Paul like she did in the book etc.

And while there's merit there, I've come to the conclusion that Chani in the movie is actually PART of Paul in the book. In the book, Paul really struggles with the path laid out for him, the consequences of his actions, and the responsibility on his shoulders. There were hints of that in Part 1 - which I really, really enjoyed - but in Part 2, it felt like he was more concerned with not being able to see the path, rather than seeing the path and being afraid of it. Instead it's Chani that carries the concern and doubt, especially once Paul takes the Water of Life and gains his full prescience. Rather than wrestling with the realities of his newfound knowledge, movie Paul is immediately all in on the Jihad hype train. And don't get me wrong, it's awesome. I was completely sold by the way these scenes were presented. Wether if was the acting, writing, screenplay, all of the above I don't know, but it was one of my favourite parts of the movie. But at the same time, I was disappointed by the way it seemed to leave out Paul's inner struggle......and that's because that conflict has been switched from an internal conflict for 1 character into an external conflict between 2. Movie Chani is book Pauls self doubt.

They may have done this to give Chani more of a role to play, but then I still think they could have done better with their relationship. You can be fearful for your partner, and still be supportive of them. I think what is missing is that Chani doesn't believe in Paul in the way he believes in himself. I would have loved to see Chani wanting Paul to succeed, but fearing for him at the same time. Instead it's a bit one note. (This is hard to word, she does "believe" in Paul....I guess I feel they didn't quite get the balance of the relationship right).

But I still think all of comes back to the same point as all my other issues...

Somewhat major spoilers here

Spoiler

The entire problem is them cutting Alia.

I've come to the conclusion that this is the single most important choice they made when putting this movie together. Everything comes back to this.
Jessica has to be pregnant, that's non-negotiable and a major part of the story. But then condensing the entire movie down to be over before Alia is born has some major flow on effects....and on the whole, I think it's a negative choice - but of course, maybe the alternative would have been worse. I can only speculate.
To quickly recap, in the book, the events of the Dune Part 2 movie take place over....is it 3,4, 5 years? More?
The time between the Harkonnen betrayal of the Atreides and the final counter attack from Paul and Fremen is much, much longer than shown in the movie.

To me, that creates a problem for the Paul and Chani relationship as mentioned before, it creates issues with Jessica's character (actually my favourite character from part 1, I felt she had no where near as much impact in part 2 despite having one of the most important roles in relation to the story.

And perhaps most importantly, is the impact on Feyd.

To be clear, I loved Feyd in thise movie. Austin Butler was superb in the role, and I think they capture the essence of the character beautifully. But at the same time, I feel they got a bit lost in what to do with Feyd. The inclusion of the Bene Gesserit plot around Feyd was a mistake, or poorly handled IMO. They fumbled this....because of the condensed timeline.
In the book, Rabban is set up to fail by the Baron. He is supposed to go in, be a brute, rule with an iron fist....and fail, all to benefit Feyd. Because Feyd is supposed to come in and be more considerate, charming, charismatic than Rabban and get more from the Fremen/Arrakis that way.

The movie doesn't show that Feyd at all, and I would have been ok with that....but it then seems like a mis-step to include the Bene Gesserit plot whilst at the same time excluding the very elements that make Feyd make sense in that context.

The Bene Gesserit put forward Feyd as a potential Kwisatz Haderach, but then in this movie give him absolutely no time to get anywhere near even beginning that journey. The Kwisatz Haderach is a male that takes the Water Of Life, but in this condensed timeline, Feyd will never come close to having the opportunity to do that.

In the book, he has years of ruling of Arrakis, which makes sense in the context of being a potential Kwisatz Haderach. He has time to build relationships and trust, to learn more about the Fremen and find this path for himself. That then creates conflict between Feyd and Paul, as we know Paul is reluctant to regarding the Water Of Life.

Instead of that, Feyd is a very shallow psychopath, and we see absolutely nothing from him regarding his Kwisatz Haderach potential. He has his fight on Geidi Prime, the Bene Gesserit say "yep thats our guy", he orders an artillery strike, and then dies in knife fight.

To be clear, my problem isn't Feyd, it's that they introduced the Bene Gesserit Kwisatz Haderach plot without actually doing anything with it at all. Movie Feyd makes perfect sense without that plot point, but then when you include that point with movie Feyd the way he's portrayed, it immediately makes no sense and makes the whole thing look silly.

....which would not have been necessary without the condensed timeline.

Fuck I'm such a nerd

Seeing it soon but I'm not excited, had a pretty dull time at Dune 1, Bradbury's Dandelion Wine was my sci fi growing up

Is it the acting that's getting it all the high marks? The action? Can't imagine the book's politics are driving new audiences wild

Just wondering if all the new hype is from Austin Butler alone or if there's something else

 

[moreorless87]

You've read the books, right?

That sentiment gets so extreme Fremen try and assassinate Paul. Villeneuve simply escalated the timeline, and gave Chani more agency. They also made Stilgar more of a fanatic.

Yeah, it felt a bit too "modern", like William Wallace being about freedom before that was actually a thing, but I was completely OK with it.

When it does happen though it comes from Fremen who are very much "believers", who have followed Paul but reject him after taking part in his war.

The Fremen in the books are ultra religious and naive but they are also rather more hard won with someone like Stilgar less of an fanatic, his belief in Paul grows more slowly and his final religious awe of him is taken as a negative.

Again I feel the film was dealing with the demands it was more "blockbuster" like, seemed like it was rather pulling in two directions as a more typical heroic action film were the audience would be fully behind Paul's actions and being a smarter sci fi which called those actions into question. Chani's character does seem to follow that as well, presenting the theme though a "good" character who the audience can view as morally righteous.

Thats I spose more of the reality of Hollywood these days when a film this scale is made its going to be based on mass appeal.

 

[Peteyandjia]

I guess I'm in the minority but I liked Zendaya as Chani. She's tanned and that is fitting for the Fremen and thought she did the role well.

What other actresses would be good for the Chani role?

I thought she did great. Didn't know what a Zendaya was before these films, still not quite sure. But I thought she was compelling, & hit some high marks when the focus was on her. When she needed to rise to the occasion in a few key scenes across both parts, but especially in this 2nd one, I thought she pretty well nailed it

 

[Hog-train]

I could have sworn they really leaned into the Bene Gesseritt seeding prophecies in the film.

And yes, Bardem was fantastic.

They referred to the prophecy many times - that there will be a Lisan al Gaib messiah like figure - but did little to explain it. They never really explained how the Bene Gesserit had a plan and implanted the belief thousands of years ago.

 

[Stump]

I loved the first movie, it pulled me in and carried me along. Great atmosphere and enough allusions to a background spiritual/technological/social world to be compelling without being overwhelming.

Dune 2 I had heard was gonna be even better, but I must say, I wasn't blown away. It was a cool action movie, to be sure, but the plotlines just got way too diffuse, and the story took about 4 or 5 hard right turns sort of out of nowhere.

I haven't read the books and it seems like from the posts in this thread that the book fills in some of these major plotholes, which makes sense, but the plot of the movie towards the end, without reference to the original books, just becomes a bit vacuous. Something like a cross between mary sue and deus ex machina plot elements where these massive directional shifts just sort of happen out of nowhere in rapid succession.

Good little action/character flick, but hardly the thought provoking or intriguing masterpiece it's said to be by some. 6.5/10