Sure, this movie has great visuals, great actors, great cinematography, but _that_ movie too had great actors, imaginative distinct sets, and great memorable music. The biggest flaw is short runtime - first half of the book fits 85% of runtime, and then things are quickly rushed to a conclusion (note that the audiences in 1984 weren't taught to see movies in 2 or more parts). I feel that many book scenes were done better by Lynch (Paul's awakening, Yueh, Leto's death, Gom Jabbar test), while many Villeneuve scenes must be utterly confusing to viewers who didn't read the books (Shadut Mapes scene, which is quite weird without Jessica's inner monologue, and her lucky 'maker' pick).
In Villeneuve's Dune, the plot is very unclear, the traitor plot is absent, no meaning is given to why nobody suspected Yueh to be a traitor. His mentats are useless furniture. Thufir Hawat is given three scenes: in the first, he counts the travel costs, in the second, gives assessment of production capabilities, and in the third offers his resignation, which is declined. Who is he, an accountant? COO?! Peter DeVries is reduced to a sad freak who stands near the baron and then dies.
If you look past the visual effects, the only three big improvements in the new movie are Momoa's Idaho, which was GREAT, Batista's Rabban, and all fight scenes. Idaho's role is wasted in Lynch's Dune, Rabban was so-so, and battle sequences were meh. If only Lynch had steered away from those sonic weapon modules and had 6 hours runtime, we'd have an extremely good and vivid movie. Oh, and sound design in new movie is good, Harkonnen / Sardaukar singing / battle language are cool and weird.
All things considered, Dune (1984) was a flashy, vivid, and somewhat messy movie full of life, while Dune (2021) is sterile and almost devoid of emotions.