Dune: Part Two Is the Best Sci-Fi Film of the Decade | Hacker News Reader

Dune: Part Two Is the Best Sci-Fi Film of the Decade

esquire.com

121 pointsairstrike180 comments

It seems that reviewers like this are still on the Paul-as-hero boat. It's easy to take the first film and even the book that way, despite the premonitions of future destruction and disaster that exist in both, and I assume part 2 is going to largely continue the same way. But I really hope Villeneuve has the guts to hold true to Herbert's overall message about "heroes", where after defeating the evil Harkonnens and the bad old Emperor, Paul basically turns to the Fremen and says, "Ok, warm up the planet sterilizer weapons, the jihad begins now."

Capturing the sense of inevitability that Paul feels as his prescience leads him, one obvious next step at a time, to the killing of billions and establishment of himself as galactic despot, that's a hard thing in film.

They likely won't get to that point. I expect them to end this Dune like the 80s Dune ended or very close.

The points you bring up are really 2nd book and beyond and I suspect trying to add that in would just confuse people who don't already know the Dune story. They would also be tough to communicate in a video format, as compared to a book, as the depth will be lost.

Regardless, I'm anxious to watch part 2 of the current Dune. The first part was great, imo. I only had minor nitpicks, but otherwise fantastic!

I'm pretty sure Denis Villeneuve has said on the record that he plans on adapting Dune Messiah if the movies are successful, which is a great bookend to Paul Atreides story.

That would be awesome. I would love to see his take on the next part.

For sure, I feel like that movie has to spend time showing the galactic jihad and the true horrors it brings.

The book just skips this (which works too IMO, but not suitable for movies; ya gotta show, not tell).

I've not seen part 2 yet. But, if they really are making a trilogy and the second part ends on a high note, then classic film-writing tells us that the overall trilogy is bound to be a tragedy not a comedy.

The end of the second act (in 3-act plays/movies) is either the nadir of the protagonist's journey, or the height of the tragic-hero's success. At least per storytelling books.

Most stories are told in 5 acts [0], and in comedies the hero/protagonist sees the darkest point in the story at the end of the 4th act. Thereby giving the hero the largest contrast possible in climbing out of the depths to their heights at the end of the story; the most cathartic path possible.

In tragedies, the protagonist/tragic-hero sees them at the height of their power/fortunes at the end of the 4th act. Thereby giving the protagonist the greatest fall possible; the most repression for the audience.

[0] The reasons for this going all the way back to Shakespeare and the odd interplay between the size of human bladders (~2.5 hours) and the burn length of the candles from the company near the Globe (~40 minutes).

Not sure I'd call it the bookend, unless you consider the preacher from Children to have been something that was just knocked off the shelf...

I mean from an audience perspective, seeing the jihad and the repercussions of it then how indifferent Paul is to it all; he rightfully comes across as a fascist dictator, I mean he killed over 60 billion people after all. You don't do that unless you're a truly evil person.

Been several decades since I read Messiah but it ends with Paul walking into the desert abdicating his cause in the destruction he wrought.

Yeah he sticks around for another book (or two? been a while), but the story clearly delineates after the second book IMO.

I wonder how they’ll deal with the genocide of billions of people that followed in his trail. Since they’ve already changed the Jihad parts I’m guessing they’ll skip over that too.

But I really hope Villeneuve has the guts to hold true to Herbert's overall message about "heroes"

In the first part, Paul has a vision in the tent, after Harkonnens' attack. He is horrified by a yihad extending through the galaxy like an unstoppable wildfire: "it's your fault, Bene Geseriths made me a monster"... so maybe that's the intention after all.

Paul-as-hero thing is unique challenge because, yes, it's the warning of the book. But at the same time, you have to show just how persuasive such leaders could be, and how much 'narrative sense' it makes. The audience should feel like the Fremen and empathise with their fervor. If it's not super convincing, then it misses the whole point.

I just came back from the theater. Every word of this article rings true. The movie is a piece of art, the best of star wars with the grandeur of Game of Thrones. Its very rare to get movies like this these days.

What were your feelings about part one, if you saw that back when it came out?

Watched the part one on day 1 as well. It was definitely more intriguing than enjoyable. The visuals and soundtrack really carried it despite the pacing. Imo, part one was just a great setup for this masterpiece.

Glad to hear it. I'm leaving to go see it 45 minutes from now.

Makes me regret I didn't take PTO to watch it, half my team are. :D

me and three other coworkers took a PTO too :)

I liked the first 2/3 of the first film. It had some fun takes on events and scenes. But after that it felt like it was on auto pilot plowing through plot bits. The events that close that film are really uninteresting / don't feel very climatic.

I get it's a two part film but I do expect a given part to feel somewhat complete, but I felt like it was more of a "to be continued" ending and I was less than entertained by that point.

I do like that there's such a variety of Dune films and content (the sci-fi miniseries including children of dune being my favorites). It's fun to see a different take on things. I really have never felt any of them were "wrong" or fundamentally "bad" just different approaches.

I wish every great sci-fi content could get lots of versions / interpretations.

Exactly. I can easily recollect the first half of the first movie, but after Paul meeting the Fremen, I barely remember anything out of the movie.

Didn't they meet, Paul fought Jamis, then that was basically the end? I thought that was maybe the last fifth of the movie, not half.

Yes, that's correct. The 2 starts there.

Guess I have a better memory than I had estimated. :-)

yeah the fremen in part 1 are kinda boring.

but after re-watching it recently, i think part 1 overall is pretty great

I feel like I live in a different reality to the other viewers of the new Dunes

"Best Sci-Fi of the decade"??

They're both some of the dullest sci-fi movies I've ever seen, especially compared to the Lynch one.

Disgracefully I imagine that few people saw the extended two-parts version of the Lynch movie, and were burned by the insanely shortened ending and the other cuts of the theatrical one. I recommend checking the extended version out, it will probably change a lot your idea of the movie. I was probably influenced by seeing it before the (criminal) theatrical version.

Lynch's Dune was visionary, at times disturbing and with Kyle McLachlan. Can you really beat a Kyle McLachlan movie? No, I don't think so. xD

In Villeneuve's version I was e.g. shocked by how watered down the Baron Harkonnens is; the movies are just bland and Hollywood-y.

The music is as banal and badly employed as any average Hollywood blockbuster; the actor chosen for Paul Atreides is as much insipid as Kyle McLachlan was eclectic; Zendaya is incomparable to Sean Young; a couple parts are plain stupid (Gurney's entrance...)

Despite not having the length problems that Lynch had, they managed to compress the ending again; they gave too much time to unimportant parts while compressing the ending and other important passages (the final battle lasts what, five minutes? Does he actually cross the desert??).

Some actor choices seem good (Florence Pugh, Rebecca Ferguson...), but yes not some of the most important.

And I did like a lot Blade Runner 2049, I think I liked Denis Villeneuve, but these movies made me change idea.

To be clear, it's not the worst movie I ever saw; it's simply bland, and I think it's bewildering that this version gets praise while Lynch's one is considered junk.

I should say that I never managed to read the books, though, that might play a role in these opinions.

Never heard the Lynch one called junk. But I do think some people don't value proper theatrics, and are just special effects junkies.

I'm still annoyed at how much was cut out of part 1 despite it being as long as it was. I get going for ambience but the whole banquet scene was missing. None of Duncan suspecting Lady Jessica. Duke Leto is barely developed as a character at all.

> Even better than the first film

The first part left me quite underwhelmed, tbh. Maybe I had too high expectations given the director, but while the visuals are amazing, the characterization of some characters (like lady Jessica or Thufir Hawat) are very far from how the books depicts them, and I don't think is an interpretation thing.

I understand that Dune is too big of a masterpiece for a simple 2 part movie (it should be a 6-8 session series at least), but I think for instance that the graphic novels do a way better job of conveying the essentials.

I'll watch this anyways, I am still a Dune fan.

Really? I was very impressed with Rebecca Ferguson as lady Jessica. The first 10 minutes was worthy of an Oscar.

For that 6-8 part series, you’re looking for the SyFy Channels version that was done early 2000s. Fantastic. Frank Herbert’s Dune. Had William Hurt in it.

That series was such a treat. Highly recommended!!

never heard about this before! thanks for the tip will check this out

Just wanted to say, it's easily the best interpretation of Dune I've ever seen.

So much so that I find myself wishing I had not seen it. It makes the current Dune interpretation movies look downright juvenile. Watch the current movies first, then go back and watch Sci Fi's interpretation. If you don't, you'll be extremely disappointed in the current movies.

Agreed that the SciFi channel miniseries of Dune is top notch.

There’s also a Children of Dune miniseries with the same cast.

Catch is when I wanted to watch it last these couldn’t be streamed anywhere legally. So I bought them on dvd from fleabay.

Children of Dune was on the same level. Both were, by far, the pinnacle of Sci-fi (Syfy) channel during their glory days. Stargate is cool, Farscape is too, BSG is my all time favorite, but this - this was BSG before they had the budget. This enabled them to do BSG. They knocked it out of the park. Twice.

Tangentially related, their maxiseries Taken was also excellent.

Difficult to learn it even existed given that an action movie franchise which used the same name pretty much crowds it out of search results

It’s another one I ended up getting on dvd.

With Dakota Fanning, Anton Yelchin (RIP)... yeah, it was a good series too but was a little too conspiracy centric I think. Still, the production quality was like Netflix before Netflix. Kind of surreal from a 3rd rate cable production channel.

The same cast except for Jessica. Alice Krige is amazing in other things, but my Jessica was Saskia Reeves.

Also easily my favorite. I saw the first episode the night it came out (before I read the book) and remember being blown away. I've liked the other versions too, but not nearly as much.

Hurt was the worst part of it. I swear, I still cringe when I remember his unemotional delivery of "Desert. Power." Damn he was bad.

lol, never said he was good, only that he was in it. He lended that hollywood stamp and then just trailered his performance.

The first film was half a reboot.

> the characterization of some characters... are very far from how the books depicts them

But that's how it always is, because the target audience for the movie is much wider than the target audience for the book, so characters always get the "screen treatment" to make them more palatable to a wider audience.

Nah, SicFi is so mainstream that that is not a valid argument anymore. Plus, they clearly made it for fans. It is barely comprehensible without having read the original.

Which graphic novels?

Adaptation from Brian Herbert & Kevin Anderson, illustrated by Raúl Allén and Patricia Martín. Highly recommend.

> I understand that Dune is too big of a masterpiece for a simple 2 part movie (it should be a 6-8 session series at least)

I am a massive Dune fan as well and share this sentiment. Same for Lord of the Rings. On some level those books are simply unadaptable if the goal is to be totally true to the original text.

For myself, I am always happy to see adaptations since it will always lead someone to the books who would otherwise not have been exposed to them. And if some folks don't like the books and only enjoy the movies, that's fine too. Better to have any exposure than none. :)

The LOTR movies are masterpieces in their own right, IMO. I can't say the same for Dune (part 1, at least).

> I can't say the same for Dune (part 1, at least).

Not as an adaptation, but more of an extension.

To be fair, the audience for movies and books simply aren't the same. If you tried to fully faithfully adapt LotR, you'd have Alex Jones proclaiming the frogs got to Tom Bombadil and turned him into a dirty liberal hippie.

It would just be too confusing/weird for on-screen.

I'd watch it on repeat until I turned into that skeleton waiting meme.

I do think it's inevitable that a film adaptation will let down any major fan of the original book. There's simply a barrier between media that cannot be reconciled, certainly not for any story as complex and expansive as Dune.

(Sounds like this movie is at least three parts, for what it's worth.)

> I do think it's inevitable that a film adaptation will let down any major fan of the original book. There's simply a barrier between media that cannot be reconciled, certainly not for any story as complex and expansive as Dune.

I don't think this is true. I agree that they are different media, and any adaptation will inherently be an adaptation. But that shouldn't lead to disappointment. You can appreciate both for their differences, as long as they each succeed in their own approach.

Not to mention so much internal dialog. Hard to translate into film.

This is why doing Messiah is going to be such a challenge, even moreso than the first book. 80's SFX almost lend themselves to handling internal monologue BETTER than modern effects, as the idea was just to signal a suspension of disbelief, rather than to go for the hyper-realism that modern effects evoke.

We'll see.

> The first part left me quite underwhelmed

The books are chock full of the various character's internal dialog, and when you make the choice to leave that aspect out, there is quite a bit of richness missing.

This version went the "show, don't tell" route. Visually, its amazing, but so much additional information from the book to help you understand the characters, the groups they belong to, and their motivations was left out.

I think the Sci Fi channel Dune miniseries did the best job of putting across the full richness of the book, albeit with a made for TV budget.

The Sci-Fi channel Children of Dune miniseries is highly underrated as well.

I don't know why so many people hate the whispery Lynch Dune voiceovers. I think they work great to convey both extra content and the mysterious, intrigue-laden mood of the book.

I love the Lynch version's sets, costumes, props, and art direction in general.

> This version went the "show, don't tell" route.

While I agree it makes it difficult to understand motives, on the other hand I love that they don't over-explain stuff. So many movies ruined by not trusting the audience with half a brain.

I didn’t see the first one but I’m under the impression that neither of the remakes feature Sting so I’m not sure why people are watching them.

I was too young when it was released, but wasn't it Sting's diaper that got everyone into the theater?

I dunno, I wasn’t born yet

> The first part left me quite underwhelmed, tbh.

I get that. I felt the same was at first. But after watching it multiple times on HBOMax I have come to really appreciate the film. I think maybe my initial expectations were just too high.

I read the Dune books after seeing Part 1, and I was slightly disappointed at how _little_ characterisation most characters have. Most of them have no history or relationships outside of the ones present in the book and very broad "Paul's doctor came from the secret society of very good doctors".

IMO Dune a good piece of literature, but the lackluster worldbuilding makes the Universe feel small and empty. Nothing interesting happened in the prior 10k years to anybody who's not a protagonist.

Fully agreed on this. The books give you no sensation of a galactic empire of trillions of people and all the complexity that would arise from it. The society has no more depth than a small European nation - a few corporations, a few universities, some guilds, an aristocracy, etc.

Yeah, I don't remember Jessica being nearly as overtly emotional in the book as she is in Part 1.

I enjoyed Part 1 while watching it, but somehow it's just not memorable to me. It's a much more faithful book adaptation than Lynch's Dune, but Lynch's Dune is full of moments that stick with me and has an iconic soundtrack. To be fair, I first saw Lynch's Dune when I was very young so that might explain part of why I find it so memorable. I dunno. To me Villenueve's Dune just kind of seems... flat, by-the-numbers, gray and dull. Weird thing is, I love Blade Runner: 2049 and I find it to be very memorable and vivid. But then, Villeneuve had a chance to make his own story with that one, which might explain the difference.

Lynch's Dune is, I think, a significantly better movie than Villeneuve's, but it is so different from the book that I'm not even sure I am willing to call it an adaptation - and that might have made Lynch's job easier. For example, Lynch's Dune fully just goes with the classical "hero's journey" approach to Paul, with no hint of the devastation that he will be responsible for. It also goes full on into mysticism, which I enjoy, but which is quite different from the book's skeptical and cynical approach to spirituality. Nonetheless, it is a better movie just as a movie. I have not seen Villenueve's Part 2 yet, but I hope that it makes up for some of the things that I find dull about Part 1.

Lynch understood what the problems of a direct adaptation would be. An example would be the Weirding Way. One would have to invent a martial art that both looked fresh on the screen (new, different) and was also simultaneously overwhelmingly powerful. This is perhaps nigh-insurmountable (I dunno, clone Bruce Lee, but also raise him with a lot of cinematography experience, then have him design another Jeet Kune Do which looked impressive through a lens). Lynch opted for the Weirding Modules, which still provided this surprise advantage against the Sardukar terror troops and tied back, thematically, to Paul being the fulfillment of prophecy.

He understood that millennia of feudalism would make for a psychically claustrophobic atmosphere, that the avoidance of the thinking machines would necessarily birth the creation of humans who might have visibly different traits ("... the lips acquire stains ...") from the strain of being human computers. He understood that voiceovers were appropriate because, to survive in such an environment, you must constantly be thinking about what other minds are thinking, to remain steps ahead.

Finally, Lynch understood that the dialogue must be larger than life. I heard a trailer for the recent one and I swear, some of the dialogue between Paul and Chiani sounded like Avengers-era quippy Whedon output.

    Lynch's Dune is, I think, a significantly better movie than Villeneuve's

Yeah. Ultimately I think Villeneuve's movie commits the worst sin of all which is being kind of boring. (Though as a Dune "veteran" I realize my perspective is highly skewed!)

Lynch's movie is kind of a mess maybe, but there is a sense of wonder there that I just don't get from Villeneuve's beautiful-but-sterile version.

I've probably seen Dune 1984 too many times to have an objective opinion, but I feel like the acting in Dune Part 1 is comparitively very very muted. All the characters (minus Duncan) seem bored the whole time, which is disappointing in relation to the bombastic Shakespearean performances in the Lynch film.

> All the characters (minus Duncan) seem bored the whole time

This is how I've felt about most Villeneuve movies I've seen. The main (or at least major) characters look like they're walking knowingly, resignedly towards some destiny they can't control (Arrival at least this kind of makes sense, and Paul for parts of Dune) with an absurdly flat affect most of the time. It's like we're watching them watching themselves go through the motions of life without being able to direct or control it.

Very pretty movies, interesting soundtracks, with strangely flat acting from people who can do much better.

IMO the visuals were just... bland. Everyone wears grey and lives in dark grey dwellings. The color balance is so bad that Atreides flag that is green on Caladan becomes cyan on Dune. This greyness also ruined the supposedly-awesome scene with the worm where it was just a dark blob on a grey background. And it was unintentionally funny when the camera pans over a featureless grey desert, and someone says "you can tell the spice by the color of the sand".

Perhaps there was something wrong with whatever setup you watched the first one on. The colors were all pretty warm and...sand-colored, definitely not anything I'd call "grey".

Where did you watch it?

I do hope so! I love Denis Villeneuve, but felt initially that Dune part one didn't live up to the standard I was used to from him. Mostly due to the structure and pacing.

But Villeneuve did explicitly intend this as a two-parter, and I've held on to the hope that it was all intentional and that his decisions will serve the films as a whole experience.

Nope

There haven't been many good sci-fi films in the past decade though, especially if you think the Marvel cinematic universe is boring. Competition is thin.

agree, Dune for me was one, Inception being another. I liked Moon(small budget but excellent), interstellar was ok. And thats about it.

Moon was truly excellent

Moon, Arrival and District 9.

The last one would have been even better without the force-fed mecha segment, I think.

It was. It was released 15 years ago though.

I'd put Everything Everywhere All at Once on that list, depending how you define sci-fi. One of the best films of the decade, in my opinion.

old lady matrix? I couldn't get into it...

I really want to know why you liked it, reason I ask is I came into the movie wanting to love it and couldn't finish it(ended it half way). I just disliked it so much. For me: the story seemed so childish(like a middle schooler wrote it), the characters didn't seem quite interesting(I did like that the main character was an older lady as you do not see that typically in film), and the dialogue really corny. I know alot of people love it and am curious on what about it made it so entertaining.

For me, it resonated strongly with me because I"m a middle aged Asian American with immigrant parents and I have young kids. It hits me in a lot of levels emotionally. I get why someone who doesn't share my background not get it. Also, you kind of need to be in the mood for that type of humor.

For me, there's a lot more going on in this film in the subtext. It's a story about people struggling to find meaning and beauty in an absurd and often cruel world where everything is kinda going to shit.

I also love a good martial arts movie, and Michelle Yeoh is awesome. The fight scenes are fantastic and hilarious. And finally, the film manages a big-budget feel while it cost somewhere between 14 and 25 million to make, which is nothing compared to the average blockbuster. Avengers Endgame, for example, cost over 300 million. I have a lot of appreciation for that sort of thing.

I don't think that's sci-fi. The mythology is on the level of filthy frank omniverse tbh. Still, a good movie.

SciFi TV and movies ALL depend how you define SciFi, as arguably most of what passes for it is more like fantasy or horror with the aesthetics of something ...sciencey.

Good thing I like those genres too.

Ones I liked are Arrival, Interstellar, Her, and Pacific Rim

Only Arrival and Interstellar were released in the last decade, and Interstellar only just.

This is my point. The last decade has been a sci-fi wasteland.

Plenty of good sci-fi, but mostly on TV.

Still, you're also probably overlooking how common sci-fi films are. Like say, Ad Astra with Brad Pitt (2019). The Martian in 2015. Blade Runner 2049. And so on.

> Plenty of good sci-fi, but mostly on TV.

Care to share? I can't name a single one besides 'The Expanse'.

Andor, Severance, and Devs come to mind, even though they're different types of thrillers to some extent.

Have heard good things about Station Eleven.

Even on Apple TV+ alone there are plenty to choose from, though funnily enough the one I've been watching the most is not the critically-acclaimed For All Mankind, but climate disaster drama Extrapolations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39543480

Fired on Mars on MAX is a gem of an existential sci-fi dry comedy.

Paper Girls on Amazon Prime has been cancelled, but it was a good time travel romp and comic book adaptation that wasn't a superhero one from the big two (it's an Image Comics title)

It's not quite the '90s extravaganza in terms of television sci-fi, but with all of the demand for streaming content, the odds are good, even if the goods are often odd. There's been like, three different Star Trek shows now, plus a cartoon. Surely there's something to be found from that.

Thank you, I'll have to give Andor another try.

Couldn't get into it on the first go.

First season of Altered Carbon was good. Also The Peripheral, albeit canceled before its time. Glad Gibson went with Apple to finally let someone take a crack at putting Neuromancer on screen; they're the only ones I'd trust not to cut it short too.

Still waiting for someone to put Daemon and Freedom(tm) on a screen of any size; that could get fun, but probably would need to be a series to avoid cutting out way too much.

Foundation on Apple TV+ is great.

The first one was good enough for me to see 2/3 times in IMAX :)

The director literally made some of his other movies to prep for Dune.

Movies with dozens of Millions in budget were his practice for this next flick, so hey, I'm ready to give my money and be blown away!

>The director literally made some of his other movies to prep for Dune.

You're saying BR2047 was practice? Because it was way better than DP1

That’s ironic, considering how much better Arrival and the Blade Runner sequel were than Dune.

Arrival is an incredible film. (And sure enough, as is the story it's based on.) That's even with the discounting factor of the useless rogue bombers subplot.

Blade runner 2049 is an interesting film. Visually gorgeous. Ana de Armas doing one of the best stone-cold scenes I have ever seen. And the whole film having the guts to tell a small story in a big world. Commendable. But I also find myself cringing at how it took a well constructed universe and pretty much dismantled it. So I'm rather torn over what I should think of the film.

Of course, story telling wise the Dune mini-series was far above the first new film. But that didn't make the new film bad, it just made it ... different. And too packed. Dune's story is fundamentally big, sweeping and slow. Squeezing it into a film format will cripple it.

I enjoyed Peter Watts' provocative review of Arrival, which I thought I'd shared on HN in the past, but search suggests apparently not:

https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=7021

In terms of quality I want to rate it above the other two movies we're talking about, and right up there with, ahem, the original Blade Runner as a classic science fiction film. (for me that's saying something, since I dislike the visual style of Villeneuve's films)

edit: my main problem with the bomber subplot was just how heavy handed it was

Saw it on the 25th, what I love is how I didn't doubt the world for a single second.

I never thought to myself they're in some desert on earth, but truly that this is some far away planet far in the future.

Weird, I was surprised by how much it looks like normal desert.

In a scene they supposedly point to the spice, but it's plain shimmering sand, there doesn't even seem to be any effect!

The theater where I watched it was not great, but I don't think it was that

I'm really excited about this movie, its f/x and renderings of the buildings, world and technology are the stuff of sci-fi dreams. And I am saying this as die hard fan and lover of the books and also a fan of the David Lynch movie. I didn't really like the mini series they made for TV. That being said the only issue I have is with the cast, I feel like the biggest misses were Baron Harkonnen and Paul Atreides. David Lynch cast both perfectly but its a minor nit and overall really enjoyed part one immensely.

I could not stand the first part of the movie Dune. I'm sorry for the fans, but it was amongst the worst movies I have ever (partially) watched.

Slow and incomprehensible for me.

P.S. I have not read the book.

Then it was extremely true to the books.

I can’t imagine trying to understand the movie if I hadn’t read the book. As you say, it would be absolutely incomprehensible.

One might argue that means that the movie failed to properly execute.

Can be argued either way. Perhaps it’s ok for some movies to be companions to pre-existing work, not to be experienced in isolation. In fact, this was the tradition in painting and sculpture for centuries. The viewer would know the backstory for that severed head, e.g., belonging to Goliath.

Dune has always been a really difficult adaptation because there is so much internal monologue. It's a great story but a very challenging film.

>> Slow and incomprehensible for me.

Interesting take. I remember thinking, when I first saw it, in one of the movie's last fight scenes, 'hmm, we must be at the halfway point'

My anecdata with Dune part 1 is that people who haven't read at least the first book are far more likely to not love the movie. For me, the movie isn't so much an adaptation as it is a window into the world. As someone already familiar with that world, I think the movie is incredible.

Have read the first book multiple times, and hard disagree. See [0] for my thoughts on why.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39555931

I’ve noticed that the larger the scale and budget a movies get, the more vacate the film is. A small scale film like The Social Network is much bigger to me than Dune 2 which I recently saw through a friend working in the film industry. Dune 2 is one of the largest scale films ever made but its thoughts and ideas are equally small in the other direction. It’s valid to be mesmerized by the technical feat and the sheer scale of it but it’s empty calories.

Yeah I feel this. I just watched Prisoners for the first time and didn't realize it was Villanueve. It felt like a much more impactful and 'whole' film than Dune Part One.

The existential horror cultivated in Prisoners so laser-focused and palpable, I still regularly think about Jackman’s character and get a chill down my spine. truly excellent handling of that character’s journey. i didn’t realize it was Villanueve either!

Loved part1c which I saw just last week on Netflix in preparation for this.

Honestly, I hated the Lynch movie. It has its many positives, but for me, all of it was negated and the movie completely fell flat on its face as soon as Weirding Modules came out. Totally ruined the movie for me. I’ve watched it several times, and each time I see the weirding modules I cringe.

I still don’t understand what the problem with “Kung Fu in Space” was.

I have the feeling the first part was review manipulated and therefore has the image of being good while just being mediocre and forgettable.

Absolutely, and it seems to be happening again...

Or, you know, people have different opinion.

I absolutely loved the first film. I am very excited for the second part. I enjoy long movies, so having two parts is good.

One part of the first movie that sticks out to me is seeing their space ships for the first time. It was such a different style of space ship that it (plus the music) really struck me in the moment and stayed with me.

I couldn’t get thru the first one. Absolute snooze fest.

Yeah usual overdone Hollywood stuff. Yet another superhero movie basically.

I find it interesting how divisive this movie is. Many of my friends thought it was immensely boring. One even fell asleep halfway thorough. I found the first movie so incredibly captivating that it immediately became my favourite movie and I've gone on to read the first few books. I've seen it I think 10 times now.

I watched Part II on the 25th. Really really good. Having read the book now there's some things I missed or thought could be better but it still just blew me away.

Did you see Lynch's one before it?

Related: here is last night's Fresh Air interview with Dune director Denis Villeneuve. It is 37 mins long. I listened to it on my drive home. It is a good interview.

NPR Fresh Air: "Storyboarding 'Dune' since he was 13, Denis Villeneuve is 'still pinching' himself"

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1234472127/dune-denis-villene...

"If I could've made movies without any dialogue, it would have been paradise" ...this is why I love his movies, the visuals and sounds are so beautiful and powerful.

I would like to see the average age of people who prefer the new Dune movie to the old David Lynch one. Are you all Millennials and younger?

I'm almost 50 and I prefer the new by a mile.

I'm 40 and think the new one is much much better.

I'm a millennial, and my favorite Dune is Jodorowsky's Dune :)

I’m right on the millenial/gen Z divide and an inner selfish purpose for me working on AI/ML is just to enable a creation of Jodorowsky’s 10 hour version of Dune with soundtrack by Pink Floyd.

I'm 44 and I think Lynch'n Dune is better, because it has soul. The first movie was very sterile and lifeless. I commented about it here a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38980303

My brother from another mother! 43 here, maybe there's something to it.

43 here and same thoughts. I _do_ like the reboot, but Lynch's Dune just oozes atmosphere, and its... baroqueness is just insurmountable.

Mid-50's here and really didn't like Lynch's version that much, but was quite underwhelmed with Part 1.

That said, I think you nailed the two movies in two sentences.

Of Lynch's version I often quip that it was both good and original - however the parts that were original were not good, and the parts that were good were not original. In short - I did not like the divergences from the source material that much. It did have a soul though.

Part 1 seemed to miss or give short-shrift to beats in the book that always stood out to me. Instead of really conveying the absolutely oppressive lack of moisture on the planet, there was what felt like an interminably long monologue about the palm trees. Mentats with inner eye-lids? Leaned into the mystical side too much for my taste. Yueh's betrayal seemed like a footnote. The end of the movie from when Paul and Jessica met the Freman felt rushed. More time spent on why Jamis was so pissed off, and reflecting on the fact that this was the first man Paul killed, and less on weird alternative time-line future WTF visions would have been time better spent. Sterile and lifeless.

Add to that, did anyone else not know that it was a part one and not a complete movie when they walked in? Definitely seemed like something that they went to lengths to conceal.

That said, I'll watch it again before watching part two, and then try and form an opinion of the complete movie and not just the first half.

The scene that sealed the deal for me was Paul's awakening: I absolutely loved how it was done in Lynch's version, complete with the grand score by Toto, and it was so, so bland and uninspiring in Villeneuve's version.

Mind you, there were great moments in it too, and my ideal Dune movie would take things from both movies (and also from that [0] Dune 1 game!), but overall Lynch's direction was better for me.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(video_game)

New is a better/watchable movie for sure, but I do think the David Lynch one really nailed the "this is 10000 years in the future" aesthetic and vibe, especially given the special effects capabilities of 1984. New one does not feel that way to me.

mid thirties and HATED the David Lynch one. The casting, visuals, aesthetic were all repulsive to me. I like this new one a lot

37. The David Lynch one was unwatchably campy.

30. The David lynch film is, imo, his worst film by a wide margin.

Lynch's world building, Captain Picard vs Sting, rather well-acted, Toto's soundtrack, that intro (oh man, that intro).. what's not to like! I see it as completely different takes, I prefer the old one - has soul to it. Kind of same with old Blade Runner vs 2049. Newer films are technically awesome, yet kind of vapid. And, yes - tastes are different, but let's talk in 20 or so years and see which stick. Old ones already stuck. Kind of similar to how people shat on SW prequels, yet they're still with us in popular culture, new ones not very much.

The worldbuilding in the prequels made up for massive deficits in other areas. A masterclass in worldbuilding for sure. Not so much for plot cohesion, characterization, motivation... Whereas the first two Star Wars releases are near-perfect enough movies to still act as templates for new filmmakers.

I love 'em both. Very different takes. Lynch took a lot of liberties but did a great job squeezing it into a single movie. I think Lynch captured the religious aspect quite well. I've read all the books. Villeneuve has made an epic series. The casting is great. The music is awesome. Cinematography stunning.

I would agree that the cinematographic qualities of each movies are debatable, but the old David Lynch one will always be vastly superior for the single fact that Toto's (and Brian Eno) soundtrack is 3.7 thousand times better (give or take) than the uninspired bland soup that Hans Zimmer has been serving.

I bet even Lynch prefer the new one since he hates his Dune so much.

Historically, february is the time of the year where studios tend to offload the films they think are going to flop. Maybe that has changed.

The first was okay. I was disappointed, I really like villenueve's other work. But it was just kinda stale.

I really wanted to like it, and the visuals were fantastic. But, I had no emotional reaction to the characters and feel like the plot was just flowing along without a reason for me to care. I gave it 30 minutes.

Well, Dune is kinda stale. It's certainly not for everyone, but I thought he did an amazing job of brining the books to life.

I disagree, I loved Dune. Messiah was a little hard to follow, but Dune was ace. It felt like part one sanded off all the interesting bits and gave us a really generic brutalist aesthetic scifi.

> sanded off

Good one!

> Well, Dune is kinda stale.

Yeah, I have to concur with that take. When I read Dune, I just didn't find it that interesting.

It rarely felt like the characters had agency--a lot of plot tokens were collected and redeemed to move the story forward (whoops, story needs to move--time for a new, previously unmentioned superpower). And quite often the characters were just cartoonishly dumb or smart or good or evil.

As you said, it's certainly not for everyone. I suspect it's more a "product of its time".

It suffers partially from contrived exposition. It seems whenever a Dune film is made, the filmmakers tend to try to include as much of the lore as tolerably possible. They could've just started off the first film with Paul entering a room to encounter Gaius Helen Mohiam and the audience being introduced to the box.

That's too early -- we'd have no reason to care about him by then. But that would work as the second scene potentially.

Dune: Part Two was actually scheduled for release end of last year, but got delayed due to the writers' strike. Maybe it hasn't changed afterall.

Right, but it's not like they had to release it now. My comment was more speaking to the peculiarity of releasing a potential blockbuster at this time of year. They could have made a summer or spring release as well.

I'm so excited to see this tomorrow! I'm so pleasantly surprised it seems to be popular. I expected the first movie to flop massively but at least weirdos like me would get to enjoy it. Here's hoping it keeps staying popular and they can even make it to the super weird later books!

I was extremely impressed by and thoroughly enjoyed "part one".

However I think Blade Runner 2049 was better. [1]

I'm excited to see "part two".

[1] Stephen A Smith Hot Take: I actually think BR:2049 was better than the original - and I am a true devotee of the original.

I think blade runner 2049 could be considered a superior film if you edited out most of Jared Leto’s character.

I heard that part was written for Bowie. One of the most plausible rumors I've ever heard. He would have been perfect. Instead, Jared Leto is agonizingly bad.

I’m not really sure if Bowie could have salvaged that level of unnecessary exposition homaging the original but I can’t deny it would have been vastly more entertaining.

Just saw the movie.

Dune is far and away my favorite story.

The movie was absolute shit. I felt like I was watching a sterilized series of previews stitched together and called a “movie”.

I have never been so let down by a movie in memory.

What did you expect and why is it “absolute shit”?

Dune part 1 was amazing. But Dune part 2 is on a whole another level.

Definitely the best Sci-Fi movie of the decade, unless they drop Dune part 3 that is somehow better than this masterpiece.

How is Austin Butler's character? If he can pull off this _and_ Elvis he can be one of the great actors of our time.

He's alright, I liked Sting much more, and to me (never having read the books) he seems too young, but in the end I guess he does pull it off

the first dune was stylish and had its moments but overall i found it while entertaining rather dull and pretentious. it also didn't make much sense if i thought too much about. can't wait to watch part 2 but will do so with guarded expectations.

I just came back from seeing 'Dune: Part two". I feel very disappointed. In a sense, Denis Villeneuve, is like Paul. It looks like that when Villeneuve smelled success, he could not withstand the pressure and instead staying true to the book made it into an action film, of which we already have so many, and which is full of plot-holes like we are used to these kind of films. I will not even start comparing the script to the book, like I did for the first book. I feel betrayed. He squandered the legacy of Frank Herbert.

Alia walking around would have been goofy.

Have not seen par two yet but the irst film is a visually stunning and thematically rich adaptation that does justice to its source material.

I loved the book but the story imo has not aged well. Too much of white savior going on and too much colonialism. I would not describe myself as "woke", I can see why the teenage me loved it, yet my adult self cringes too hard. Particularly now as multiple post-colonial wars are happening.

Also, I do not think a mega-promoted mega-budget Hollywood blockbuster needs more marketing here. "Esquire says" - so what?

Hmm... I think their present-day (post 9/11) problem is rather that the heroes are Arab-inspired and talk of Jihad...

White savior?

Did you even watch the movie?

Yes. Why?

Eh, they kept all the silly stuff from the book, the atomic bombs, the boring desert sections, way too much exposition, the insurgency and holy war aspects that barely seem like fiction considering recent world events, and like all movies nowadays it's way too long.

I'm sure it seemed even less like fiction during the OPEC oil crisis in the 70s. Or the Libya Khadaffi thing in the 80s. Or the Kuwait invasion in the 90s. You get the idea :-)

I think movies these days struggle to compete with serialized television shows which can run very long, allowing a lot more opportunity for character and plot development. Dune also just has a lot to cover. See the Lynch adaptation for what happens when you start to push against the inherent runtime limitations of film.

> and like all movies nowadays it's way too long.

If I wanted a TV show, I would watch Netflix.

"of the Decade"? Author using that phrase again, and they're serious about writing off the next 6 years? Will see how that ages.

Would have been safe to say "of the last ten years" no?

I think saying "of the decade" but meaning "of the [past] decade" where decade means "a period of ten years" is pretty reasonable

Quibbling with that sort of misses the point, no?

I read the rest of the review, it's fine, I'm just questioning writing off a bunch of "future" years of movie releases seems premature. The author makes a point that they're staking that claim.

> Author using that phrase again, and they're serious about writing off the next 6 years?

Given that nothing serious been announced yet, it’s a pretty safe bet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com