Dune: Part Two (4K Ultra HD)

I've got copies of all the Dune movies released on disc, so far. As a general rule, if you have not read the books (or talked a lot to people, or done other study) the movies are impossible to follow. Or, at the very least, you won't know how what you are seeing fits into a MUCH larger picture. Part of this is due to the general inability of movies to capture the depth, breadth, subtlety, history, context, side elements, etc. of books. Books often have "narration" explaining the situations/context/circumstances, and the internal thoughts and feelings of characters. Movies tend to include only the most superficial plot elements, and over emphasize the parts that include action. I can very easily imagine people liking the movies, and not having a clue how much is glossed over or completely missing. Mentats, for example. There are 30 (or is it 23?) Dune books. The first 6 were written by Frank Herbert. The rest are written by his son Brian with help from Kevin J. Anderson. Almost everyone (to my knowledge) agree the first 6 are "better". The rest purportedly lack the same "creative genius", mostly expanding details of established plot elements, but are considered worth the read. All-in-all, Dune is considered (by many) to be, the best example of "world building" story telling, ever, bar none (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.; Even Hobbits/Rings), for scale, scope, depth, complexity, subtly, grandeur, vision etc. Volume one is 592 pages. The 1984 Lynch film covers book one. The director took "serious" liberties with a major plot element ("the weirding way", leaving out some things, and inventing others.). I did read numerous commentaries about the the 84 film, before seeing it. I was able to tell where in the narrative the movie was, but that is the most I can say. Much later (after seeing the BBC versions) I became aware of, and watched, the (even less well known) "Spice Driver Fan Edit" version of the (not well known) extended version of the 1984 movie. The Fan Edit rendition is a BIG improvement over the 1984 film. But, to be fair, by this time I knew a lot more about the "big picture" of the story, so I could better "appreciate" what I was seeing. The 2000 BBC mini-series, being longer, did more-and-better justice to the story. (IMHO, BBC consistently does "a good job"). The 2003 BBC mini-series, (same cast with one exception) also being longer, also did commendable justice to the story. Together these cover books one and three but still left a lot out. By the time I saw these (years after their release), I knew enough to appreciate this rendition. I get the feeling that the "theme" of book 2 is generally included in both the Lynch and BBC screen renditions. The 2021 and 2024 Villeneuve films together cover book one. These films are more visually striking that earlier efforts. WOW! The scope and scale of things can be incredible. And having 2 movies to work with (more time), they did a better justice to the "entire" story of volume one (but still left a lot out). The anticipated 3rd film is purported to address book 2. Now (Dec 2024) HBO is doing a 6 episode TV series of based on the 17th book, which is set 10,000 years from now and 10,000 years before the story lines of the other movies. Again, monumental scope. When eventually available, I'll get these on disc. But, for me, this is the least "wow" of all the screen renditions. I never actually read the books (reading learning disability). Having done a lot of reading of synopses and commentaries, talked to many other fans, and having seen every screen version more than once, I now have a much better idea of the "bigger picture". And can, therefore, appreciate all the films (needing/making allowance for Lynch's liberties). If I ever become a trillionaire, I'll make the entire story using as many movies/episodes are are required to make the movie-equivalent of an unabridged version of the story.

Entertaining, more developed remake of the Dune series. A bit long at times but a good flick. It's pretty much an essential watch if you've seen the first part of the Dune remake which definitely leaves you hanging if you're familiar with the plot of the original Dune movie.

Beautiful extension. It's as grand as part one. I can't wait for part three.

Keep in mind that most of what I have to say about the movie as it exists within its own vacuum is positive. With that in mind, let's get into a few of those: 1. Chalamet's acting as Paul was superb. I was concerned going into this movie about how he was going to become the kind of powerful leader that Paul becomes in the novels, but he did just as good a job convincing me with his performance as Paul did with the Fremen. This was a pleasant surprise, as I did not have high hopes after the end of the first part. 2. Feyd-Rautha, I felt, was handled extremely well. He was an intimidating presence on screen, and highlighted even moreso how cruel the Harkonnens are as a house. 3. The visual and set design is superb. Everything feels almost exactly as one would envision the world of Arrakis, and by extension, the rest of the Dune universe, would. 4. The audio is masterfully used. If you have surround sound I implore you to watch and listen to both this and part 1 with it. You really feel the power behind each sound. 5. The story hits all the important parts and gets the point across well. You can tell that Villeneuve is a fan of the books. Most of these positives are enough to make the movie worth watching, but lets get into a few gripes that I have with the story. 1. While Chani, for the most part, is handled well, the way they chose to write her, especially towards the last thirty to forty-five minutes of screen time, was not handled as well, in my opinion. She is used as a mouth piece to essentially sell the main point of the Dune franchise, which is to be cautious of trusting Messianic/heroic figures and/or charismatic leaders, because they can often lead us into trouble or straight up be propped up by propaganda/lies. However, the message is already obvious if you pay attention to the story enough, and it was not necessary for Chani to spell it out for the audience, and feels like it was written because the filmmakers think we're stupid and won't get the point. It doesn't hurt the movie on its own, but knowing that we are getting Dune Messiah (the sequel book to the original Dune for those not in the know) at some point, Chani being written this way and being estranged from Paul at the end of the movie boxes Dune Messiah in and doesn't leave a satisfying or well-written way for their relationship to go from here if you know anything about what happens in the novels moving forward from Dune. I will be cautiously optimistic about how they choose to handle this plot point moving forward, but as it currently stands, this part specifically left a bad taste in my mouth. This is not a dig at Zendaya, who is a solid actress and played the part extremely well, but rather at the choice to write Chani in this way. 2. While the Bene Gesserit are handled extremely well, where are the Mentats and the Guild Navigators? They are just as important to the world and story of Dune as the Bene Gesserit are, and they make up an essential part of why Paul is the Kwisatz Haderach, but other than Thufir being on screen for maybe a total of 3-4 minutes in part 1 and an even briefer appearance of the Harkonnen Mentat, they are otherwise entirely absent and I don't think they are even mentioned one time in either part 1 or 2. Guild Navigators are maybe mentioned once, if at all, but they are important because they are the reason space travel exists and why spice must be harvested for the Imperium. The reason they are important for Paul's story is that he has training with all 3 organizations: The Bene, the Mentats, AND the navigators. Here, they went more with a purely Bene Gesserit route. Again, I understand the desire to focus more on them because they play perhaps the most important part in the story of the Kwisatz Haderach, and taking attention away from them hurts that story a bit, and if they devoted more attention to the other 2 organizations, then the movie would be way longer, but it is a potential disservice and will make it harder to write them into the next movie because we as an audience will be asking where these guys were the entire time things were going down in part 1 and 2. 3. While Christopher Walken played the emperor well, unfortunately I feel there just wasn't a whole lot for him to do or enough focus given to him to develop him as a character. 4. I understand why they wrote Alia the way they did, because it's hard to find a child actress that can play a role this nuanced, it sort of detracts from her role in the story and shortens the time Jessica and Paul spent with the Fremen significantly, making things feel rushed along a bit. They made it work for what they could do, but it is a small nitpick that takes away from that aspect of the book a bit. Overall, this was a pretty faithful adaptation. I would give it an 8/10. It could have handled things a lot better, but it was still a good movie that I recommend. I have no idea how they're going to rectify things in Dune Messiah that they did poorly here, but I'm cautiously optimistic given Villeneuve is actually a fan of the story that he can make an adaptation just as faithful. Time will tell.

Fabulous movie if you are into sci-fi.

Good follow up the the first one.

A good movie

Sorry folks but for as much as the visuals blew my mind away, I am incredibly disappointed in what Denis Villeneuve did with the story. More specifically what he did with the characters of Jessica, Stilgar and Chani. Jessica: It started out magnificently in the first movie. Her character was this incredible combination of intelligence and kick ass physical skills just as she was in the book. But for her to manipulate the Fremen as she did in the movie (and some would say she did in the book as well) without truly understanding her motivations was hard for me to take in. She is so much more than the manipulative dragon lady like she was portrayed in the movie than she was written in the book. Chani: Like Jessica, she started out magnificently in the first movie, but then it became this conflict between she and Paul and what amounts to an ultimatum from her that he renounce his demi-god status or she will leave him. The book does nothing of the sort. She is steadfastly loyal to Paul. Her love for Paul drives her yes but not blindly so. And Paul is as much in love with her as she with him. So much so that Jessica tells Chani directly that while he must marry Princess Irulan, she will never know his love or his touch. The very last line in the book explains it all, and yet that too was missing from the movie. Stilgar: This is the one that chafes my hide the most. In the book, he is honorable and filled with the rational even-mindedness required of great leaders. The one word I always thought of when I thought of the him is noble. To turn him into the violently fanatical blood-soaked supplicant of Paul is a betrayal I just can't forgive. Look. I get it. I understand why Denis attempted what he did with the script. People needed to understand (especially those who never read the Dune series), Paul is not the hero. He's the protagonist. A young man born into a great family with a truly good heart but imbued with unimaginable powers not of his own making. The political machinations around him force him to make a choice. A choice he does not want to make. On one side, the destruction of his family and the Fremen. On the other tyranny. A tyranny in which he is the tyrant. In either case, the survival of humanity is at stake. And both will require the death of millions. There is no way out. You bleed emotionally for Paul. You see the effects it has on Chani, Stilgar and Jessica. And it breaks your heart because you grow to love these characters. But in Denis' attempt to have people understand this, I simply couldn't fall in love with any of them. I wish I could give this movie two ratings. I would give the visuals alone 5 stars. Just like I would for the casting. It was brilliant. When I found out Jason Mamoa was cast as Duncan Idaho I was dubious. Mamoa does not match the character at all. And yet, he pulls it off nicely. Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson and Javier Bardem were perfect as Chani, Jessica and Stilgar respectively. But the cherry on top was Timothee Chalamet as Paul. Absolutely beautiful choice. I can think of no one better suited to play him. So, five stars for the visuals and casting. One star for the script. I wish it wasn't so.