Movies

DUNE: good not great.

The Good: It looks and sounds amazing. See it in a theater ONLY.

The bad: it has no emotional weight. Everything feels so cold and distant on a narrative level. Also, it's not a complete film! It just ends.

Still had fun with the rip roarin effects on the big screen though.
 
About Dune.... I watched the David Lynch version because why not. I actually like David Lynch's movies a lot and Twin Peaks. And some of you guys liked it.

I don't think his Dune was watchable tho... I had to stop it twice because I was falling asleep. It was weird but not in a good way and somehow boring at the same time. I watched the DV version first tho and its interesting because the things that seemed so weird in that version almost the most normal parts in this one.
 
zomgbear said:
About Dune.... I watched the David Lynch version because why not. I actually like David Lynch's movies a lot and Twin Peaks. And some of you guys liked it.

I don't think his Dune was watchable tho... I had to stop it twice because I was falling asleep. It was weird but not in a good way and somehow boring at the same time. I watched the DV version first tho and its interesting because the things that seemed so weird in that version almost the most normal parts in this one.
Click to expand...
I really enjoyed the DV Dune. I never read the book and like you went back and watched Lynch’s Dune. I agree with all of this. In reading about the history of Lynch’s Dune, I learned that Ridley Scott was originally attached to direct but was in the process of filming Blade Runner and the producers didn’t want to wait to get Dune out and hired Lynch based off of Elephant Man but hadn’t seen any of his other films and Lynch had never read Dune prior to filming. Lynch’s version, if thought of as a Lynch sci-fi film isn’t bad. Also, I understand that they cut like an hour from the film. I am not sure it would have made a huge difference but I think it would be an interesting watch. I would have loved to see what Scott would have done with Dune based on Alien and Blade Runner I think he could have made a very interesting and rich universe. Anyways DV’s version is very well done. I wish it were longer; maybe 3 movies instead of two, but overall it’s beautifully executed and am looking forward to the sequel.
 
Last edited:
TenderLovingKiller® said:
I really enjoyed the DV Dune. I never read the book and like you went back and watched the Lynch’s Dune. I agree with all of this. In reading about the history of Lynch’s Dune, I learned that Ridley Scott was originally attached to direct but was in the process of filming Blade Runner and the producers didn’t want to wait to get Dune out and hired Lynch based off of Elephant Man but hadn’t seen any of his other films and Lynch had never read Dune prior to filming. Lynch’s version, if thought of as a Lynch sci-fi film isn’t bad. Also, I understand that they cut like an hour from the film. I am not sure it would have made a huge difference but I think it would be an interesting watch. I would have loved to see what Scott would have done with Dune based on Alien and Blade Runner I think he could have made a very interesting and rich universe. Anyways DV’s version is very well done. I wish it were longer; maybe 3 movies instead of two, but overall it’s beautifully executed and am looking forward to the sequel.
Click to expand...
There’s a 3 hour 10 minute special edition of Lynch’s Dune. Curious if anyone’s seen this version and if it helps flesh some things out a bit?
 
My take is that Lynch's Dune fails completely as a narrative movie but has some great visuals and individual moments that make it worth watching. It's actually a bit funny because my problems with the Lynch and Villeneuve versions are almost completely swapped; I like the visual style and tone of Lynch's film but acknowledge that the story is muddled at best. Meanwhile, Villeneuve made the story much easier to follow but everything else about the film felt very dull. Lynch's just appeals to my tastes more; the drab cinematography and more muted take on the story in Villeneuve's version just didn't draw me in the same way that Lynch's film did, as strange and sometimes bad as it may be. I feel compelled to mention everytime I throw my hat into the Dune conversation that I haven't read the books, but I also really don't think that should matter; if a film adaptation is only good if I'm familiar with the book, then why bother making it into a film in the first place?
 
We are all Halloween'ed out so this is on weekend viewing, hope to finish up by tomorrow

3968209_so.jpg
 
zomgbear said:
About Dune.... I watched the David Lynch version because why not. I actually like David Lynch's movies a lot and Twin Peaks. And some of you guys liked it.

I don't think his Dune was watchable tho... I had to stop it twice because I was falling asleep. It was weird but not in a good way and somehow boring at the same time. I watched the DV version first tho and its interesting because the things that seemed so weird in that version almost the most normal parts in this one.
Click to expand...
Probably have seen it 20+ times, I like it because I always seem to catch something new every viewing.

I thought the new one dragged.
 
I'm surprised to hear so many people use the word "boring" to describe the new Dune movie. I haven't read the book and barely remember the Lynch film, but I thought it was overwhelmingly intense in the theater. I think if I'd been watching at home on HBO max, I might not have felt the same way, though.

yukbon said:
My biggest complaint is (much like @Bull Shannon and @nolalady ) lack of character development. Paul is fleshed out....and that's about it. Jessica, like, the tiniest bit? Everyone else is sort of background. Sometimes really intense background, like Javier Bardem's Stilgar, because he just exudes tiredness and holy shit Jamis again with this will you just shut up plskthx, just by like, blinking slowly and exhaling. Everyone else is just sorta there.
Click to expand...

For this, I felt like the thinness of the characters added to the urgency of the events on-screen. These people are in a disaster situation for most of the run-time, so they don't have time or energy to talk about anything other than how to hopefully not die. While Villeneuve could have inserted flashbacks to break up the action and flesh out the characters, I feel like it would have undercut, for the audience, the immediacy of these characters' struggle to survive (and that feeling of being in the thick of it with them). I also feel like the scale of this story (again, I'm basing this just off the movie - haven't read the novel) is larger, so it wouldn't really make sense to focus as much on the details of individuals with everything else that they have to try to sneak in about the different families and economic, political, religious, historical, and ecological contexts of this universe. My impression from the film was that at least up to this part of the story (where the film ends), the main characters are actually those larger ideas/currents, and the actions of individuals are shaped more by those broader forces than by their own unique passions and personal histories. I actually found it kind of annoying when Paul Atreides gave us those weird Chalamet "I'm trying not to smile" smiles because everything else in the film has this gravitas and intensity to it, and it felt like he's just a silly doofus who doesn't really deserve to live if all these other people are getting slaughtered left and right. It felt like right as the film was ending, though, there was a bit of a sigh of relief that, ok, they made it to relative safety and there might be time in the next film to take a beat to get to know these folks.
 
To expand a bit, I watched Dune in a theater and I'm a newbie to the franchise, but, to me, the "boring" aspect wasn't so much a technical thing. It was a great looking film (if not necessary to see in a theater). My issue is, well, I'll spoil it

The movie takes a lot of pains to emphasize the importance of Paul's visions and future as well as the importance of Chani in these visions. We see a lot of them, we get signs that some of the Fremen think he's a savior, he's seeing a Holy War, etc. It pretty much tells you quickly that the real story is going to take off when he gets there. As such, it really undercuts a lot of the intensity when characters like Leto, Gurney, and Duncan meet their end because they weren't going to be substantial to the main undercurrent of the plot anyway. Like there was never a spitter's chance that Paul was gonna die, so a duel to close the movie is like...okay. I just didn't feel like there were any stakes in this part of the story because the most sympathetic characters (The Fremen) aren't even touched upon until about 2:15 into the movie. To me, it felt like we were watching a malevolent power (Harkonnen) against a largely unsympathetic protagonist family (Atreides) with a ton of world setting for most of the movie.

Ultimately, I wish they just got to the Fremen a bit faster if they're not going to build up the Atreides to be a sympathetic figure as the rest felt pretty pre-determined to the idea of "when is Paul going to meet the Fremen".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top