I honestly feel relieved after seeing this. Making a movie that everybody likes is just making a movie for everybody, and as an art that doesn't make sense. We all like different things and that makes everything so much special, so although I love Denis adaptation of Dune I feel that you expressed your thoughts in a clever way and that makes me happier because you seem like a passionate dune fan.
I felt like Dune Part One was a very Villeneuve movie. It had all his signature traits of "showing, not telling", meticulous pacing, and incredible restraint, so it was very jarring to see Dune Part Two replace all that with a more conventional filmmaking style. Villeneuve sold out.
Yeah, I agree with you. This is not a niche movie is a blockbuster. It implies that it should be like premium fried potatoes but fried at the end. Easy to consume😅
No studio would ever allow a 1:1 rendition of dune after the failure of the 1984 version and mini series. Sure the new Dune isn't as faithful as either (more like 10% faithful compared to the miniseries), but it is so much more enjoyable to watch. If you made it 1:1 (which is very improbable), only Dune nerds and nostalgia heads would watch it and therefore would be a critical failure again.
Denis is retconning the story of Dune to appease the will of Frank Herbert, who was disappointed that people embraced Paul as a Messiah figure in Dune… so he wrote Dune Messiah to right the ship. Basically he didn’t write the thing he wanted. He wrote a different kind of story. Denis is now writing some of that Dune Messiah story then into the second part of Dune, but it’s soo heavy handed.
Agreed it was a bit heavy handed (southern fundamentalists) but I think it was needed for people like me who haven’t read the book (only 100 pages in so far). The movie was SO auditory and visually overwhelming, the misunderstanding of the book Dune so widespread, and the ending so extremely challenging for most (it was the most simultaneously triumphant and heartbreaking ending I have maybe ever seen) that I excuse the heavy handedness.
Also my buddy who LOVES the first two Dune books argued with me over and over that Paul was a hero who “had no choice.” I think the cognitive dissonance this story creates requires a heavier hand
Dune Messiah was a good book just as Dune was a good book, and neither needed heavy-handed changes to conform to the "intended message" of the original author. The ending of part 2 literally ends in the movie with Paul's threat being ignored and the message that Paul is a messiah leading a justified holy crusade fully intact for the average viewer - while in the book his threat was accepted and he seemed to actually be trying to avoid a future tragedy. Here, he just tells the Fremen to keep fighting - why? Why would he do that and encourage it in the movie, other than to excuse a sequel? If someone who reads a book comes out of it with a different interpretation than the author intended - that isn't the end of the world. It certainly isn't worth rewriting the entire second half of the book to beat that point into people's heads - people will interpret things how they wish, and you can't fully control that.
Avante guard director: Takes a historic tome of fiction so dense, complicated, and lore-heavy that it has been deemed unfilmable for half a century and makes it so beautiful, accessible, engaging, and thrilling that people are remembering why film and theaters are important, are seeing multiple showings within a week, are sharing this before-unpopular story with others outside the niche of literature and genre, and are writing timely think pieces about the danger of charismatic leaders... Avante guard director: Also prefers visual language to dialogue and writes said tome out with relatively sparse and direct lines in the service of making room for emotional weight and audience connection... This guy: Um, actually. That's too much dialogue. Trust the audience to understand a world so different from ours, or hell, if they want to understand they should've read the book first... Tom Cruise and Hollywood: Shut the f*** up, man. Do you want movie theaters or not?
I don’t mind “show me who you are” but there are so many other scenes that over do this I agree. I’m disappointed especially because the first one was so strong
This review echos my issues with the first movie too, there is a blatant studiofyication of the entire story. Characters are made to act in ways that feel more approachable but I think so much of the nuance that made the books so excellent is lost and the stakes start to feel hammed up. More like a dune abridged than actual dune. I am still a stern defender of the spicediver edit of lynch's dune back in 1985 and that still remains an excellent take on the story.
This video was brave of you lol, and it helped me contextualize my frustrations with this movie... What's more is I felt the stakes of Paul's internal battle were extremely vague, his stepping into the Lisan Al Gaib role felt very rushed... I wish his psyche was more visually represented all throughout ( not mostly when he drinks the worm bile), especially when he was miraculously performing the fremen rites. A huge part of the book explores the concepts of control/free will, and how some character motivations appear counterintuitive precisely because they act on how much they can foresee.. It seems we lost out a little on that dimension in favor of more cool/action sequences ( which were amazing don't get me wrong). Stilgar's character becomes a almost a caricature, sure it provides comic relief, but it makes the audience see the fremen from Jessica's perspective, which is seeing them as a purely manipulated people. A lot more nuance is lost in that sense, Chani's explicit counterbalance only underlines this.
I love the series and even the first one. I’ve read the books, I know the lore, I don’t like the movie. Let’s not pretend I only don’t like this movie because I don’t like Dune. I don’t like this adaptation of dune.
How did you get that from exactly what he was saying ? He started by saying the handholding the director usually does in his movies. How in the world is that a reflection of the actual story of Dune and not a critique of the movie itself? I swear you bots need laws to identify yourselves in the future because this is just getting ridiculous. They need to update the software so that they can actually read the transcripts of these videos.
@@RendanLovell Fair enough but I think some of the things you criticized were things that were adaptations from the book. The book is a Shakespearean tragedy made almost completely of dialogue, exposition, and inner monologue. The criticisms you had for the movie are all things that are exponentially more prominent in the book. You’re allowed to not like this interpretation btw. Just the reasons you mentioned also extend to the source material.
I enjoyed the books, and Dune Part One is honestly my favourite movie of all time, but Dune Part Two was a disappointment from a filmmaking perspective mainly for the reasons stated in this video (as well as many other reasons).
Honestly I feel like this is a minor issue, but mileage will of course vary. I'm fine with a movie showing and telling at the same time to an extent - sometimes it is appreciated even. My problem with Part 2 is more that it didn't "tell" nearly enough, and "showed" far too many scenes that were extremely stretched out and didn't further the overall plot. I wanted more dialogue and depth from the book, condensed in a way that could be done on film. This film was 50% filler shots though as far as I could tell - with scenes like the arena battle on Giedi Prime or the dialogue between Paul and the Fremen as he becomes their messiah more properly being excellent exceptions to the rule. It basically took out entire major aspects of the plot like the Navigator's Guild or whatever, and replaced that with a bunch of extra scenes we didn't need. Part 1 being a great example of how I think the book should have been adapted is what made Part 2 so disappointing. Part 1 had numerous great scenes with dialogue, and yet in Part 2 the good dialogue was basically nowhere to be seen - apparently the director must have just hated dialogue so much he forgot he was adapting a well-loved book. Part 1 for example off the top of my head had great scenes with great dialogue such as: 1. The introductory scene where Paul and Jessica are having a meal and she reminds him to use his powers - this both shows and tells us about the voice. 2. The scene with Paul and Leto before they leave their homeworld, which establishes their relationship and foreshadowing Paul's need to rise up to leadership in the future. 3. The scene between Gurney and Paul while training, which shows how the shields and blade combat works while framing their characters and abilities. 4. The scenes with Vladimir plotting the demise of the Atreides, leading to a great final scene where Vladimir is nearly killed by Leto using poison. 5. The scene with Paul cursing his mother for turning him into a monster, cursed with visions of a future he doesn't want to see. ETC. I loved the dialogue and exposition in Part 1, and while it skipped certain aspects it was very faithful to the book and universe overall. Part 2 though had these good moments of dialogue/exposition: 1. Paul's speech to the Fremen near the end as he shows them he should lead them by seeing into their pasts and proving himself. 2. Paul receiving his Fremen name and ingratiating himself with them. Honestly I can only think of those two moments - none of the other moments were nearly as well told or memorable to me. Overall, we needed more "telling" as well as better "showing" in this movie. It "showed" things that were pointless in exchange for not "telling" us what was needed, but then took additional time out of the script to "tell" us things that were already told as well - the worst of both worlds in that respect.
Same, man. I wanted to love this so much. But the heavy-handed script and scenes were so hard to take. Chani is just a broken record of “don’t take power!” And Paul agrees because of his dreams. Until Chani relents and reassures him “the world has made choices for us.” And then he embraces power, and then she’s instantly pissed off about him for it. They don’t SHOW anything - there’s no reason to be afraid of Paul taking power. Paul is a good dude. But the whole movie is screaming at you saying, asking “are you watching?! Paul taking power will be BADDD.” But if he didn’t there would be no plot. There’s no path for the movie if he doesn’t. The movie is beautiful. The filmmakers did a wonderful job. But the script is not great.
Definitely not alone. You contextualise some of my biggest gripes with the movie & characterisation so I appreciate that a lot. As a book reader it definitely feels like Denis took two too many extra steps to hammer home the message. But recalling the first time I read the book and was also rooting for Paul without question, and the fact that Frank wrote Messiah to effectively correct course because so many people misinterpreted the first book to be a white savior story, it's obvious that the central theme could easily be missed by non-readers. Therefore I feel this is still the best way to adapt the book, without losing Frank's message, while still appealling to a wider audience than just book readers. In any case, the more this movie brings people on board of the Dune universe, the better imo.
I never said I didn’t. However, I don’t think it is a nitpick. I think constantly telling the audience what is happening for 3 hours is incredibly annoying and tiring. Especially for a film that’s trying desperately to have a message about religious zealots. I still like it and said in the title I’m sure I’m alone on this. 🤷♂️
ngl, it from this analysis, it does more seem like you're just being a contrarian than anything else, but nevertheless i do appreciate hearing a non-conforming opinion so that i'm not crazily swept up in the hype.
yeah agreed, nice visuals but with the huge amount of lines that made me cringe in this movie, i think a 4/10 is generous. I'd give part one a 6 or 7 (the FOR MY FRIENDS!! line alone makes me shocked that people like this movie)
Really well said. I think Dune Part Two is deep from a visual standpoint but the storytelling & dialogue is surprisingly weak. The scenes with the Fremen were for the most part pretty weak, and meandering.
Good god. What kind of movie do you haters want? I don't think your ideal movie exists or ever will. Why don't you make a movie adaptation of a complex science fiction book and we will see how "good" your adaptation is?
The conversations in the comments confirm why cinema storytelling is garbage and will continue to be garbage. "We won't get a movie unless they can make them comprehensible for stupid people and that's why the movie made poor choices."
respectfully, I think your projecting your ability to quickly and tangibly grasp subtext of a film onto general audiences which is just patently absurd. I'm glad the cuts of feyd to Vladimir and then back to fayd communicate to you he is testing him. But your the exception not the rule. The show me who you are line however elevates the visual story telling because it is not jarring, it fits in context while serving the meta objective of informing the audience. What can feel like hand holding to you; to most is necessary. I personally struggle with subtext and have to be very conscious of it because in life and in media my natural temperament is to take everything at face value. Anyways I respect your opinion, it was not for you and thts fine. That's the beauty of subjectivity and art but I think this critique is a personal preference to cater to the way you engage with media, not something to be objectively critiqued.
I agree with most of your critiques especially the one-dimensional Lady Jessica and Paul turning on a dime after drinking the worm juice, but it feels like nitpicking. It’s still one of the best movies I’ve ever seen.
Well, you got my view, congrats. Couldve just posted text that says, I dont like Dune in general. Because thats what sums up all of your issues. I think you underestimate how slow general audiences and non book readers are. For every thing you consider hand holding, it goes over 100 peoples heads. Its ironic that you call out Denis' views on dialogue yet still think he intentionally ruined moments to hold your hand. When in truth any hand holding was probably begrudgingly done and sparsely. Chani and the fremen kind of dont have any character arcs in the book. Changing chani and stilgar brought more depth to the fremen. Instead of all just being blind followers from the start. It makes sense the older generation still clings to the lisan al gaib prophecy, while the younger generation is skeptical. For instance, none of the younger generation were alive when their current reverend mother drank the water of life. Seeing jessica was their first experience at some sort of miracle, and paul even undercuts it by saying she was trained to do so. To the old gen, it solidified the prophecy, and to the young it solidified the bullshit. Youre not alone.. but youre also speaking nonsense. To complain about hand holding in a dv film.. lol. Guess he should made a silent film for you.
Bro, I like dune! I like the books and really liked the first one! Even if he throws the dialogue in begrudgingly, he still did it. That doesn’t excuse how blatant it is.
@@RendanLovell the only unnecessary hand holding I thought was blatant, was the vision voice telling Paul to drink the water of life, when Jessica had already relayed that message from Alia earlier. Its one scene. You're complaining about the baron saying: happy birthday, nephew, and, show them who you are. Idk man, kind of hard to take that criticism seriously.
Oh no, I’m criticizing far more than that. It’s all in the video my friend. That feyd scene, as I said, has way more than that Barron dialogue. They show them not drugging him and then have 4 other characters comment on it. That’s way too much. I could’ve easily pointed out countless other scenes that do this but there’s no footage yet. Chani might not have an arc in the book but she’s dramatically different from the book so an arc in a movie, should be necessary. Paul’s turn is rushed, Stilgar is a flat line, Jessica is one note, and the religious zealot message is on the nose. It’s all there in the video but willfully ignoring it is fine too.
@@RendanLovell oh, I watched it my guy, I just disagree with all of that. The true one note character was Rabban. And that was disappointing. But also, what more do you do with Rabban? If you think Stilgar and Jessica are just as shallow, idk what film you watched or what expectations you possibly had for it.
Channi had an arc. It was the most human one in the film. Her love for Paul is natural, not because he’s the chosen one, but because of a mutual respect they share. But she starts to lean into her anti religious ideals more after she spares her tears for Paul. She learns she is just another part of the Bene Gesserit cog, she learns that her people have no control over their destiny. She learns that Paul will never be her equal and that her downtrodden people will never have the free will to rule themselves.
But that’s not her arc. She said her name was apart of the prophecy like halfway through the movie. She didn’t learn that at the end. If anything was more anti-religious at the start not the end. All of this is stuff she already says or knows at the start. Not things she learned through the movie. The only thing she “learned” is that she could love an outsider and then felt betrayed but that’s not an arc either. So it’s a negative arc then?
@@RendanLovell Channi was never a fundamentalist, that much is true. She chooses to disregard her own Fremen name. She may know her name is apart of a prophecy, but she never saw Paul as the Lisan Al’Gaib. Think about when Paul was given the name Usul in the movie, she was hesitant to address him as the Muad’dib. Only afterwards upon the dune hill, where they become intimate and where Paul humbles himself in her presence, is when Channi addresses him by his chosen name. She supports Paul, because he is apart of the Fremen, not because he is the chosen one. Then she learns about his truer intentions and starts acting like the Fremen are under his thumb to get what he truly desires. This is when she starts to see the cracks (In the tent after Paul finds the Atreides nukes). And even after that, when Paul drinks the water of life, when Channi saves Paul, she faces her prophecy, she never cared much about it before. She only becomes more fervent in her beliefs, when she sees all the Fremen bow down in the south. She was never this strong in the beginning of the movie.
True but she was also one of the people screaming at stilgar just for praying at the start. She’s pretty passionate then and about the same at the end. Paul also never acts like they are under his thumb until he drinks the water making his turn feel incredibly rushed. The Lisan Al’Gaib name stuff you’re saying is true and nice but not much of an arc.
@RendanLovell no your not ☺️👍 I completely agree with everything you said. You have every right to not be a huge fan of this movie, just like people have a right to really love this movie (depending on preference). There were some great elements to it for sure in different categories, but for me, I didn’t really enjoy it like everyone was saying how they did. In fact, I actually like the first one more tbh. I felt like we had more time to connect to characters in the first one too than in this one. This was very rushed, especially Chani and Paul’s love story for instance. It really threw me off how she basically distrusts and doesn’t like him the first 15-20 minutes and then all it takes apparently for them to fall in love is a scene of them watching the sunset lol 😂 and now they are madly in love. And even after they do fall in she still actually gives him an insult about being not trusted because of being a foreigner lol 😂real loving Chani lol sorry for the long answer, no, thank you very much for you r video! You’re not alone! 👍
@@catherinecargil6163 I would recommend watching it again. Chani and Paul's love story isn't the most fleshed out but you can clearly see how much they care for each other through their actions.
To dislike the "punch" lines of Stilgar as comedy is very surface level analysis. I don't know how you don't see the tragedy behind those lines. Also, did you miss the whole naming scene?
@@RendanLovell sorry which movie are you are watching? Is it Dune pt 2 Stilgar, from rags to riches? If that is your high brow analysis of movie Stilgar your channel clearly has puddle deep commentary. Its like you completely forgot where Stilgar came from in the first movie.
From rags to riches is your idea of high brow commentary? It’s more like; from rags to rags but also now a religious punchline. No tragedy if the character never falls.
@@RendanLovell lmao did you seriously misinterpret my comment? This is a story of Paul Atreides sir. You're expecting every character to have a significant arc in a movie with 10 side characters. Stilgar does change from the first movie, but he was always deeply religious, try figuring that out. Thats why I said rags to riches because thats the type of arc you expect, yet can't do a modicum of analysis to see how Stilgar's one liners aren't just made for laughs.
Did you misinterpret mine? I don’t expect a significant arc from everyone, never said I did. Nor did I say I wanted the “rags to riches arc”. You’re putting words in my mouth because you’re mad we disagree about something I thought obvious. But, like the movie, I’m more than happy to spell it out since you don’t seem to get it. I know the lines aren’t all made for laughs yet, that’s what literally everyone did. I know he was always religious but turning him into a cartoon character who’s one trait is that he’s insanely religious is bad writing. He’s a non-character who’s role as “friend to follower” doesn’t work because he’s not a character. Tragic characters who’s lines are meant to invoke a feeling of sadness or fear for how deep he is in religious fanaticism only works when we see how far he fell. But he didn’t. He was like that from the start, making every line comical because he just looks insane. Sloppy writing. Doing any amount of digging would show you how off base you are here. Go flail around in someone else's comments.
You make the handholding seem way worse than it actually is. Could the scene be done with less dialogue? Yes. But was it too much? Not at all. And with a movie with so much visual story telling, I think you're doing it a disservice to paint it as lacking subtlety. Using dialogue to give a better picture of what's going on is not inherently bad writing, if it doesn't feel forced and makes sense for the character and scene. It feels like you just think that way, because that's the norm, when you first get into writing. Show don't tell, we get it, and there's alot of that in this movie. Telling AFTER showing isn't a crime to good writing. Many great movies have done it. Sometimes you just have to go with what feels right for the scene. Whispering "show me who you are" to himself isn't bad writing. Him stating "I want to see what he's capable of, so I didn't poisen the 3rd fighter" on the other hand would be in that same context. It's the first look at Feyd for the audience, so it makes more sense that we want to see what kind of guy he is, and we already know the Baron, so his pov tells us alot - with a look and just a few words. If we on the other hand already knew Feyd and his relationship to the Baron, then a simple look would prob be enough.
Some of us need a bit of subtext to understand man. The movie needs to appeal to a wide variety of people to make money and most people need a little bit handholding otherwise they get lost
Listen. I just started this video so I don't know if you'll get to it, but I didn't like this movie need to tell me EVERYTHING. I get it. Paul killing the Baron and SAYING VERBATIM "You die like an animal" Really???? Did we need that???! On the emotional climax of the movie?????!!!!! He's crawling like a pathetic creature, we GET IT!!!!!!!
(My comment was longer than I expected and I go full yapper, so just a heads up) Your complaints about the obvious dialogue are not only exaggerated but honestly pretty inconsequential in the grander scheme of things. Something being unnecessary doesn't mean that it actively takes away from the film. They really not a big deal when the film throws so much at you at every single scene and I have no idea how that's a big issue here and not in the first movie. Not only that, but your issues with the character writing are just confusing and it sounds like you're just missing the point. Stilgar being in some ways comedic relief is not only necessary in order to occasionally lighten the tone in an otherwise grim film, but not really out of character considering how limited his presence was in the previous one. Not only that, but his reduced role is not bad writing but quite literally a point that the story is making. It's showing how even competent leaders can be reduced to blind followers when they let exclusively their religious beliefs guide them. Your complaint is something that the film is blatantly commenting on. Even the jokes that you mentioned comment on it. Jessica's arc may be weaker (mostly due to her limited role in the second half in the book) but even the way you describe it is just wrong. She is shown at first concerned by Paul's path and the the whole influence that their planted religion has had on all these people and only accepts the holy water under peer pressure, as it's the only way that the Fremen will accept them (it's implied that they might kill them otherwise) and then subsequently follow Paul. Only then, influenced by the memories of all the previous reverent mothers does she go full on cult leader. Sure her talking to her baby was kinda weird, but the book had a talking infant so I'll take it. Chani also goes through an arc. She is blatantly against the whole faith of the Fremen, but she happens to fall in love with Paul and lowers her guard. She participates in a war that is, at the end of day, still heavily influenced by religion, and at the end gets betrayed by Paul who marries Irulan. That shows that even her own blind faith, this time motivated by love, is still destructive. Her existence in the story still ADDS something to the themes presented and is not as pointless as you make her out to be. Paul sure spends most of the movie in the reluctant messiah role, but he does NOT betray his path. He doesn't suddenly change motivation like you claim in the video. His journey is all the way through fueled exclusively by revenge and the betterment of the Fremen. He drinks the water as an act of desperation and after being given enhanced foresight, convinces himself that he can still attack the emperor without starting the holy war. That's why he bluffs in the end, but he is proven WRONG as the great houses see through him and he's FORCED to start the war in order for everyone to survive. His look at Chani at the end is him realising that he messed up and started the war that he was trying to avoid. Like I don't get what your issue is. Were any of the motivations hard to understand? Were any of them inconsistent. Would having less explanatory dialogue (that let's be really was not even an issue for like 99% of the film) make the point more valid? The entire existence of Dune was essentially a warning, so screaming the point at you is a bit inevitable. I don't see what makes it fundamentally as a less worthy piece of art, just cause it does not have the MOST subtlety.
The existence of Dune was a warning that was taken the complete wrong way so Denis pivoted to make it obvious. That’s my issue. You make some interesting points about the characters and I wish we saw some of this! However, I could easily argue the opposite because of how muddy they are. A lot of what you’re saying borders between subtly and completely baseless speculation. You’re trying to fill the gaps left in the script that aren’t filled in for us. Which would be fine if a lot these moments weren’t SO critical. You say Paul drank the water out of desperation but we don’t know that. You say he convinced himself that he can attack the emperor without starting war, but you don’t know that. These types of things are critical to understanding characters. It’s a knife edge. We need some exposition to understand certain things, But saying a guy isn’t drugged 4 times after we already saw him not being drugged is pandering and annoying. That’s my issue.
@RendanLovell I wouldn't say that Paul's decision in the end is me speculating. It's quite explicit in the film itself. He has to travel south, but knows that if he does that, it sets in motion the events that lead to the holy war. He says so himself. So, uncertain of what to do from now on, he drinks the holy water. After that, he says out loud that he sees many different paths, one of which can help him win without starting the war. That's why he proposes to marry Irulan and that's why he threatens to blow up the spice fields. That was clear bluff because a) if he blew them up even he wouldn't be able to space travel and b) after the great houses refuse his leadership, instead of blowing them up he attacks THEM and not the fields like he said he would. I find it very strange how that was lost on you. If they explained it more, then that would fall under the pandering that you complained about. It's the appropriate amount subtlety. I can see certain moments here and there being slightly pandering or even just kinda dumb (Jessica talking to her baby was very silly), but those are not nearly big enough to ruin the film. Every aspect of it is so well realized that complaining about obvious dialogue, even if valid, comes across as nitpicking.
I see what you’re saying. However, He never said out loud that there’s one way he can win without the war as you say. He says,” our enemies are all around and in so many futures, they prevail. But I see a narrow way through.” This is an illusion to him HAVING to start the holy war to not die, like his mother says. Nothing to do with winning without the war. Not lost on me, but lost in the movie. I don’t think the moments ruin the film, I never said that. But I do think a lot of scenes are undercut by pandering.
@@RendanLovell Well here's a case where something that seemed clear to some of us was lost on other people, like yourself. The things that are obvious to you, you complain that they were overtly explicit in driving the point home, but the things you missed apparently needed to be made more explicit.
Like what exactly? I’ve already pointed out that a bunch of this is mostly speculation or just incorrect. Wait is this comment in good faith or not this time?
As much as i love the movie, i think that your critic are the first one i hear, and yes others exist 😅, are really landing here. Even if i tend to excuse this by Denis Villeneuve really wanting to dodge what the first book couldnt on the messiah/ hero front, its true that overly explicative dialogue is a bad point for the movie. And it's uterly strange for a director who fully know that exposition is bad for immersion and find so many ways to avoid it in the first movie.
Yeah I wasn’t a fan at all of the first Dune and though the director had made some decent movies, I think that he’s extremely overrated. For instance, he seems to have a very distinct style overall which is fine in general for any director, however his artistic choices seem to be mapped over every aspect of a film’s design. For instance, he has an affinity for certain type of architecture in general and this supersedes the ability of characters within the film to make their own cultural and or distinct, perspectives on ship design and architecture. Not only from one another in the story but from the director himself. He also oks projects that have very weird casting choices. This was something that Lucas was good at. He casted in a way that put the story as a whole on the forefront, and he seemed to be cognizant of preventing actor’s recent roles from bleeding into the traction building of a different movie. I see Euphoria, Thanos, Aquaman and Poe Dameron all on the same set. Whereas Nolan would use this effect to strengthen the story, when he casted Wolverine and Batman as opposites in the prestige. But going in you don’t think that they’ll be opposites or that things would get that dire until the latter half of the movie. Because they’re both superheroes in a moral dilemma. Those are just a few of the choices the Dune director makes which I feel are preliminary mistakes to grounding a story well enough to suspend disbelief. While I was watching Dune it felt like a task to remain interested. It doesn’t really hypnotize or transfix me and it was always a good time to get the popcorn.
I saw in another comment here that you said you've read the books, yet you called Giedi Prime "genshi prime" in this video. Nice one dude, really shows how good your comprehension skills are. Trash video, no clue why it showed up in my recommended page.
You are not alone. I was kinda surprised by how terrible this movie was. Incredibly rushed pacing, no actual emotional investment, cared nothing for any of the characters
Honestly bro... your review is basically just bs nitpicking. Of course it's not perfect.... it's DUNE! It was once considered impossible to adapt to the screen. This movie was awesome.. and I'll put it up against any sci-fi movie ever made.💯💯
Everyone is different. Catering to your sensibilities would have meant a worse movie for most everyone else because you have a particular lens (inside view of story writing, character arcs, etc). Why is it inherently bad to make the subtext explicit? I think it's because it robs more sophisticated audiences the chance to signal they they are smart enough to understand subtext without things being spelled out. And they feel cheated for losing that chance. I get it, but most people aren't invested at that level and they should get to enjoy movies too. And we have to draw a line somewhere. This is like a 200$ million dollar adaptation of a classic sci-fi novel. Would you rather have one of these every once in a while with some compromises, or none at all?
@@RendanLovell It's not about inteligence. Different people focus on different things. Movies cater to a wide range of interests. It being an audio visual format means a lot of people will be focusing on the audiovisual component primarily. You're focusing on the text and deriving your primary enjoyment from that it seems. While others might be focusing more on the aesthetics. More of the brain is processing that, so they might miss some of the subtext that you rank higher in your hierarchy of preferences. If I'm wrong that catering to your preferences would lower the enjoyment to others, why do you think you're "Alone on this"?
Idk what you’re arguing here. Maybe you just read the title and skimmed the video. So let me spell it out. I don’t rank overt text as a priority on preferences. I don’t expect to be catered too. I never said I wanted too. I’m simply pointing how little there is to get out of it. I don’t expect to be agreed with. I don’t expect every movie to be all visuals and no dialogue. I like the movie. I think it should’ve been more subtle. These are opinions. Which is why I’m alone, because they are my opinions. Using the title against me is dumb since it’s alluding to me not giving this a 10/10 like everyone else instead of me saying I’m mad I’m not being catered too. If that’s what you got out this, maybe I should hold your hand more. See how that feels? This is the point.
@@RendanLovell You're interpreting everything I say in bad faith. I'm not sure what triggered this level of defensiveness. It's totally fine for you to dislike certain aspects of this movie and make a video about it. I'm sorry if I made you feel like I thought otherwise.
We’re both being defensive here. I see where you’re coming from, But it’s hard not to take this in bad faith when a big a part of your argument was saying “the movie doesn’t have to cater to you specifically.”
I refuse to even watch that garbage after the first film was a 2+hour TRAILER where nothing happened other than them telling us "the next film will have cool scene". It's by far on of the worst marketing practices ever. I'm not paying twice for one film
@@RendanLovell well, yes, mate, you got that one of the best rated movies in history of movie rating. yet, you've decided to make a Dune video that says how not good it is and it has those plot holes that no one else is seeing, besides you. you are alone on this one. and, yeah, you are this edgelord on YT that is looking for views to get 200 dollars from being dishonest of something objectively good. anyway, it that's your game, go for it. just do not be that surprised when someone is calling you edgy, because we all know what your are trying to do - to get to in our search of "dune part 2 commentary" and to be clicked. dune 2 was great. your commentary was sht. having a video with 2.5K views and 70 likes show that this video of your is probably no so fine. don't think so?
Your defense of the movie is that most other people like it? Which means if someone thinks it’s even okay that means they are edgy? Have you looked at my title, thumbnail, or watched the video? I knew people like you were gonna be annoying and clueless so I actively didn’t do that. If I wanted to clickbait people into cheap views I would’ve said something like “Dune actually isn’t that good”. Take this dumb thought process elsewhere.
@@hristiyansofiaHow the heck is somebody saying their legitimate reasons for why they dislike a film "edgy"? They aren't alone on this - even if most people liked the movie. I agree with him for one, and regardless of how many people agree with something that has nothing to do with whether or not his argument has merit. Maybe contradict his actual points rather than basically complaining that he dared to criticize something. How dare he not agree with me! Come on now, grow up.
I honestly feel relieved after seeing this. Making a movie that everybody likes is just making a movie for everybody, and as an art that doesn't make sense. We all like different things and that makes everything so much special, so although I love Denis adaptation of Dune I feel that you expressed your thoughts in a clever way and that makes me happier because you seem like a passionate dune fan.
I felt like Dune Part One was a very Villeneuve movie. It had all his signature traits of "showing, not telling", meticulous pacing, and incredible restraint, so it was very jarring to see Dune Part Two replace all that with a more conventional filmmaking style. Villeneuve sold out.
I think you underestimate just how stupid most people are.
or just not invested
Yeah, I agree with you. This is not a niche movie is a blockbuster. It implies that it should be like premium fried potatoes but fried at the end. Easy to consume😅
No studio would ever allow a 1:1 rendition of dune after the failure of the 1984 version and mini series. Sure the new Dune isn't as faithful as either (more like 10% faithful compared to the miniseries), but it is so much more enjoyable to watch. If you made it 1:1 (which is very improbable), only Dune nerds and nostalgia heads would watch it and therefore would be a critical failure again.
I would argue a story like this needs handholding
Fair enough lol
Denis is retconning the story of Dune to appease the will of Frank Herbert, who was disappointed that people embraced Paul as a Messiah figure in Dune… so he wrote Dune Messiah to right the ship. Basically he didn’t write the thing he wanted. He wrote a different kind of story. Denis is now writing some of that Dune Messiah story then into the second part of Dune, but it’s soo heavy handed.
Agreed it was a bit heavy handed (southern fundamentalists) but I think it was needed for people like me who haven’t read the book (only 100 pages in so far). The movie was SO auditory and visually overwhelming, the misunderstanding of the book Dune so widespread, and the ending so extremely challenging for most (it was the most simultaneously triumphant and heartbreaking ending I have maybe ever seen) that I excuse the heavy handedness.
Also my buddy who LOVES the first two Dune books argued with me over and over that Paul was a hero who “had no choice.” I think the cognitive dissonance this story creates requires a heavier hand
Dune Messiah was a good book just as Dune was a good book, and neither needed heavy-handed changes to conform to the "intended message" of the original author.
The ending of part 2 literally ends in the movie with Paul's threat being ignored and the message that Paul is a messiah leading a justified holy crusade fully intact for the average viewer - while in the book his threat was accepted and he seemed to actually be trying to avoid a future tragedy.
Here, he just tells the Fremen to keep fighting - why? Why would he do that and encourage it in the movie, other than to excuse a sequel?
If someone who reads a book comes out of it with a different interpretation than the author intended - that isn't the end of the world. It certainly isn't worth rewriting the entire second half of the book to beat that point into people's heads - people will interpret things how they wish, and you can't fully control that.
Avante guard director:
Takes a historic tome of fiction so dense, complicated, and lore-heavy that it has been deemed unfilmable for half a century and makes it so beautiful, accessible, engaging, and thrilling that people are remembering why film and theaters are important, are seeing multiple showings within a week, are sharing this before-unpopular story with others outside the niche of literature and genre, and are writing timely think pieces about the danger of charismatic leaders...
Avante guard director:
Also prefers visual language to dialogue and writes said tome out with relatively sparse and direct lines in the service of making room for emotional weight and audience connection...
This guy:
Um, actually. That's too much dialogue.
Trust the audience to understand a world so different from ours, or hell, if they want to understand they should've read the book first...
Tom Cruise and Hollywood:
Shut the f*** up, man. Do you want movie theaters or not?
Oh no, I upset Tom Cruise because I didn’t love a movie?? I’m devastated.
I don’t mind “show me who you are” but there are so many other scenes that over do this I agree. I’m disappointed especially because the first one was so strong
This review echos my issues with the first movie too, there is a blatant studiofyication of the entire story. Characters are made to act in ways that feel more approachable but I think so much of the nuance that made the books so excellent is lost and the stakes start to feel hammed up. More like a dune abridged than actual dune. I am still a stern defender of the spicediver edit of lynch's dune back in 1985 and that still remains an excellent take on the story.
I need to see that version!
This video was brave of you lol, and it helped me contextualize my frustrations with this movie... What's more is I felt the stakes of Paul's internal battle were extremely vague, his stepping into the Lisan Al Gaib role felt very rushed... I wish his psyche was more visually represented all throughout ( not mostly when he drinks the worm bile), especially when he was miraculously performing the fremen rites. A huge part of the book explores the concepts of control/free will, and how some character motivations appear counterintuitive precisely because they act on how much they can foresee.. It seems we lost out a little on that dimension in favor of more cool/action sequences ( which were amazing don't get me wrong). Stilgar's character becomes a almost a caricature, sure it provides comic relief, but it makes the audience see the fremen from Jessica's perspective, which is seeing them as a purely manipulated people. A lot more nuance is lost in that sense, Chani's explicit counterbalance only underlines this.
Couldn’t agree more. A lot of subtly is lost in favor of moving the plot quickly.
Wait until they do Chapterhouse.
Then you'll be complaining.
The IP must flow.
You are not alone! I feel the same way
Part 1 was a masterpiece, Part 2 was a dumbed down blockbuster
Just sounds like you don’t like the story of dune.
Yeah was gonna say this, these sound like armchair film critic gripes about the story that’s being adapted.
I love the series and even the first one. I’ve read the books, I know the lore, I don’t like the movie. Let’s not pretend I only don’t like this movie because I don’t like Dune. I don’t like this adaptation of dune.
How did you get that from exactly what he was saying ? He started by saying the handholding the director usually does in his movies. How in the world is that a reflection of the actual story of Dune and not a critique of the movie itself? I swear you bots need laws to identify yourselves in the future because this is just getting ridiculous. They need to update the software so that they can actually read the transcripts of these videos.
@@RendanLovell Fair enough but I think some of the things you criticized were things that were adaptations from the book. The book is a Shakespearean tragedy made almost completely of dialogue, exposition, and inner monologue. The criticisms you had for the movie are all things that are exponentially more prominent in the book.
You’re allowed to not like this interpretation btw. Just the reasons you mentioned also extend to the source material.
I enjoyed the books, and Dune Part One is honestly my favourite movie of all time, but Dune Part Two was a disappointment from a filmmaking perspective mainly for the reasons stated in this video (as well as many other reasons).
Really liked the movie, but this guy has a point or two or three.
Honestly I feel like this is a minor issue, but mileage will of course vary. I'm fine with a movie showing and telling at the same time to an extent - sometimes it is appreciated even.
My problem with Part 2 is more that it didn't "tell" nearly enough, and "showed" far too many scenes that were extremely stretched out and didn't further the overall plot.
I wanted more dialogue and depth from the book, condensed in a way that could be done on film. This film was 50% filler shots though as far as I could tell - with scenes like the arena battle on Giedi Prime or the dialogue between Paul and the Fremen as he becomes their messiah more properly being excellent exceptions to the rule.
It basically took out entire major aspects of the plot like the Navigator's Guild or whatever, and replaced that with a bunch of extra scenes we didn't need.
Part 1 being a great example of how I think the book should have been adapted is what made Part 2 so disappointing. Part 1 had numerous great scenes with dialogue, and yet in Part 2 the good dialogue was basically nowhere to be seen - apparently the director must have just hated dialogue so much he forgot he was adapting a well-loved book.
Part 1 for example off the top of my head had great scenes with great dialogue such as:
1. The introductory scene where Paul and Jessica are having a meal and she reminds him to use his powers - this both shows and tells us about the voice.
2. The scene with Paul and Leto before they leave their homeworld, which establishes their relationship and foreshadowing Paul's need to rise up to leadership in the future.
3. The scene between Gurney and Paul while training, which shows how the shields and blade combat works while framing their characters and abilities.
4. The scenes with Vladimir plotting the demise of the Atreides, leading to a great final scene where Vladimir is nearly killed by Leto using poison.
5. The scene with Paul cursing his mother for turning him into a monster, cursed with visions of a future he doesn't want to see.
ETC. I loved the dialogue and exposition in Part 1, and while it skipped certain aspects it was very faithful to the book and universe overall.
Part 2 though had these good moments of dialogue/exposition:
1. Paul's speech to the Fremen near the end as he shows them he should lead them by seeing into their pasts and proving himself.
2. Paul receiving his Fremen name and ingratiating himself with them.
Honestly I can only think of those two moments - none of the other moments were nearly as well told or memorable to me.
Overall, we needed more "telling" as well as better "showing" in this movie. It "showed" things that were pointless in exchange for not "telling" us what was needed, but then took additional time out of the script to "tell" us things that were already told as well - the worst of both worlds in that respect.
Same, man. I wanted to love this so much. But the heavy-handed script and scenes were so hard to take. Chani is just a broken record of “don’t take power!” And Paul agrees because of his dreams. Until Chani relents and reassures him “the world has made choices for us.” And then he embraces power, and then she’s instantly pissed off about him for it. They don’t SHOW anything - there’s no reason to be afraid of Paul taking power. Paul is a good dude. But the whole movie is screaming at you saying, asking “are you watching?! Paul taking power will be BADDD.” But if he didn’t there would be no plot. There’s no path for the movie if he doesn’t.
The movie is beautiful. The filmmakers did a wonderful job. But the script is not great.
I'm a huge preacher of "style IS substance."
The problem with Villeneuve's style here is that I just dislike substance of the story of DUNE.
That’s fair
Definitely not alone. You contextualise some of my biggest gripes with the movie & characterisation so I appreciate that a lot. As a book reader it definitely feels like Denis took two too many extra steps to hammer home the message.
But recalling the first time I read the book and was also rooting for Paul without question, and the fact that Frank wrote Messiah to effectively correct course because so many people misinterpreted the first book to be a white savior story, it's obvious that the central theme could easily be missed by non-readers. Therefore I feel this is still the best way to adapt the book, without losing Frank's message, while still appealling to a wider audience than just book readers.
In any case, the more this movie brings people on board of the Dune universe, the better imo.
About her arc, I think she has her arc scheduled for part 3
Interesting…hopefully she’ll do something in part 3 then!
I made good use out of that Dune 2 Limited Edition Popcorn bowl.
As a matter of fact, BRB realQ-
You're nitpicking. You like a lot of films that don't challenge you.
I never said I didn’t. However, I don’t think it is a nitpick. I think constantly telling the audience what is happening for 3 hours is incredibly annoying and tiring. Especially for a film that’s trying desperately to have a message about religious zealots. I still like it and said in the title I’m sure I’m alone on this. 🤷♂️
Nitpic = calling out problems that bother you about the movie. What is wrong with that?
Bro literally
I can’t believe you didnt tell us why you arent wearing the chain and turtleneck.
ngl, it from this analysis, it does more seem like you're just being a contrarian than anything else, but nevertheless i do appreciate hearing a non-conforming opinion so that i'm not crazily swept up in the hype.
Thanks I guess lol. I promise I’m not trying to be contrarian.
Will we ever get the star trek meets star wars film that we (don't) deserve!?
No 🥲
yeah agreed, nice visuals but with the huge amount of lines that made me cringe in this movie, i think a 4/10 is generous. I'd give part one a 6 or 7
(the FOR MY FRIENDS!! line alone makes me shocked that people like this movie)
Really well said. I think Dune Part Two is deep from a visual standpoint but the storytelling & dialogue is surprisingly weak. The scenes with the Fremen were for the most part pretty weak, and meandering.
Thank you! I feel less alone.
Good god. What kind of movie do you haters want? I don't think your ideal movie exists or ever will. Why don't you make a movie adaptation of a complex science fiction book and we will see how "good" your adaptation is?
i don't recall him saying its bad or he hated it?
The conversations in the comments confirm why cinema storytelling is garbage and will continue to be garbage. "We won't get a movie unless they can make them comprehensible for stupid people and that's why the movie made poor choices."
respectfully, I think your projecting your ability to quickly and tangibly grasp subtext of a film onto general audiences which is just patently absurd. I'm glad the cuts of feyd to Vladimir and then back to fayd communicate to you he is testing him. But your the exception not the rule. The show me who you are line however elevates the visual story telling because it is not jarring, it fits in context while serving the meta objective of informing the audience. What can feel like hand holding to you; to most is necessary. I personally struggle with subtext and have to be very conscious of it because in life and in media my natural temperament is to take everything at face value. Anyways I respect your opinion, it was not for you and thts fine. That's the beauty of subjectivity and art but I think this critique is a personal preference to cater to the way you engage with media, not something to be objectively critiqued.
This guy wants a movie with no dialogue so he can play his little cannon game in his head.
I agree with most of your critiques especially the one-dimensional Lady Jessica and Paul turning on a dime after drinking the worm juice, but it feels like nitpicking. It’s still one of the best movies I’ve ever seen.
Yeah buddy you are alone on this one.
That’s why I said it in the title.
He definitely ain't.
He's not. speak for yourself
You are alone because you're nitpicking irrelevant details to make a spacious point. Remember friend, the good is not the enemy of the perfect.
I disagree, but okay.
Not gonna like that last bar was hard. And I agree, the adaptation brought Dune to life in a way that the 1984 and the mini series failed to.
@@carontorliak2760Lynch's DUNE is full of idiosyncrasies and texture. Villeneuve's DUNE is a now 5hr perfume commercial.
Well, you got my view, congrats. Couldve just posted text that says, I dont like Dune in general. Because thats what sums up all of your issues.
I think you underestimate how slow general audiences and non book readers are. For every thing you consider hand holding, it goes over 100 peoples heads. Its ironic that you call out Denis' views on dialogue yet still think he intentionally ruined moments to hold your hand. When in truth any hand holding was probably begrudgingly done and sparsely.
Chani and the fremen kind of dont have any character arcs in the book. Changing chani and stilgar brought more depth to the fremen. Instead of all just being blind followers from the start. It makes sense the older generation still clings to the lisan al gaib prophecy, while the younger generation is skeptical. For instance, none of the younger generation were alive when their current reverend mother drank the water of life. Seeing jessica was their first experience at some sort of miracle, and paul even undercuts it by saying she was trained to do so. To the old gen, it solidified the prophecy, and to the young it solidified the bullshit.
Youre not alone.. but youre also speaking nonsense.
To complain about hand holding in a dv film.. lol. Guess he should made a silent film for you.
Bro, I like dune! I like the books and really liked the first one! Even if he throws the dialogue in begrudgingly, he still did it. That doesn’t excuse how blatant it is.
@@RendanLovell the only unnecessary hand holding I thought was blatant, was the vision voice telling Paul to drink the water of life, when Jessica had already relayed that message from Alia earlier. Its one scene. You're complaining about the baron saying: happy birthday, nephew, and, show them who you are. Idk man, kind of hard to take that criticism seriously.
Oh no, I’m criticizing far more than that. It’s all in the video my friend. That feyd scene, as I said, has way more than that Barron dialogue. They show them not drugging him and then have 4 other characters comment on it. That’s way too much. I could’ve easily pointed out countless other scenes that do this but there’s no footage yet. Chani might not have an arc in the book but she’s dramatically different from the book so an arc in a movie, should be necessary. Paul’s turn is rushed, Stilgar is a flat line, Jessica is one note, and the religious zealot message is on the nose. It’s all there in the video but willfully ignoring it is fine too.
@@RendanLovell oh, I watched it my guy, I just disagree with all of that. The true one note character was Rabban. And that was disappointing. But also, what more do you do with Rabban? If you think Stilgar and Jessica are just as shallow, idk what film you watched or what expectations you possibly had for it.
Couldn’t agree more about Rabban. I was so sad.
Channi had an arc. It was the most human one in the film. Her love for Paul is natural, not because he’s the chosen one, but because of a mutual respect they share. But she starts to lean into her anti religious ideals more after she spares her tears for Paul. She learns she is just another part of the Bene Gesserit cog, she learns that her people have no control over their destiny. She learns that Paul will never be her equal and that her downtrodden people will never have the free will to rule themselves.
But that’s not her arc. She said her name was apart of the prophecy like halfway through the movie. She didn’t learn that at the end. If anything was more anti-religious at the start not the end. All of this is stuff she already says or knows at the start. Not things she learned through the movie. The only thing she “learned” is that she could love an outsider and then felt betrayed but that’s not an arc either. So it’s a negative arc then?
@@RendanLovell Channi was never a fundamentalist, that much is true. She chooses to disregard her own Fremen name. She may know her name is apart of a prophecy, but she never saw Paul as the Lisan Al’Gaib. Think about when Paul was given the name Usul in the movie, she was hesitant to address him as the Muad’dib. Only afterwards upon the dune hill, where they become intimate and where Paul humbles himself in her presence, is when Channi addresses him by his chosen name. She supports Paul, because he is apart of the Fremen, not because he is the chosen one. Then she learns about his truer intentions and starts acting like the Fremen are under his thumb to get what he truly desires. This is when she starts to see the cracks (In the tent after Paul finds the Atreides nukes). And even after that, when Paul drinks the water of life, when Channi saves Paul, she faces her prophecy, she never cared much about it before. She only becomes more fervent in her beliefs, when she sees all the Fremen bow down in the south. She was never this strong in the beginning of the movie.
True but she was also one of the people screaming at stilgar just for praying at the start. She’s pretty passionate then and about the same at the end. Paul also never acts like they are under his thumb until he drinks the water making his turn feel incredibly rushed. The Lisan Al’Gaib name stuff you’re saying is true and nice but not much of an arc.
Yeah your on your own on this
I know
no
@RendanLovell no your not ☺️👍 I completely agree with everything you said. You have every right to not be a huge fan of this movie, just like people have a right to really love this movie (depending on preference). There were some great elements to it for sure in different categories, but for me, I didn’t really enjoy it like everyone was saying how they did. In fact, I actually like the first one more tbh. I felt like we had more time to connect to characters in the first one too than in this one. This was very rushed, especially Chani and Paul’s love story for instance. It really threw me off how she basically distrusts and doesn’t like him the first 15-20 minutes and then all it takes apparently for them to fall in love is a scene of them watching the sunset lol 😂 and now they are madly in love. And even after they do fall in she still actually gives him an insult about being not trusted because of being a foreigner lol 😂real loving Chani lol sorry for the long answer, no, thank you very much for you r video! You’re not alone! 👍
@@catherinecargil6163 I would recommend watching it again. Chani and Paul's love story isn't the most fleshed out but you can clearly see how much they care for each other through their actions.
To dislike the "punch" lines of Stilgar as comedy is very surface level analysis. I don't know how you don't see the tragedy behind those lines. Also, did you miss the whole naming scene?
Oh the scene where he was a religious Zealot after the scene where he was a religious zealot? Great character work.
@@RendanLovell sorry which movie are you are watching? Is it Dune pt 2 Stilgar, from rags to riches? If that is your high brow analysis of movie Stilgar your channel clearly has puddle deep commentary. Its like you completely forgot where Stilgar came from in the first movie.
From rags to riches is your idea of high brow commentary? It’s more like; from rags to rags but also now a religious punchline. No tragedy if the character never falls.
@@RendanLovell lmao did you seriously misinterpret my comment? This is a story of Paul Atreides sir. You're expecting every character to have a significant arc in a movie with 10 side characters. Stilgar does change from the first movie, but he was always deeply religious, try figuring that out. Thats why I said rags to riches because thats the type of arc you expect, yet can't do a modicum of analysis to see how Stilgar's one liners aren't just made for laughs.
Did you misinterpret mine? I don’t expect a significant arc from everyone, never said I did. Nor did I say I wanted the “rags to riches arc”. You’re putting words in my mouth because you’re mad we disagree about something I thought obvious. But, like the movie, I’m more than happy to spell it out since you don’t seem to get it. I know the lines aren’t all made for laughs yet, that’s what literally everyone did. I know he was always religious but turning him into a cartoon character who’s one trait is that he’s insanely religious is bad writing. He’s a non-character who’s role as “friend to follower” doesn’t work because he’s not a character. Tragic characters who’s lines are meant to invoke a feeling of sadness or fear for how deep he is in religious fanaticism only works when we see how far he fell. But he didn’t. He was like that from the start, making every line comical because he just looks insane. Sloppy writing. Doing any amount of digging would show you how off base you are here. Go flail around in someone else's comments.
and denis said dialogs are for theatre and television, denish is an asshole.. im with Neill Blomkamp
studio saw dollar signs and this is the result.
You make the handholding seem way worse than it actually is. Could the scene be done with less dialogue? Yes. But was it too much? Not at all. And with a movie with so much visual story telling, I think you're doing it a disservice to paint it as lacking subtlety. Using dialogue to give a better picture of what's going on is not inherently bad writing, if it doesn't feel forced and makes sense for the character and scene. It feels like you just think that way, because that's the norm, when you first get into writing. Show don't tell, we get it, and there's alot of that in this movie. Telling AFTER showing isn't a crime to good writing. Many great movies have done it. Sometimes you just have to go with what feels right for the scene. Whispering "show me who you are" to himself isn't bad writing. Him stating "I want to see what he's capable of, so I didn't poisen the 3rd fighter" on the other hand would be in that same context.
It's the first look at Feyd for the audience, so it makes more sense that we want to see what kind of guy he is, and we already know the Baron, so his pov tells us alot - with a look and just a few words. If we on the other hand already knew Feyd and his relationship to the Baron, then a simple look would prob be enough.
Some of us need a bit of subtext to understand man. The movie needs to appeal to a wide variety of people to make money and most people need a little bit handholding otherwise they get lost
That’s fair and I do point this out. However, I still feel like we lose something important because of it.
Listen. I just started this video so I don't know if you'll get to it, but I didn't like this movie need to tell me EVERYTHING. I get it.
Paul killing the Baron and SAYING VERBATIM "You die like an animal"
Really???? Did we need that???! On the emotional climax of the movie?????!!!!! He's crawling like a pathetic creature, we GET IT!!!!!!!
(My comment was longer than I expected and I go full yapper, so just a heads up)
Your complaints about the obvious dialogue are not only exaggerated but honestly pretty inconsequential in the grander scheme of things. Something being unnecessary doesn't mean that it actively takes away from the film. They really not a big deal when the film throws so much at you at every single scene and I have no idea how that's a big issue here and not in the first movie. Not only that, but your issues with the character writing are just confusing and it sounds like you're just missing the point.
Stilgar being in some ways comedic relief is not only necessary in order to occasionally lighten the tone in an otherwise grim film, but not really out of character considering how limited his presence was in the previous one. Not only that, but his reduced role is not bad writing but quite literally a point that the story is making. It's showing how even competent leaders can be reduced to blind followers when they let exclusively their religious beliefs guide them. Your complaint is something that the film is blatantly commenting on. Even the jokes that you mentioned comment on it.
Jessica's arc may be weaker (mostly due to her limited role in the second half in the book) but even the way you describe it is just wrong. She is shown at first concerned by Paul's path and the the whole influence that their planted religion has had on all these people and only accepts the holy water under peer pressure, as it's the only way that the Fremen will accept them (it's implied that they might kill them otherwise) and then subsequently follow Paul. Only then, influenced by the memories of all the previous reverent mothers does she go full on cult leader. Sure her talking to her baby was kinda weird, but the book had a talking infant so I'll take it.
Chani also goes through an arc. She is blatantly against the whole faith of the Fremen, but she happens to fall in love with Paul and lowers her guard. She participates in a war that is, at the end of day, still heavily influenced by religion, and at the end gets betrayed by Paul who marries Irulan. That shows that even her own blind faith, this time motivated by love, is still destructive. Her existence in the story still ADDS something to the themes presented and is not as pointless as you make her out to be.
Paul sure spends most of the movie in the reluctant messiah role, but he does NOT betray his path. He doesn't suddenly change motivation like you claim in the video. His journey is all the way through fueled exclusively by revenge and the betterment of the Fremen. He drinks the water as an act of desperation and after being given enhanced foresight, convinces himself that he can still attack the emperor without starting the holy war. That's why he bluffs in the end, but he is proven WRONG as the great houses see through him and he's FORCED to start the war in order for everyone to survive. His look at Chani at the end is him realising that he messed up and started the war that he was trying to avoid.
Like I don't get what your issue is. Were any of the motivations hard to understand? Were any of them inconsistent. Would having less explanatory dialogue (that let's be really was not even an issue for like 99% of the film) make the point more valid? The entire existence of Dune was essentially a warning, so screaming the point at you is a bit inevitable. I don't see what makes it fundamentally as a less worthy piece of art, just cause it does not have the MOST subtlety.
The existence of Dune was a warning that was taken the complete wrong way so Denis pivoted to make it obvious. That’s my issue. You make some interesting points about the characters and I wish we saw some of this! However, I could easily argue the opposite because of how muddy they are. A lot of what you’re saying borders between subtly and completely baseless speculation. You’re trying to fill the gaps left in the script that aren’t filled in for us. Which would be fine if a lot these moments weren’t SO critical. You say Paul drank the water out of desperation but we don’t know that. You say he convinced himself that he can attack the emperor without starting war, but you don’t know that. These types of things are critical to understanding characters. It’s a knife edge. We need some exposition to understand certain things, But saying a guy isn’t drugged 4 times after we already saw him not being drugged is pandering and annoying. That’s my issue.
@RendanLovell I wouldn't say that Paul's decision in the end is me speculating. It's quite explicit in the film itself.
He has to travel south, but knows that if he does that, it sets in motion the events that lead to the holy war. He says so himself. So, uncertain of what to do from now on, he drinks the holy water. After that, he says out loud that he sees many different paths, one of which can help him win without starting the war. That's why he proposes to marry Irulan and that's why he threatens to blow up the spice fields. That was clear bluff because a) if he blew them up even he wouldn't be able to space travel and b) after the great houses refuse his leadership, instead of blowing them up he attacks THEM and not the fields like he said he would.
I find it very strange how that was lost on you. If they explained it more, then that would fall under the pandering that you complained about. It's the appropriate amount subtlety. I can see certain moments here and there being slightly pandering or even just kinda dumb (Jessica talking to her baby was very silly), but those are not nearly big enough to ruin the film. Every aspect of it is so well realized that complaining about obvious dialogue, even if valid, comes across as nitpicking.
I see what you’re saying. However, He never said out loud that there’s one way he can win without the war as you say. He says,” our enemies are all around and in so many futures, they prevail. But I see a narrow way through.” This is an illusion to him HAVING to start the holy war to not die, like his mother says. Nothing to do with winning without the war. Not lost on me, but lost in the movie. I don’t think the moments ruin the film, I never said that. But I do think a lot of scenes are undercut by pandering.
@@RendanLovell Well here's a case where something that seemed clear to some of us was lost on other people, like yourself. The things that are obvious to you, you complain that they were overtly explicit in driving the point home, but the things you missed apparently needed to be made more explicit.
Like what exactly? I’ve already pointed out that a bunch of this is mostly speculation or just incorrect. Wait is this comment in good faith or not this time?
As much as i love the movie, i think that your critic are the first one i hear, and yes others exist 😅, are really landing here. Even if i tend to excuse this by Denis Villeneuve really wanting to dodge what the first book couldnt on the messiah/ hero front, its true that overly explicative dialogue is a bad point for the movie. And it's uterly strange for a director who fully know that exposition is bad for immersion and find so many ways to avoid it in the first movie.
Lmao hope this piping hot take brings you some YT bucks, what a dumbed down analysis made for clicks
I love when people disagree on here they immediately just think the other person is click baiting and contrarian.
So people cant have an opinion unless it makes them money, riiiight.
You’re to broad. You like a lot of films that challenge you.
I see what you’re doing
Yeah I wasn’t a fan at all of the first Dune and though the director had made some decent movies, I think that he’s extremely overrated.
For instance, he seems to have a very distinct style overall which is fine in general for any director, however his artistic choices seem to be mapped over every aspect of a film’s design. For instance, he has an affinity for certain type of architecture in general and this supersedes the ability of characters within the film to make their own cultural and or distinct, perspectives on ship design and architecture. Not only from one another in the story but from the director himself.
He also oks projects that have very weird casting choices. This was something that Lucas was good at. He casted in a way that put the story as a whole on the forefront, and he seemed to be cognizant of preventing actor’s recent roles from bleeding into the traction building of a different movie. I see Euphoria, Thanos, Aquaman and Poe Dameron all on the same set.
Whereas Nolan would use this effect to strengthen the story, when he casted Wolverine and Batman as opposites in the prestige. But going in you don’t think that they’ll be opposites or that things would get that dire until the latter half of the movie. Because they’re both superheroes in a moral dilemma.
Those are just a few of the choices the Dune director makes which I feel are preliminary mistakes to grounding a story well enough to suspend disbelief. While I was watching Dune it felt like a task to remain interested. It doesn’t really hypnotize or transfix me and it was always a good time to get the popcorn.
Yeah you are ABSOLUTELY ALONE.
He definitely isn't
🥲
@@RendanLovell but I still think you're smart and super cute 🥰
@@Enel97 snobbery isn't cute 😊
don't slide in to this chico's dms rendan don't do it
Maybe you should think a bit more about why you're alone on this
Trust me, I have, mainly because I knew I’d get comments like this.
i hated his dune
Just sounds like you are rage baiting for TH-cam clicks, engagement, and views. Disliked and moved along
“Rage baiting” lol
@@RendanLovell typical white man behavior
Damn bro. First you call me rage baiting and then you get racist, that’s crazy. I thought you moved along?
@@RendanLovell black people can’t be racist first of all white bread
That’s quite a bad take first of all.
I saw in another comment here that you said you've read the books, yet you called Giedi Prime "genshi prime" in this video. Nice one dude, really shows how good your comprehension skills are. Trash video, no clue why it showed up in my recommended page.
Because I mispronounced a word?? Something you simply have never done.
They had to dumb it down a little for Americans...
Wait...where is "Genji Prime"?
Geidi prime 😂 my bad
You are not alone. I was kinda surprised by how terrible this movie was. Incredibly rushed pacing, no actual emotional investment, cared nothing for any of the characters
I don’t think it’s terrible but I agree, it felt very rushed.
even with all its issues the film is incredible action sci-fi
Honestly bro... your review is basically just bs nitpicking. Of course it's not perfect.... it's DUNE! It was once considered impossible to adapt to the screen. This movie was awesome.. and I'll put it up against any sci-fi movie ever made.💯💯
I’m not asking it to be perfect, I’m just asking for any kind of depth. That’s pretty not great for the movie.
First indicator of a bad take, short
You couldn’t even make one complete sentence.
@@RendanLovell what, because there wasn’t a period? Don’t make me laugh. Are you small too? 🎻
Everyone is different. Catering to your sensibilities would have meant a worse movie for most everyone else because you have a particular lens (inside view of story writing, character arcs, etc). Why is it inherently bad to make the subtext explicit? I think it's because it robs more sophisticated audiences the chance to signal they they are smart enough to understand subtext without things being spelled out. And they feel cheated for losing that chance. I get it, but most people aren't invested at that level and they should get to enjoy movies too. And we have to draw a line somewhere. This is like a 200$ million dollar adaptation of a classic sci-fi novel. Would you rather have one of these every once in a while with some compromises, or none at all?
I disagree, people are a lot smarter than you’re giving them credit for. This take feels a bit condescending my guy.
@@RendanLovell It's not about inteligence. Different people focus on different things. Movies cater to a wide range of interests. It being an audio visual format means a lot of people will be focusing on the audiovisual component primarily. You're focusing on the text and deriving your primary enjoyment from that it seems. While others might be focusing more on the aesthetics. More of the brain is processing that, so they might miss some of the subtext that you rank higher in your hierarchy of preferences.
If I'm wrong that catering to your preferences would lower the enjoyment to others, why do you think you're "Alone on this"?
Idk what you’re arguing here. Maybe you just read the title and skimmed the video. So let me spell it out. I don’t rank overt text as a priority on preferences. I don’t expect to be catered too. I never said I wanted too. I’m simply pointing how little there is to get out of it. I don’t expect to be agreed with. I don’t expect every movie to be all visuals and no dialogue. I like the movie. I think it should’ve been more subtle. These are opinions. Which is why I’m alone, because they are my opinions. Using the title against me is dumb since it’s alluding to me not giving this a 10/10 like everyone else instead of me saying I’m mad I’m not being catered too. If that’s what you got out this, maybe I should hold your hand more. See how that feels? This is the point.
@@RendanLovell You're interpreting everything I say in bad faith. I'm not sure what triggered this level of defensiveness. It's totally fine for you to dislike certain aspects of this movie and make a video about it. I'm sorry if I made you feel like I thought otherwise.
We’re both being defensive here. I see where you’re coming from, But it’s hard not to take this in bad faith when a big a part of your argument was saying “the movie doesn’t have to cater to you specifically.”
I refuse to even watch that garbage after the first film was a 2+hour TRAILER where nothing happened other than them telling us "the next film will have cool scene". It's by far on of the worst marketing practices ever. I'm not paying twice for one film
Naw man
Okay
Trash
Okay
hope that YT algorithm leaves your edgy video down. long lives the fighters. your are talking sht
Edgy?? 😂
@@RendanLovell well, yes, mate, you got that one of the best rated movies in history of movie rating. yet, you've decided to make a Dune video that says how not good it is and it has those plot holes that no one else is seeing, besides you. you are alone on this one. and, yeah, you are this edgelord on YT that is looking for views to get 200 dollars from being dishonest of something objectively good. anyway, it that's your game, go for it. just do not be that surprised when someone is calling you edgy, because we all know what your are trying to do - to get to in our search of "dune part 2 commentary" and to be clicked. dune 2 was great. your commentary was sht. having a video with 2.5K views and 70 likes show that this video of your is probably no so fine. don't think so?
Your defense of the movie is that most other people like it? Which means if someone thinks it’s even okay that means they are edgy? Have you looked at my title, thumbnail, or watched the video? I knew people like you were gonna be annoying and clueless so I actively didn’t do that. If I wanted to clickbait people into cheap views I would’ve said something like “Dune actually isn’t that good”. Take this dumb thought process elsewhere.
@@hristiyansofiaHow the heck is somebody saying their legitimate reasons for why they dislike a film "edgy"?
They aren't alone on this - even if most people liked the movie. I agree with him for one, and regardless of how many people agree with something that has nothing to do with whether or not his argument has merit. Maybe contradict his actual points rather than basically complaining that he dared to criticize something.
How dare he not agree with me! Come on now, grow up.