Drawn-out and boring
Bluntly stated “Dune” (2021) is too long and doesn’t give enough context for the audience, making the movie feel dragged out.
The first half of the movie is engaging and moves with a quick pace; scenes flow into one another being different enough that the audience is exposed to a new subplot and dialogue, making the movie enjoyable while introducing the characters. In the second part, however, the movie drags on and becomes repetitive. The scenes blend into each other by having the same setting, making the movie feel longer than it needs to be. It makes me question the necessity of all the scenes.
The decisions about the technology that the characters are using are strange and don’t make sense to audiences who are not familiar with the Dune universe. When you dig deeper, there are meanings for the lack of advanced technology, but if the directors were to explain them, it would further exacerbate the problem of length of the movie. It’s a never-ending cycle that destroys the movie.
I understand that “Dune” is only the first of two movies and that it ends roughly halfway through the events of the original book, so the plot is unfinished, but the directors could have at least finished off some storylines.
If you watch the 2021 movie without having read the book, certain characters seem unfinished or without a backstory. For example, we get set-up for House Atreides, but other factions are unexplained. Simple things like why the Harkonnens look different from the other humans shown in the film or what the Empire actually looks like are lost to a large portion of viewers.
It’s unfortunate that the directors could not find a way to insert more backstory, because when they do, they do a good job of it. In the beginning, we get a really clear version of house Atreides. The movie’s problems would be solved if the directors added more characterization without making the movie longer. This is one of “Dunes” core problems because it is impossible to achieve both.
In all, “Dune” is a good movie for people who have watched the previous movie or who have read the book on which it’s based, but for audiences who are not familiar with the “Dune” universe, the movie leaves you unsatisfied and wanting more characterization. — Anderson Brown
Impressive but soulless
Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune” (2021) is a perfectly competent film—it’s sleek, action-packed and clearly a labor of love by its creative team—but it’s nowhere near as fun or entertaining as its campy, David Lynch-directed predecessor.
“Dune” (1984) is truly something to behold. The film portrays a vibrant universe full of intricate sets, larger-than-life characters, deftly realized sequences and truly alien elements.
More than anything else, Lynch’s vision of “Dune” is thoroughly otherworldly. Everything from production design to editing to acting serves to unsettle and immerse the viewer in a setting entirely distinct from our own.
Yes, the movie is dated and cheesy, but even its technically weaker elements are incredibly entertaining. The special effects, laughable as they might be by today’s standards, never really clash with the surreal tone of the movie.
On the other hand, Villeneuve’s “Dune” is technically excellent: its special effects are innovative, its direction is immaculate and its scope is truly grand. But it lacks any of the character and charm that defined the 1984 film.
The more recent film’s humorless, straight-faced approach to storytelling ironically makes for a cold, dispassionate viewing experience of what should be a scorching tale of intrigue and visceral struggle.
To me, villain Baron Harkonnen epitomizes the difference in style between the two adaptations. As played by Kenneth McMillan in Lynch’s version, the character is an electrifying, maniacal, off-the-walls (literally) presence, stealing every scene he’s in and bringing a sense of unpredictable danger to the story.
His counterpart in the 2021 movie (Stellan Skarsgård), is a much more traditional, even generic, antagonist. Though sound design and cinematography certainly lend him an imposing quality, the character is nowhere near as grotesque or off-putting, making scenes featuring him far less entertaining.
This problem isn’t limited to the villain. Perhaps because of the sheer size of the cast and the understated approach to characterization, most figures in Villeneuve’s film seem one-dimensional. Even charismatic actors like Jason Momoa and Zendaya fail to bring depth to their roles.
In general, Villeneuve’s unwillingness to take risks with the source material results in a shallow, unsatisfying film, and it’s a shame that the technical ability displayed in its production wasn’t matched by a strong creative impulse.
I’ll certainly be watching the sequel to “Dune” (2021) whenever it comes out, but until then, Lynch’s movie remains the definitive version for me. — Hammond Cole Sherouse
A triumph of filmmaking
“Lord of the Rings,” “Jurassic Park” and “Harry Potter.” These popular sci-fi and fantasy books have been successfully adapted into movies and shows and ingrained into mainstream pop culture. However, Frank Herbert’s “Dune” (1965) has been one notable exception, at least until now.
Making a successful movie adaptation isn’t easy, and “Dune” has had a tumultuous history of attempts to bring it to the big screen. In 1974, director Alejandro Jodorowsky was the first to take a stab at this tremendous task. Unfortunately, because of the sheer scope of the book, the project was scrapped due to financial concerns.
David Lynch was the next to try the project, and his version of “Dune” was released in 1984. However, it wasn’t well-received critically or commercially for a litany of reasons. : The film took many liberties when adapting the source material, and due to the technological limitations of the time, the movie feels campy.
“Dune” (1984) attempted to cram all 400 pages and the vast amounts of worldbuilding from the universe into only two hours and 17 minutes. Many details are left out, and the movie fails to replace them with compelling content and visuals that successful adaptations should deliver.
Despite the rocky history of the franchise, director Denis Villeneuve brought his vision of “Dune” to cinemas in 2021, finally giving the series the treatment it has deserved for so long.
“Dune” (2021) is an incredible film. I went into it with no prior knowledge of the series other than knowing about giant sandworms and spice. For me, the movie did a great job establishing characters and worldbuilding.
The movie has great casting, with some standouts being Timothée Chalamet as the main character, Paul Atreides, Jason Momoa as the fearless Duncan Idaho and Stellan Starsgård as the imposing Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Every actor plays their role exceptionally, giving you a strong impression of the characters almost as soon as they show up on screen.
Villeneuve utilizes visual storytelling to excellent effect, quickly giving moviegoers an understanding of the unique ideas present in the film. Showing how the characters’ personal pocket shields protect them against bullets and darts but fail to stop the much slower daggers and shortswords, as well as conveying the absolute power and godlike nature of the sandworms are just two examples. The wardrobe department also creates interesting fashion for each group of people, establishing personality to every faction in the universe.
Another major factor in the success of “Dune” is the score. Hans Zimmer, famous for his work on “Interstellar,” “Inception” and “Blade Runner 2049,” composed the film. Zimmer took a different approach to composing “Dune,” using instruments not usually found in Western orchestras like bagpipes, as well as prominent vocals. This creates a highly memorable and unique score that viewers will certainly remember after leaving the theatre.
Sometimes when watching long movies, I find myself frequently checking the time, but despite the over two and a half hour runtime of “Dune” (2021), I never got bored. When the ending snuck up on me, I immediately wanted more. The movie only covers the first half of the book, and the confirmation of part two leaves even more to look forward to. — Hendrix Prescott
Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures & Legendary Pictures
