Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Watched it in the theater last night. It was.... Ok. This Denis Villeneuve guy just draws stuff out way, way too much. I had the exact same problem with Bladerunner 2049. Spent the last 40 minutes of both films going 'ok, let's go Denis' in my head. Like you know exactly where it's going, just get there already. He's very... I don't know if self indulgent is the right word. I think I would have liked it a lot more if he could just be more concise.

The tone, score, and aesthetic of the film is absolutely incredible. It's extremely atmospheric. I thought the casting was also really good except for Jason Mamoa, who just plays himself in every movie. The guy doesn't know how to play anything except the cocky badass.

As a visual spectacle the film is brilliant. Whether that does enough to paper over the cracks for you will largely depend on each individual viewer I think.

Just watched it. Very good, really enjoyed it. The sense of scale was impressive.

I thought it was excellent. I'm probably fairly unusual in that, given my age and tastes, I probably should have a fairly established relationship with the book and original film, but have, to my recollection, never read the book, have probably seen the original adaptation but not all at once, and don't have any great affection for the IP.

Being able to come to an almost new IP to me with fresh eyes and no preconceptions, I didn't once feel like I needed to look outside the film to understand what was going on, or that the narrative was compromised to squeeze it into the running time.

If I let myself get distracted I instantly regretted it as I'd probably missed something amazing looking on the screen. Mother Nature chipping in so I had a lightning storm ongoing as the film entered the final act was just a bonus.

Also, did anyone get any distinctly Brando-esque Kilgore vibes from Skarskard's Baron Harkonnen?

I wonder if this is going to end up like LOTR when it comes to physical media. I still remember how pissed I was when I bought the Fellowship DVD the day it released and on the special features it mentioned that a special edition was coming out six months later, lol.

I don't know how this will interact with the overlapping age of streaming that we're currently in either.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I thought it was excellent. I'm probably fairly unusual in that, given my age and tastes, I probably should have a fairly established relationship with the book and original film, but have, to my recollection, never read the book, have probably seen the original adaptation but not all at once, and don't have any great affection for the IP.

Being able to come to an almost new IP to me with fresh eyes and no preconceptions, I didn't once feel like I needed to look outside the film to understand what was going on, or that the narrative was compromised to squeeze it into the running time.

If I let myself get distracted I instantly regretted it as I'd probably missed something amazing looking on the screen. Mother Nature chipping in so I had a lightning storm ongoing as the film entered the final act was just a bonus.

Also, did anyone get any distinctly Brando-esque Kilgore vibes from Skarskard's Baron Harkonnen?

That's really interesting - I'm fairly familiar with the books (got up to Children of Dune as a teenager, I think, which killed my desire to read further), I like the shear bonkers style of the 1984 version, and started re-reading the book a while ago. I'd not finished the book, and the movie ends a couple of chapters after I reached so for the last 15 to 30 minutes I couldn't remember the details but knew roughly the course of the plot.

And while I left the cinema having thoroughly enjoyed it, I was wondering how bewildering it would be if you didn't have that background information. Good to know that it's not.

(Unlike Lynch's version, which would be bewildering even if watching with a copy of the book in hand)

I'm not a perfect test subject, I understood the bare bones of the plot and the broad strokes of the background going in, and complex IPs are part and parcel of most of what we talk about on this board, but I certainly had no trouble understanding the motivations of the various factions and individuals. There's probably a lot more information I don't know, but I feel like the film gave me what I needed to understand it.

Not what I'd call a date movie though...

Seen a few complaints about 'whispering' in it and I have to wonder what they would feel about the Lynch version which was 98% voice over whispers, 1% dialogue, and 1% Baron Harkonnen laughing.

warboss wrote:I wonder if this is going to end up like LOTR when it comes to physical media. I still remember how pissed I was when I bought the Fellowship DVD the day it released and on the special features it mentioned that a special edition was coming out six months later, lol.

I don't know how this will interact with the overlapping age of streaming that we're currently in either.

Glad I’m not the only one who had this very specific annoyance!

Ahtman wrote:Seen a few complaints about 'whispering' in it and I have to wonder what they would feel about the Lynch version which was 98% voice over whispers, 1% dialogue, and 1% Baron Harkonnen laughing.

That’s not true. Baron Harkonnen laughing has to be at least 2%! And there’s at least 1% of Kyle Maclachlan yelling “FATHER!”…


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just watched the Cinema Wins of the 1984 film. There are a lot of comments about ACTING

 gorgon wrote:


Continuing on my thoughts from earlier, I think the standout performance is Rebecca Ferguson. Jessica is a very complex character, and I think Ferguson changes gears really deftly.

Agree, definitely the best performance in that movie. But I do adore Rebecca Ferguson, and along Timothee Chalamet IMHO she is definitely the best actress in the entire cast. Also, she and the aforementioned actor were the only real protagonists of the movie, all the other characters have basically a supporting role or a very minor one.

 Ahtman wrote:
Seen a few complaints about 'whispering' in it and I have to wonder what they would feel about the Lynch version which was 98% voice over whispers, 1% dialogue, and 1% Baron Harkonnen laughing.

Think your numbers are a smidge off as it omits some of Sir Picard's finest bellowing

It was alright. As a non-reader, I don't see that it adds anything over the Lynch movie. Director seems to mistake brooding for acting.

Some minor things:
Music being too loud sometimes.
Some Duncan sword moves being too fast to be able to penetrate the shields (so in ''reall' life some of those Sardaukar would survive and he would die faster).
No info about Mentats, Imperial Conditioning etc.

Saw it on Friday night on Imax, think this is perfection. The closest we'll ever get to a Dune film that stays as true as possible to the book.

Really looking forward to part 2.

 Ahtman wrote:
Seen a few complaints about 'whispering' in it and I have to wonder what they would feel about the Lynch version which was 98% voice over whispers, 1% dialogue, and 1% Baron Harkonnen laughing.

[user]
I did find quite a few bits of dialogue to be very mumbly - particularly when they were talking in made up space language. I completely missed a couple of lines because the characters were just muttering away from the mic.

That seems to be an increasingly common problem with modern movies for some reason.

The wife and I watched it on HBO last night. I guess I liked it? The problem for me is that I've read the book a few times, seen the Lynch version a few times, and seen the SyFy version probably about a hundred times (it's long, so it makes for a great background while working on hobbies). So, there wasn't anything here new to me, but I did like the visuals. The ornithopters were really cool.

Having seen it twice now, some quick ramble of thoughts:

The sound was definitely a different experience at home versus IMAX. In the theater, the soundtrack and things like the 'thropters were just BOOMING, and certain lines were a little hard to hear. At home, I thought the dialogue was much clearer. I couldn't quite make out most of the 'whispers' in Paul's head in the theater, but thanks to the magic of subtitles I found out at home they were mostly about the Kwisatz Haderach.

I was pleased, and I love the Lynch version with no reservations. It was nice to see a Dune movie that was not so heavily edited and let play out a bit.

Now some minor nitpicks:
Everytime they said Harkonnen it took me out of the movie for a moment. My family as we talked afterwards started calling them Harknn'nn'nnn'nn' and adding even more N's every time we said it. That is one place where I much preferred the Lynch version.

The 1984 sand worms really hold up, and I prefer them to the ones we see here.

Not enough "psychedelic" scenes for the sake of psychedelic scenes! Where is my wacked out navigator? Where is my hand opening?

Overall, I may go an watch it again at the theatre!

We saw it at home, on a TV.

First things first: it was unsatisfying because the story was incomplete. Most of the set ups had no pay offs because of that.

The design was great, but I prefer the sets from the Lynch film, which I felt had more flavor and texture. This Dune feels more generic Sci fi in comparison. The costumes were good for the most part, but The armor will probably feel dated in a decade or two.

This was a good adaptation. The voice was handled well, as well as the exposition (as well as could be expected). The pacing is good. It felt much more like a real movie than the previous one.

First things first: it was unsatisfying because the story was incomplete. Most of the set ups had no pay offs because of that.

I don't really think that a film that identifies itself as "Part 1" within the opening few frames can really be criticised for that.

Especially when the same work has proven itself incredibly challenging and divisive to adapt as a single film.

Whether the whole concept of single films being released as a part of one cohesive plot (especially those that don't have subsequent parts confirmed) is a good thing or not is perhaps something worth debating. But I guess we have LOTR to thank/blame for making it a thing different from sequels.

Not LotR. The Hobbit. Or really, harry potter. The first instance of breaking a movie into 2 movies was HP and the Deathly Hallows. Then hunger games followed suit. Twilight, hobbit etc etc...

I want to say its happened before

I think the original Hellraiser were done almost back to back so much so that when they were going to write Pinhead out of the film it was a very sudden change to push him back in due to fan reactions to the character.


That said I think one of the big differences between some of those where a film is made one then the next is that at least Lord of the Rings was made in one block and then broken into 3 films.

It's a rarer thing by far since its a much bigger up front cost and risk; if that first film flops you're done for .

Superman and Superman 2 predate those. Obviously there was a lot of drama there and things didn't go according to plan. But Donner shot a lot of what he had planned and needed for the sequel at the same time as the first film.

Edit: I think it's fair to mention that Dune ends without any real closure. But it's unfair to really ding it for that.

Bit unfair to compare it to The Hobbit when Dune is a 800 page book in 3 parts.

Just got back from the cinema, it certainly felt suitably epic. The imperial technology is a little too futuristic for my taste, but the space ships were pretty awesome (the Douglas Adams quote of “hanging in the air in exactly the same way bricks don’t” comes to mind). I loved the Dune / Fremen stuff, the ornithopters, sand compactors, etc.

Jamis was well done, for a minor character; I liked that they had him in some of the visions before hand. Speaking of which:


I also really like the Saudaukaur, more so than in the book. Instead of generic arrogant imperial soldiers, they have almost a brutal Viking vibe. Which much better fits the idea that they come from a deathworld.

All in all, a pretty damn good attempt and I’m really hoping that he gets to make the rest of it. It really feels like we’re only just getting to know the characters and I definitely want to see more.

It looks great. It's accurate enough & doesn't leave those unfamiliar with the source baffled as to what's going on (like the Lynch version sans the animated opening sequence does).
I liked it well enough. And I suppose I'll see Pt.II assuming it's made. But once again, like every other version? It's just slow & doesn't change my opinion that Dune is best read, not watched.

 Jadenim wrote:

Jamis was well done, for a minor character; I liked that they had him in some of the visions before hand. Speaking of which:

Spoiler:

Is the voice in his visions Alia? I certainly think the woman in the white robes with the bloody hand / knife is.

The aircraft looked cool, but they should look like birds, not dragonflies. Clue's in the name.

Are you referring to the gom jabbar scene? If so, the woman with the knife and bloody hand is Chani. I haven't seen the film but Denis said it in an interview video that I'll try to find.

Edit: This should be it. I can't rewatch it with audio at the moment though for the timestamp.

Trying to remember all of a two & half hour film after one showing, but I think the first vision (with the gom jabbar) was definitely Chani in desert garb and was whether or not he’d die when they first met (side note, I like the way his visions didn’t align perfectly with the future, good way of showing the shifting uncertainty of time).

The one I was referring to was much later, when he is seeing the jihad (I notice they didn’t use that word!), there is a woman in loose white robes with a bloody hand and knife. You never see her face.

 Jadenim wrote:
Trying to remember all of a two & half hour film after one showing, but I think the first vision (with the gom jabbar) was definitely Chani in desert garb and was whether or not he’d die when they first met (side note, I like the way his visions didn’t align perfectly with the future, good way of showing the shifting uncertainty of time).

The one I was referring to was much later, when he is seeing the jihad (I notice they didn’t use that word!), there is a woman in loose white robes with a bloody hand and knife. You never see her face.

They did use it. I think it came up once (maybe twice), and the pronunciation was a bit less anglicized.