Dune reviews

[danfrank]

I did see it on IMAX. It’s a splendid piece of filmmaking in service of a story that doesn’t intrigue me all that much. This is very much a director’s film that feels a bit Shakespearean (as Tee said) not because of the script but because Villeneuve treats the material as such. The magnificent visuals and rather somber tone are consistent, and the actors are convincingly all in, such that you can’t help but be carried along. I agree that it would have been better to find a more natural break such that it felt more like a complete film. The ending felt more akin to a television show where you will find out what happens next the following week. This was better than I anticipated, but in the end not really my type of film.

[Okri]

Saw it in theatres (not IMAX, though). I enjoyed it, but it definitely feels like half a film (as opposed to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where each film felt complete enough). I was taken with its visual and aural splendour throughout (lots of frame-able shots and I expect the soundtrack will be on rotation). It's very well cast.

[danfrank]

Negative words about Days of Heaven? Blasphemy!! lol
It was the first art film that I truly got into; I was still in high school. It’s held up very well in my opinion, though I haven’t seen it for a few years. Every once in a while I just watch that opening train sequence on YouTube. It’s an absolute master class in cinematography.

I plan to see Dune this Thursday on the biggest screen I can find.

[Sabin]

I don't understand why it's such a weirdly contentious point to make that watching Dune on the biggest screen possible (IMAX) makes for a different experience than watching it at home.

[Big Magilla]

Days of Heaven is a painterly work. It is beautiful to look at no matter what size screen you watch it on, although like all films made for theatrical distribution, it looks best on a large theatre screen.

It is effective dramatically in large extent thanks to the narration by Linda Manz which was imposed by the producer after the film was completed.

While I have a problem with Malick's later films, this one was a true masterpiece and remains so.

Living in New York in the 1970s, I was fortunate to be able to see not just new releases on large theatre screens, but revivals of film masterpieces from the past. I saw everything from the Chaplin and Garbo film festivals that were shown incessantly to such double-bill revivals as Show Boat (1936) and Roberta; David Copperfield & Captains Courageous; The Grapes of Wrath & How Green Was My Valley, and many more. Yes, they all looked better on the big screen, but many of them were films I loved since I first saw them a 17" TV.

Moviegoing in recent years has not been enjoyable for me with the smaller screens in multiplexes in which the view from a mid-theatre seat was not much larger than the view from my living rom chair to my large screen TV (6 feet in front of a 60 inch screen at one point). With the increase in pay-per-view of recent theatrical releases since the start of the pandemic and same-day streaming in some instances, going out to a movie has become a non-existent practice for me and I don't see that changing any time soon.

As for Dune, it's not a terrible film. The sand pit opening up and swallowing the space ship, and later, the bad guys, is just as much of a heart-stopping moment on the home-screen as it is on the big one, though probably not as awesome. While it's more coherent than the 1984 version, it's still lacks punch as drama. It won't get any acting nominations, nor should it. Still, it could wind up with a hefty haul of technical nods, and even Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay although I don't see it winning any of those three.

Bottom line, if you have the time, the access, and the money, by all means go to see a film, any film, on the big screen. If you don't, do the next best thing and watch it at home.

[Reza]

But then so was Malick's Days of Heaven. Beautiful but bland.

I thought it was funny when Mister Tee mentioned Days of Heaven. I started it yesterday and then switched to something else partway through because I was finding it a chore to get through. I'll probably finish it today, though.

I'll probably watch Dune next weekend (at home).

Days of Heaven is like watching paint dry on a wall. At least there are some action scenes in Dune that keep you awake.

[gunnar]

But then so was Malick's Days of Heaven. Beautiful but bland.

I thought it was funny when Mister Tee mentioned Days of Heaven. I started it yesterday and then switched to something else partway through because I was finding it a chore to get through. I'll probably finish it today, though.

I'll probably watch Dune next weekend (at home).

[Reza]

This is not directed just to you, Magilla, but to many people who've quoted to me the size of their home screen as if it somehow narrrowed the difference between the home and theatre experience. Most theatres showing Dune -- certainly any prime ones -- are more than ten times that size. Between that and superior sound systems, there's simply no comparison between the two experiences.

And for a primarily visual film, that difference is important. Have you ever watched Days of Heaven on television? What were rapturous moments in a theatre -- the train crossing the trestle, early in the film -- are reduced to "pretty" on the home screen. Judged simply by its near-primitive script, without the overwhelming visuals, Days of Heaven might get about the same capsule review as you gave this. Which would be a disservice to Malick's work.

I'm not saying Dune is on the level of Days pf Heaven. I'm saying it just as much needs to be seen on a wide screen, because its epic-ness is part of its essence. So, as I said when I wrote about the film, I disregard the opinions of those limited to home-viewing.

I'm sorry but if the main plotline is dull dull dull then no number of gigantic screens (IMAX included) make any difference. Very difficult to just marvel at the cinematography (or sound or costumes etc) without finding any substance in the story. And none of the actors standout in any kind of riveting manner. They are just there going through the motions. Dune is sadly just plain bland.

But then so was Malick's Days of Heaven. Beautiful but bland.

[Big Magilla]

This is not directed just to you, Magilla, but to many people who've quoted to me the size of their home screen as if it somehow narrrowed the difference between the home and theatre experience. Most theatres showing Dune -- certainly any prime ones -- are more than ten times that size. Between that and superior sound systems, there's simply no comparison between the two experiences.

And for a primarily visual film, that difference is important. Have you ever watched Days of Heaven on television? What were rapturous moments in a theatre -- the train crossing the trestle, early in the film -- are reduced to "pretty" on the home screen. Judged simply by its near-primitive script, without the overwhelming visuals, Days of Heaven might get about the same capsule review as you gave this. Which would be a disservice to Malick's work.

I'm not saying Dune is on the level of Days pf Heaven. I'm saying it just as much needs to be seen on a wide screen, because its epic-ness is part of its essence. So, as I said when I wrote about the film, I disregard the opinions of those limited to home-viewing.

I don't need a lecture on the difference between seeing films on a theatre screen and on home video.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I'm not saying Dune is on the level of Days pf Heaven. I'm saying it just as much needs to be seen on a wide screen, because its epic-ness is part of its essence. So, as I said when I wrote about the film, I disregard the opinions of those limited to home-viewing.

Maybe Gravity is a better comp.

I would agree. The pleasure of just taking in one all-time science-fiction after another didn’t quite prevent me from getting bored but I couldn’t look away. I can’t imagine getting that sensation from watching it at home. It must be taken in a full sensory IMAX experience without a pause button in the vicinity or not at all. And I want to be honest: I think “not at all” is a fine option too. Much of this film is indefensible from a narrative perspective.

I left the theater for sure thinking this film couldn’t recoup enough for a sequel but it looks now to be sitting at $40m domestic (not bad) and $220 worldwide. I’m shocked to learn it cost only $165m (probably $300m with marketing) so it might prove successful after all. Part Two here we come.

[Mister Tee]

This is not directed just to you, Magilla, but to many people who've quoted to me the size of their home screen as if it somehow narrrowed the difference between the home and theatre experience. Most theatres showing Dune -- certainly any prime ones -- are more than ten times that size. Between that and superior sound systems, there's simply no comparison between the two experiences.

And for a primarily visual film, that difference is important. Have you ever watched Days of Heaven on television? What were rapturous moments in a theatre -- the train crossing the trestle, early in the film -- are reduced to "pretty" on the home screen. Judged simply by its near-primitive script, without the overwhelming visuals, Days of Heaven might get about the same capsule review as you gave this. Which would be a disservice to Malick's work.

I'm not saying Dune is on the level of Days pf Heaven. I'm saying it just as much needs to be seen on a wide screen, because its epic-ness is part of its essence. So, as I said when I wrote about the film, I disregard the opinions of those limited to home-viewing.

[Big Magilla]

Home, on my 54" inch screen from 12 feet away.

[Sabin]

Did you watch it at home or on the big screen?

[Big Magilla]

I found it visually stunning but dramatically weak.

Stylistically it is a highly sophisticated film in the Star Wars tradition, but thematically it has more in common with the sand-and-sandal epics of the 1950s and early 1960s.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
For the first half-hour or so -- an economical, lucid, but somewhat prosaic exposition of the various tribes and planets -- I was thinking, looks fine, but this is just another Star Wars movie. (The friend I went with later opined that George Lucas, by stealing so many elements from works like this, and playing them at old-time-serial level, has made such stories hard to take seriously anymore.) But that slowly changed: the deeper we got into the story, the more I invested in the characters. Villeneuve is doggedly serious about believing in this fantasy world, and his conviction takes hold. Though there are clearly action-film aspects to the film, the underlying story has some Shakespearean tones to it, and they give the film heft -- I'm not comparing the two films, but to some degree the way familial succession worked for The Godfather. The people I know who read the book -- as far back as early high school -- took it VERY seriously. I think they'll be quite happy with what Villeneuve has done here; he's made the version of Dune that honors their feeling for the book, not unlike the way Jackson finally pleased Tolkien-ites with his initial trilogy.

I'll co-sign this sentiment but with a little less enthusiasm. I did get a bit of a thrill from just taking in this science fiction vision in locomotion. It's a gorgeous piece of filmmaking (gorgeous; Best Cinematography in the bag, possibly several others) that never attempted to provide me with any emotional or narrative hold. Maybe Paul's visions, which dovetail at the end, but that's it. When the film concludes and he states his purpose moving forward into the desert, I thought to myself "When did that happen?" I haven't read this book but whatever draw it gave readers is clearly not the makings of a strong narrative film. It has to be immersion, world-building, and ideas. After two-and-a-half hours of this film, I couldn't pass a test on what day-to-day life in this vision of the future consists of, and yet somehow 8,000 years in the future, names like "Jessica" and "Idaho" have survived.

But I will admit that by the end it won me over enough. Slightly. I was fairly bored throughout film but by the end I found myself wanting to know what happened next. To your earlier point about being won over as the film went along, I think I know why that might be. There's so much world-building in this film that the inciting incident doesn't occur until roughly ninety minutes into the film (with the traitor and the siege). Traditionally, an inciting incident is supposed to occur ten minutes into the film. Obviously, not all films need to adhere to that rule (L.A. Confidential's occurs roughly an hour in with Exeley being named a hero) but the events afterwards pull on all the fibers of conflict that have been set up.

But a production of stunning nerve and conviction. I suppose all the actors are perfectly cast. None stick out or distract. All serve the unfolding canvas. Timothée Chalamet is fine. Save for his work with Gerwig, I remain dubious of his talents because every film he is in is so unconventionally edited that I'm still not sure if I've seen him work in a, y'know, scene (a bit of an overstatement). A friend of mine described him as a "Cipher Twink" that we project our emotions on. His talents are put to excellent use in this film.