When watching movies, I always try to differentiate between my personal enjoyment and the inherent merits of the movies. There are a lot of bad movies, which I totally and thoroughly enjoy watching, and some really great movies, which I don’t enjoy that much, but still can respect/appreciate.

With this prelude, I totally do not get the positive reactions to Denis Villeneuve’s Dune movies. At the time I am writing this question, part two has 94% critique and 95% audience score at Rotten Tomatoes, 9.0 at IMDB.

In my opinion, Dune 1 and Dune 2 have obviously high production values and good special effects. What I do not like is the acting, the pacing, the total flat/simple characters and the whole narration, which is for me a trivial love story between Chani and Paul, plus becoming a leader and get some revenge. I could simply replace the ‘Dune’ theme with a standard war theme and a few tribes, and I would have exactly the same movie. Also the battle scenes at the end of part 2, they are for me totally cookie cutter war movie/battle aesthetics. (Total waste: There are big Sandworms after all, and combat with personal shields etc.).

My question is, especially if you very much enjoyed watching the Dune movies:

  • Why did you personally enjoy the movie?
  • Do you think this movies have some inherent merits?
  • How do you like the acting/plot/pacing?
    • wolfOPEnglish
      92·
      9 months ago

      It is a long time ago, when I read the books, and I liked, that they where very political and changed the narrator often (if I remember correctly). To say, I kept them in good memory w/o the urge of reading them ever again. ;-)

      • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
        221·
        9 months ago

        The books are full of intrigue, subtle plots and other plots.

        It’s a book that when read a second time you come away with an entirely new experience armed with the knowledge (and familiarity) of the first read.

        Dune 1 (haven’t seen part 2 yet) just captures the feel of all the forces, pressures and consequences of the book.

        It goes for a “show don’t tell” kind of storytelling that really works to get a feel for it.

        Not that the works merit direct comparison since they’re so different it harkens to the Lord of the Ring trilogy where you don’t get a lot of the details of the book but you get the heart of the story, world, lore and relationships of the people.

        Paul is reserved, intrigued by Chani and his visions.

        Jessica acts out of love over duty

        The Duke brings his family to a place of what he expects to be dangerous but is also powerful and the political maneuver putting them there was airtight. Hence his duty to go, his worry for the family, the importance of being there.

        All the players, all the parties, all the pressures are there. The only ones not focused on, at least in the first, is the guild which fits what was shown so far anyway.

        • wolfOPEnglish
          51·
          9 months ago

          Thank you very much for your perspective, I’ll watch the first part again and see if I can discover this ‘reading’ of it!