The latest adaptation of the first 40% of Frank Herbert's novel promised to be more faithful tham prior adaptations, while adding great visuals from Villeneuve. Unfortunately, it only adapted a few more details, offered no visual innovation, was unnecessarily slow and repetitive, and hid two thirds of the movie in very low lighting.
For reference: -I am a fan of the Lynch version.
-I have read Herbert's novel and enjoyed it.
-I am sonfamiliar with Herbert's opinion on the prior adaptation, which was more supportive than that of his fans, who often complained of.omission of details that existed only in their imagination.
-I thought the Sci-Fi channel miniseries from 2001 was fair but not gripping.
-I have enjoyed most of Villeneuve's work, especially "Arrival".
Strengths: -When you get to see the cinematography, there are some very good visuals, about 20 of which could be framed.. Sangren takes over for Deakins but imitates him closely.
-The effects are seamless.
-The supporting cast is interesting, stand out from each other, and quite good.
-A few more details are captured about Dr Kynes and the ecology of Dune, even though much of it was still left out.
-Hans Zimmer 'wailing' score works at times, before it becomes awkwardly overused.
-Enough interesting dialogue is kept.
Weaknesses: -Most of the movie is shot in unnecessarily dark rooms, or outside at night, or at shadows near sunset, or against the brightest sun. Thus, you clearly see very little of what is on the screen. Some characters' faces are barely seen in their entire presence in the movie. It also ruins scenes like the 'jom gabbar' test or the trap of the floating needle in Paul's room.
-The first 40 minutes consist too heavily of whispering.
-The same shots of dreams and visions are shown over, and over, and over.
-Chalamet acts okay with his oral delivery, but his facial expression is the same mopey one throughout. His physique is credible as an adolescent, but not as a warrior.
-Baron Harkonen is barely featured.
-For a movie that was heavily hyped around what Villeneuve was imagining, I was let down by seeing visuals that were just a mix of Lynch's original, the desert scenes of "Batman V Superman", the latest "Star Wars" trilogy, a sprinkle of Tarsem and "Avatar", your average Hollywood desert epic, and a few callbacks to Villeneuve's prior movies.
The ending and some of the vision scenes promise more interesting visuals in the second part. I hope it is so.
For reference: -I am a fan of the Lynch version.
-I have read Herbert's novel and enjoyed it.
-I am sonfamiliar with Herbert's opinion on the prior adaptation, which was more supportive than that of his fans, who often complained of.omission of details that existed only in their imagination.
-I thought the Sci-Fi channel miniseries from 2001 was fair but not gripping.
-I have enjoyed most of Villeneuve's work, especially "Arrival".
Strengths: -When you get to see the cinematography, there are some very good visuals, about 20 of which could be framed.. Sangren takes over for Deakins but imitates him closely.
-The effects are seamless.
-The supporting cast is interesting, stand out from each other, and quite good.
-A few more details are captured about Dr Kynes and the ecology of Dune, even though much of it was still left out.
-Hans Zimmer 'wailing' score works at times, before it becomes awkwardly overused.
-Enough interesting dialogue is kept.
Weaknesses: -Most of the movie is shot in unnecessarily dark rooms, or outside at night, or at shadows near sunset, or against the brightest sun. Thus, you clearly see very little of what is on the screen. Some characters' faces are barely seen in their entire presence in the movie. It also ruins scenes like the 'jom gabbar' test or the trap of the floating needle in Paul's room.
-The first 40 minutes consist too heavily of whispering.
-The same shots of dreams and visions are shown over, and over, and over.
-Chalamet acts okay with his oral delivery, but his facial expression is the same mopey one throughout. His physique is credible as an adolescent, but not as a warrior.
-Baron Harkonen is barely featured.
-For a movie that was heavily hyped around what Villeneuve was imagining, I was let down by seeing visuals that were just a mix of Lynch's original, the desert scenes of "Batman V Superman", the latest "Star Wars" trilogy, a sprinkle of Tarsem and "Avatar", your average Hollywood desert epic, and a few callbacks to Villeneuve's prior movies.
The ending and some of the vision scenes promise more interesting visuals in the second part. I hope it is so.