Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Dune - dir. Denis Villeneuve

Cheers, Hackney is not very convenient for me though tbh - thinking more west end/central, anyone else got any tips? I usually go to Barbican but it’s not on on their big screen, only the smaller ones
Curzon Soho.

 
How long do you think it will be on the cinema? I go so infrequently.. but will probably go in a couple of weeks if it's still on.
 
Finally saw this at the cine last night. Some pros: it was good enough world building that I got pulled into the story and carried along and wasn't as bored as I thought I might be, despite him doing his usual thing of dragging out lots of scenes for too long. Some decent enough acting too. I was entertained, in other words, and that balances out a lot of the cons. Of which there are many:

  • he barely succeeded in doing clearer storytelling than Lynch, partly because of muttered words that couldn't be clearly understood, partly because things like the Bene Geserit, or what spice were for, were explained so quickly that you could blink and miss it. My partner who didn't know the story couldn't really follow it.
  • I'm not a lover of that soundtrack I'm afraid. It's all very well to be overwhelming at climactic moments, but by being overwhelming at nearly every other scene it both broke an important convention of cinema for no good reason and became monotonous
  • it really played up the militarism of the different societies and as a result I lost a lot of sympathy for the characters
  • I did not expect the greyness of the aesthetics. From Caladan through to the strange decision that the ultra-rich of the far future will live in brutalist concrete palaces, I found it to be a lot less visually stimulating than I expected. I kind of agree with this: The New Dune Is Too Somber for Its Own Good
  • And rather fatally, I found even the desert shots to be quite cold and not very beautiful. I know everyone says it is beautifully shot, and certainly a lot of money went into the visuals, but the grey filter on his cameras seems to be there even in the desert. It also seems to be a physically cold desert - you never once see heat haze that I can remember.
  • I thought he might choose to tell the story in a different way to the Lynch film, but the flow of the story is pretty damn close, it's just slower and greyer. Maybe they just took it straight from the book, but I expected a bit more creativity given that the Lynch film was widely considered to not really work for casual viewers.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think I need a spoiler, let me know if I do

Lawrence of Arabia killing some one you don’t want to but its required + Germans +Turks + honourable Bedouin

Pinching Kurtz from apocalypse down then doubling down on Captain Willard coming out the oily water

Jaws bow waves of worms

Jason moo moo deserves no more film money, stick him in Disney comedie or brum brum part 11 flex muscle cars

The exposition lines by characters mainly felt clunky albeit brief (thankfully) I think a narrator, loud thoughts works better for me

Sykes-Picot in space

Not keen on the space techno versus basically sword fighting. Shoot stuff fellas pew pew

The bowel loosening dark bass music and sweeping, travelling arial shots is right off sicario

Just before the final credits I was thinking fucking hell my legs are going numb the second half is gonna be tough…..then it finished so time flies in it

Chisel jaw tough muscle old bloke needs to break out and do something a bit arthouse/pick some less obvious roles otherwise that’s him for ever

Stand out was Rebecca Ferguson

There is an arrrgh teen wank flash back tease. When they are getting into the still suits in the original I seem to remember some sort of flimsy gown Jessica was wearing. I’m sure the director cuts hard at that scene to jolt middle aged perverts memories

Enjoyed it should have done less vaping before hand and not sat in front of the two coughing lovebirds


I realise despite reading the book and watching the old film multiple times I didn’t actually know what was going on at the start, maybe I need more exposition :D


7/10 needs comfier seats
 
Last edited:
Started watching this. Very pretty and dramatic, but I don't know why they have made such a mess of the dialogue and character interactions.
 
Tried to learn up my housemates with Lynch's Dune, but sadly they laughed it off the screen. The talking giant fanny in a fishtank was as far as they would let me go. For revenge, I then insisted on FF to sting in his swimsuit and vaseline. Ha ha they'll not forget that in a hurry.

Did feel that it hasn't aged well.
 
I love his names for spaceships.
It’s way better than having to read ponderous clunky prose, but agree that it can go too far when it’s self-consciously whacky like the criminally overrated Terry Pratchett
I'm going to watch Dune this week so I'll stop reading the thread for now. Just wanted to give this a like. Was impressed with how Pratchett conducted himself at the end, but as a writer... mediocre.
 
I'm going to watch Dune this week so I'll stop reading the thread for now. Just wanted to give this a like. Was impressed with how Pratchett conducted himself at the end, but as a writer... mediocre.
I say this as a pongoidesque librarian too
 
Ok, well that was pretty good, quibbles aside. I thought they missed a beat right at the end with the water for the dead religious sacrament touch. But yes plenty to enjoy. Looks like they've probably shot a fair chunk of the next installment already.
 
I thought they missed a beat right at the end with the water for the dead religious sacrament touch.
I read an article on the VFX where they say that the movie was originally going to end a little later (probably at the Sietch, with the water ceremony) but they couldn't get teh financiers to pay for the extra production, hence the truncated ending.
 
Saw it today and I'd have it at very good rather than great. Overall feel of it, cinematography, plenty of other bits were great, just felt it was a bit thin on some of the key plot moments. For example, if you weren't a book wanker, you'd have been hard pressed to pick up on too much about the bene gesserit, particularly Jessica's position as not in it, but still bound to the order. Stuff like the nature/importance of the quizzats whatsisface was mentioned, but only in a few sentences that you'd have to have absorbed straight away to make sense of. I also thought it was a bit thin on emotion, for example Jessica and Paul's response to Leto's death. Still, very good... 8/10.
 
Terrible, made a tedious beige mess of one of Sci Fi's best settings. 2 hours too long, far too much ambling tedium. And I even enjoyed the 3 hour long fan cut of the original.
 
Nah. He hasn't made six great films. Maybe two or three very good films, but no great ones yet.
I think his early Canadian film Polytechnique is great and Arrival comes close but I agree with you on the rest. I hated Prisoners and Enemy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sue
I think his early Canadian film Polytechnique is great and Arrival comes close but I agree with you on the rest. I hated Prisoners and Enemy.
Yeah, Polytechnique and Arrival were the ones i was thinking of. Haven't seen Enemy.
 
I've been avoiding this thread as I hadn't seen it. But I have now. (Matinee at Vue, Leicester Square - where we went on our first date "quite a long time ago". There were maybe 10 people there)

Hard to say what I thought, other than not as good as the original, which I loved, and have watched maybe a dozen times.

I've skimmed through some earlier posts, and certainly agree that some scenes were dragged out far too long. 10 mins (it felt that long) for a helicopter crash, ffs. Similarly, I agree that the grey, brutalist, unlit settings were a bit "meh". Possibly a lack of budget for props and lighting?

Jessica was well acted, but too looked too young (to me, anyway) to be Paul's mother. The baddies were just baddies - lacking any characterisation or humour. All the CGI made the battle scene worse, rather than better. I thought the explanatory stuff a bit too documentary, if that's the right word - I liked the original partly because I wasn't always clear what was going on, if that doesn't sound too daft.

I just thought whole sections were "not as well done". Not even sure I can be bothered to go and see the second half.

I detest this modern thing of dragging stories out over two or more instalments. (LOTR needed it, possible. The Hobbit would have been better as one film. Spinning the final Harry Potter out over 2 films was sheer bloody exploitation)

I apologised to mrs max for having made her sit through it, as we left. She had enjoyed it. I'm sure I've made her sit through the DVD, but she didn't remember it.
 
I've been avoiding this thread as I hadn't seen it. But I have now. (Matinee at Vue, Leicester Square - where we went on our first date "quite a long time ago". There were maybe 10 people there)

Hard to say what I thought, other than not as good as the original, which I loved, and have watched maybe a dozen times.

I've skimmed through some earlier posts, and certainly agree that some scenes were dragged out far too long. 10 mins (it felt that long) for a helicopter crash, ffs. Similarly, I agree that the grey, brutalist, unlit settings were a bit "meh". Possibly a lack of budget for props and lighting?

Jessica was well acted, but too looked too young (to me, anyway) to be Paul's mother. The baddies were just baddies - lacking any characterisation or humour. All the CGI made the battle scene worse, rather than better. I thought the explanatory stuff a bit too documentary, if that's the right word - I liked the original partly because I wasn't always clear what was going on, if that doesn't sound too daft.

I just thought whole sections were "not as well done". Not even sure I can be bothered to go and see the second half.

I detest this modern thing of dragging stories out over two or more instalments. (LOTR needed it, possible. The Hobbit would have been better as one film. Spinning the final Harry Potter out over 2 films was sheer bloody exploitation)

I apologised to mrs max for having made her sit through it, as we left. She had enjoyed it. I'm sure I've made her sit through the DVD, but she didn't remember it.
There is a lot I like about the Lynch film, but not its storytelling which tried to cram way too much into just over two hours and the second half is a mess. I thought the new Dune was far better paced and anybody who has read the (very long) novel would agree that Dune needs to be done as more than one film or as a tv series.

Francesca Annis and Rebecca Ferguson were and look about the same age in either film, Kyle MacLachlan and Timothee Chalamet were in their mid-20s but the latter at least looks like he still could be a teenager.

The new film used many more practical effects and far less CGI than most modern blockbusters. I've rarely seen CGI seen employed so well, so I'm not sure what you thought looked so bad. Some of the optical effects in the Lynch movie were pretty bad, even for the time, with thick matte lines in blue screen shots. The post production for the 1984 film was rushed as the producers had lost faith in the movie and it shows.

This is not the type of film which can't afford props, the spare look is Villeneuve's style and I think the modernist designs are very elegant, it had to distinguish itself from Lynch's futuristic baroque.



 
Last edited:
There is a lot I like about the Lynch film, but not its storytelling which tried to cram way too much into just over two hours and the second half is a mess. I thought the new Dune was far better paced and anybody who has read the (very long) novel would agree that Dune needs to be done as more than one film or as a tv series.

Francesca Annis and Rebecca Ferguson were and look about the same age in either film, Kyle MacLachlan and Timothee Chalamet were in their mid-20s but the latter at least looks like he still could be a teenager.

The new film used many more practical effects and far less CGI than most modern blockbusters. I've rarely seen CGI seen employed so well, so I'm not sure what you thought looked so bad. Some of the optical effects in the Lynch movie were pretty bad, even for the time, with thick matte lines in blue screen shots. The post production time for the 1984 film was rushed as the producers has lost faith in the movie and it shows.

This is not the type of film which can't afford props, the spare look is Villeneuve's style and I think the modernist designs are very elegant, it had to distinguish itself from Lynch's futuristic baroque.




TBH, I haven't read the books. I agree there is less CGI than a lot of modern films, which do go way over the top.

I guess I just liked the "futuristic baroque" visuals of the original.
 
Back
Top Bottom