DUNE: PART ONE & TWO (2021 & 2024 MOVIE REVIEW) PLUS COMPARISON TO THE NOVEL

 In this post, I shall review and compare the recent Dune movie adaptations to the novel. Readers of my blog might be aware of the fact that I'm a Dune fan. I've read all the Dune books  (most of them I read more than once) and I reviewed them on blog. I even read the prequels written by Frank Herbert's son, that are neither a part of Dune's canon nor very good, but I read them anyway (just because I love the Dune universe so much). 

Before I get into reviewing the new movies in more details, let me just say that I didn't hate the old adaptations, not even the infamous David Lynch version. Without the adaptations, perhaps I wouldn't have read Dune as early as I did or became such a fan. I mean I would have read it eventually, I'm quite sure of that, just because I read a lot of science fiction and Dune is THE science fiction novel. 

I'm not one of those people who gets upset when the movie is different from the book. That's the whole point of adaptations, isn't it? To add something new, to offer your perspective on the book. Some books are quite different from the books and that's fine. However, when they are extremely different, one wonders what is the point? Why not just name it something else, I mean, if it has nothing to do with the original book? Not that I think that's what happened here, I'm just making a point. I think changes made to book are alright as long as there is a creative or artistic justification for them. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes you can feel the creative drive behind the adaptation, sometimes you can't. In the case of the new adaptations, I think there's definitely vision. 

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” Frank Herbert, Dune

DUNE IS NOT EXACTLY AN EASY BOOK TO ADAPT SO I HAVE A LOT OF UNDERSTAND FOR ANYONE ADAPTING IT

Dune is a notoriously difficult book to adapt, because its world building is insanely complex. The politics of the Dune universe are so intricate and complex, that we can really say- it's all on another level. So, I understand that the film makers face many challenges when adapting this particular novel.

So, how did I feel about the new 2023 & 2024 movie adaptations? I've seen the first movie on TV, and I liked it. Not as much as I liked the Dune 2000 adaptation.  I wanted to watch it again with my husband, but it disappeared in the meantime. I don't know how the cable things works, but apparently sometimes you can watch something and sometimes you have to upgrade. Anyway, I suggested going to see the sequel (Dune: part two) in our local Cinestar and that's what we did. The funny thing is that my husband ended up liking the movie more than I did. I'll get into the why soon enough. 

Before I get to film reviewing, I should perhaps stress that I definitely feel more comfortable reviewing books than movies. That might be because as a language teacher, I actually teach literature, reading and writing. That's something I've been doing for a while now, so when I talk about books, I feel like I know what I'm taking and writing about. Discussing literature is part of my job.

 Most book reviews on my blog are naturally subjective, but that is to be expected from a personal review posted on one's personal blog.  However, it's still an area I'm knowledgeable about, so even when I approach it from a subjective point of view, I still can rely on my skills. Cinematography that is filmmaking, on the other hand, it's not my area of expertise. So, the review you're doing to read will probably focus more on the writing and dialogues in the movies than on photography. That's just because I'm wired to focus on writing, even when it comes to visual art forms. Let's get to reviewing.

DUNE: PART ONE 2021 MOVIE REVIEW                    3.4/5

WHAT DID DUNE I GET RIGHT IN REGARDS TO FILM MAKING?

THE AMOSPHERE AND THE LOCATIONS ARE  RIGHT ON 5/5

The cinematography of Dune: part one (and Dune part two for that matter) is very impressive. The location for Caladan felt spot on and the Arrakis felt very well portrayed too. The atmosphere is there, no doubt about it. You do feel like a part of an alien world. You can see that the director is a fan of the Dune Universe. He paied a lot of attention to details that really made the difference. 

THE PHOTOGRAPHY IS ABSOLUTELY STUNNING! 5/5

I mean cinematography and photography are as wonderful in this movie as in the sequel. There's nothing one can add there. The film is beautifully shot. The colours feel very natural. The close ups are shot with care. I loved how many of the actors were bare faced. It's so refreshing to see someone's actual natural skin. No filters, no editing to make the pores disappear or anything like that. Obviously, in a film like this one there is a lot of CGI but even when it comes to special effects, it all feels very natural as well. 

SPECIAL EFFECTS AND CGI 4.9/ 5

As I already said, the special effects were done well. The only thing I didn't like were the giant worms of Arrakis. Whatever happened to their teeth? They failed to look very menacing to me, despite their enormous size.

THE SOUNDTRACK IS OUT OF THIS WORLD 5/5

I really enjoyed the soundtrack in the first Dune (2021) movie and the way it seemed to perfectly match every scene. It added to the watching experience for sure. 

WHAT DID DUNE 1 GET WRONG IN TERMS OF FILM MAKING ?

This is just my personal opinion (as I said I'm not particularly qualified to talk about film making at all) but I think the pacing and the writing was a problem in both movies. Some scenes seem to endlessly drag, while others don't take up enough space or felt underwhelming. The same goes for writing, sometimes it felt too stretched out and sometimes it seemed to be just missing. 

THE WRITING (ADAPTING THE BOOK) 2.4/5

The writing in Dune: part one (2021) was better than in the second (2024) one, but still it wasn't very good. The screenplay simply doesn't do anything to make the characters seem genuine or the dialogue natural. It does adapt some key phrases from the book. However, it offers little insight into the inner world of its characters. 

THE PACING 3/5

The pacing isn't perfect in the first one, but considering the fact that the movie didn't feel nearly as long as it was, they must have done something right. Honestly, I thought that Dune: part one lasted only about an hour and was surprised to learn it was two. However, something about the 2024 version makes it feel so long! One definitely notices than in the sequel that is considerably longer. Subjectively it felt even longer than it was.

THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT 2/5

I didn't manage to see much character development in the first one. I know it was sort of an introductory film, but still I expected more. I understand that the director didn't have time to go into a detailed voyage into each character's past, but it's hard to see character development without being familiar with the character's past. It's our past that shapes us, after all. Lady Jessica and Duke Leto shine through a few times and one can see or sense some character development. You can feel that Lady Jessica and Duke Leto are the sort of characters who had to go through a lot of suffering and maturing, but that's about it. Their family doctor also gave a good performance and one could sort of feel some character development there, in the sense that one could feel what could make a humane man opt for something he did. Timothee Chalamet wasn't bad as young Paul either, one could feel some character development but nothing terribly exciting. 

THE ACTING 3/5

The thing is that acting felt all over the place. There are some impressive moments, but acting on the whole didn't seem to be the focus of this film. It's as if director relied more on cinematography to tell the story. Both the minor and the main characters had some great moments, but they were not impressive on overall. This is not a film that I'll remember for its acting, that's for sure. 

Again, Lady Jessica (played wonderfully by Rebecca Ferguson) and Duke Leto (played by Oscar Isaac) are the only ones whose acting I could really believe (at least when it comes to principal characters). Timothee was alright but I expected more from him. Stellan Skarsgard was quite convincing as Barron Harkonnen. With a better script, I believe Stellan would have worked wonderful. He was still pretty good considering everything. Some minor characters also shines through, but on overall, the acting wasn't very impressive.

HOW SIMILAR ARE THE FILMS AND THE BOOK?

As I said, I don't value the movie adaption solely on how similar it is to the book but I think I might be interesting to compare the two. When the movie adaptation strays away of the book (i.e. source material), it still needs to make sense in order for the writing to make sense. In this movie, I felt like sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't.

WHAT DID DUNE: PART ONE GET RIGHT IN REGARDS TO THE BOOK?

THE LOYALTY TOWARDS DUKE LETO

The movie managed to convey the respect that Duke Leto commands for his house. Duke Leto is loved by his men and respected by pretty much everyone. The 2021 film version also managed to convey the love that Lady Jessica and Duke Leto feel one for another. They didn't show the whole scale of it, though. I guess we live in a time when a woman who loves a man deeply is automatically considered anti-feminist. Lady Jessica's love for Duke Leto is of magnitude rarely seen. Their love story is what really puts things into motion. Fortunately, Rebecca Ferguson and Isaac have a good chemistry, so the viewer can feel something of the loyalty this couple feels for one another. The director didn't really devote a lot of attention to the extraordinary men that work for Duke Leto either. Some of them are immensely important for the sequels. Still, one can feel that the house Arrakis is much loved and respected. They rule by inspiring love in their followers, not fear. 

THE GENERAL FEEL OF THE HARKONNENS 

If house Arrakis inspires love in people, the house Harkonnen invokes terror. The Harkonnes are the iconic villains in this story. In the first time, the movie did a good job at hinting at their cruelness. However, I didn't feel it really offered that much insight into the baron Harkonnen. The baron might be exceptionally cruel, but he possesses a brilliant mind. One doesn't really gets to witness it in this movie (or the sequel for that matter). Nevertheless, the general feeling is there. The baron and his nephews (although only one of them is presented in the 2021 Dune: part one ) are clearly imposing enemies.

WHAT DUNE: PART ONE DIDN'T GET RIGHT IN REGARDS TO THE BOOK? 

WHAT CHANGES DID IT MAKE? 

Some changes made sense to me, as the director clearly has his own creative vision and I can respect that. However, I feel like some changes just felt 'woke Hollywood' doing its thing, for example changing random characters and turning them into women, when the whole concept from the novel is that women are incredibly powerful and that they can shadow rule like nobody else. I guess Hollywood feels that isn't good enough. They didn't get the note. People love strong female characters, but they don't love bad writing. You cannot just create female Hulks and expect everyone to flock to see your movie. The reason why so many films with female leads flop is because of bad writing, not because people don't like female heroines. I think Herbert was way ahead of his time when it came to portraying female characters, but I guess not everyone agrees. 

-THE SPACE GUILD IS NOT GIVEN THE ATTENTION IT DESERVES....

 The movie didn't focus on them at all, almost omitting them out of the picture. I get that they didn't have unlimited time, but surely they could have explained it a little better? You could devote a few minutes to it surely?

-...AND NEITHER ARE THE MENTANTS

Dune is an infinitely complex world. Mentants  play an essential part in it, but the Mentant characters don't get much space in this adaptation. Again, I felt like they could have put aside a few minutes for narration that would at least hinted on their importance or something. 

- PAUL'S MENTAT TRAINING IS IGNORED

Paul's mentant training is almost completely ignored in the movies, despite the fact that it makes him what he is. Unbeknownst to him, Paul has been trained as a mentat since his childhood. It's this training that enables him not only to stay alive, but to survive the ordeal in front of him. Leaving it from the movie, makes it quite a different story.

-PRINCESS IRULAN'S INTRODUCTIONS TO THE EVENTS

This part was omitted from the movie. Was it a justified choice? Yes, I guess it can be said so. The director said that he wanted the viewer to see the characters from the first perspective, without the framed narrative and I understand him. Perhaps he also wanted to avoid comparison with David Lynch's version which is again fair enough. 

- TURNING THE PLANETOLOGIST DR. KYNES INTO A WOMAN, CHANGING HIS DEATH AND MAKING HIM NOT CHANI'S FATHER

I don't see this move as female empowerment at all. Dr. Kynes is a more significant character that he might seem. He's the father of Chani and that's significant because it means that Chani's Fremen mother choose to marry an outsider (a man of the empire) thus setting an example for Chani to accept Paul (another man of the empire) as her partner. Dr. Kynes opens the door for Paul in more ways than one, as he is the first man who successfully becomes part of Fremen society. I don't understand why they had to turn him into a woman. 

 The whole premise of Dune is that in reality, it's an elite group of women  who control the entire society politically- the Bene Gessiret. Lady Jessica is described as being infinitely superior fighter than any of her husband's men and more intelligent as well. However, she acts from the shadows, never revealing her true physical and mental strength because that's the best chance she has to protect her family. Lady Jessica isn't even an advanced Bene Gessiret or Reverent Mother at that point. So, that's the kind of power these women posses- hidden but terrible and overwhelming.

Still, the director Villeneuve seems to think that this Herbert concept of powerful women is outdated. Villeneuve was quoted in an interview as saying that the book is dated, but that might be just marketing as he seems to genuinely be a fan of the series.

Some of the changes I understand, but not this one. Honestly, the director making this character female doesn't make any sense. The changed death didn't feel satisfactory either, although I kind of get the reasons for it. The planetologist dies a lonely death in the book, being lost in the desert, while in the movie the lady planetologist kills of her enemies by invoking a worm and dies in the process. However, this completely defeats the purpose of this character. He is much more important as a character than it seems. It's he who starts changing the climate of Dune. So, his death in the desert is not only ironic but also sad. Changing his death underlines both the tragedy and the irony. Not only does the movie ignores his legacy and significance, they make him into a virtue trope.  In the book, Dr. Kynes is Chani's father. The movie makes no reference to that. I don't get it, but hey what can be done?

DUNE: PART TWO         2024 MOVIE REVIEW           2.4 /5 

WHAT DID DUNE II GET RIGHT IN REGARDS TO FILM MAKING?

AGAIN, THE AMOSPHERE AND THE LOCATIONS ARE  MOSTLY WODERFULLY CAPTURED 4.5/5

The cinematography of Dune: part two is almost perfect. The CGI in Harkonnen arena was a bit too much when it came into portraying the audience, but that's just a minor detail. I actually liked how she shot the Harkonnen world in black and white. The architecture of Harkonnen planet is quite spot on, actually. The books describe Harkonnen architecture as monumental and surviving mostly to inspire fear and make one feel small. However, when it came to Harkonnen military and mining vehicles and technology employed on Arrakis, it seems a bit dates. It definitely looked like they didn't really want to put up the fight with Fremen. Whenever Fremen attacked, their wins seemed super easy, making the whole conflict anti-climatic. If Fremen had superior weapons and stuff, why did they have to wait for Paul at all? I'm speaking about the start of the film, but the ending slacked a bit when it came to Arrakis. The emperor entourage wasn't impressive at all. 

THE PHOTOGRAPHY IS BEAUTIFUL! 4.5/5

As I already said, cinematography and photography are as wonderful in this movie as they are in the sequel. The close ups are so well done. I love how the actors placed in the desert (both main and side characters) didn't wear any make up. There was no effort to make them look beautiful. 

SPECIAL EFFECTS AND CGI 4.5/ 5

As I already said, the special effects were mostly done well.

THE SOUNTRACK  FELT A BIT REPETITIVE 3/5

The sound effects and the soundtrack in the sequel gave me a bit of a headache when I saw this film in the cinema. It felt too repetitive and I felt like they overused certain compositions. 

WHAT DID DUNE II GET WRONG IN TERMS OF FILM MAKING ?

THE WRITING (ADAPTING THE BOOK) 2.0/5

I'm not happy with the writing in this one. 

THE WRITING IN PART TWO WASN'T EXACTLY STRONG

I gave this a lot of thought and I think the main reason why I didn't really enjoy Dune: part two was the writing. The pacing issues and the lack of strong writing (and natural sounding dialogues) ruined this adaption for me. The photography, the soundtrack and the CGI were perfect. What lacked was writing to connect the story.

LADY JESSICA WAS TURNED INTO A MESSANGER FOR HER FETUS

I was disappointed Lady Jessica wasn't given more space to shine. I also don't understand why they choose to make Lady Jessica into someone who just seems to pass on messages from her fetus most of the time, when she is such a strong woman in the original. 

It's almost as the movie implied that Alia has some special powers, when she's a basically fetus at that point. Yes, one that has undergone something terrible, an agony that allows it to see into the past, but again- she's a fetus. Why they didn't choose to have Alia born is another creative choice that doesn't make much sense. I understand why they changed the ending scene, although it is incredibly important for Alia to have done for she did. They didn't really explain why Alia was in such a unique position as a young child. Instead, they showed her as a woman grown, in a future version. Enough about that. Lady Jessica emotional devastation wasn't made obvious nor her complex relationship with her son explained enough. It's hinted upon, but not explained. 

PAUL'S CONVERSION SEEMED TOO SUDDEN

Paul's conversion to leader seemed too sudden. I felt like for half the film, I was watching a goofy Timothee, not a heart broken one. 

THERE WAS NO CHEMISTRY BETWEEN CHANI AND PAUL

Paul and Chani are presented as one of the greatest love stories even shown. They dream of one another before meeting. They are predestined to be together. Zendaya and Timothee are giving vibes of a brother and sister who are having fun filming. 

THE PACING 2.4/5

The film felt too long. Something about the pacing just didn't feel right. I even considered leaving earlier.

THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT 2/5

I like how the director tried to make Paul a multidimensional character and not just a hero. Making Chani someone who actively fights his messiah status was a potentially interesting choice, but most of the time she just sounded like an angry LA girlfriend. There was potential for character development for sure. However, something was obviously lost in translation.

THE ACTING 2.8/5

Again acting was inconsistent. Some notable actors weren't given much to work with. Christopher Walken could have given more depth to emperor if he had been given more screen time. I mean he has to be one of the most talented actors that have ever lived. Stellan Skarsgard wasn't given much to work with as Barron Harkonnen either. I understand that in this sequel, the attention is placed on his young nephew and potential heir, but still one expected this important character to be given some attention. Baron Harkonnen looks comatose for most of this film. In the book, he is obese and uses suspenders to walk, but he employs them to his benefit and moves with ease. Moreover, his mind in the book is energetic and quick (albeit in a wicked way). In this film, one got the impression that Baron Harkonnen was just waiting to die perhaps from being so morbidly obese. In addition, the movie more or less hides his intimate preferences because you cannot have a negative character  being a minority. I get this, so I didn't really find it surprising. Nevertheless, ignoring the fact that his nephews Rabban and Feyd-Rautha conspired to kill him in the book, but Baron Harkonnen wasn't even that offended and let them 'practice', withholds some crucial information about what kind of man he was. Baron Harkonnen in the book was a mightily villain who was always a step ahead of others or so he thought. I think they could have at least referenced the failed conspiracy or showed a half a minute emotional reaction. Anything, to make Baron Harkonnen less comatose. What else to add? Feyd-Rautha was given considerable screen time but he failed to make an impression on me, it just looked like overacting to me.

A COMMENTARY ON DUNE 1 &2 CASTING CHOICES & ACTING

THE ABSENCE OF MIDDLE EASTERN ACTORS IS STRANGE!

Fremen culture is based on Middle Eastern culture (mostly Arabic). The Bushmen are sometimes quoted also a possible source of inspiration, although the Middle Eastern/Arabic influence is much more visible. The author himself often said that the 'spice' was a metaphor for oil. The wars for spice represent wars for oil. The Fremen religion in the book is a mix of Islam and Buddism (zensunni). That being said, the absence of Arabic, Middle Eastern or North African actors in this film was not something I expected. 

CASTING OF DUKE LETO & HIS ACTING 4/5

Oscar Isaac was a good choice for Duke Leto. He looks nothing like the actors who portrayed Duke Leto in the past, but I think this works in his advantage. Does he looks like the book version of Duke Leto? Yes, a little bit. Duke Leto is described as a tall man with olive skin, grey eyes and a hawk nose. Does it matter whether the two look alike? Not necessarily, I'd say. For this character, physical resemblance isn't crucial. 

I would say Isaac acting was pretty good on overall. I think he could have done better if he was given more space and time to play with the role. 

I didn't find Oscar Isaac fully credible as a duke and a leader of a powerful noble house. It's not that he lacks the ability to portray an aristocratic character for Isaac must be one of the most versatile actors of our generation. However, Isaac didn't really bring the sense of strictness to the role. I couldn't imagine him being a military commander. 

I don't think this was entirely his choice as the director seem to have guided him in another direction.  The director seems to have chosen to focus on portraying Duke Leto as a man of heart. I can understand his creative choices as he didn't have much screentime with Duke Leto and it was important for the audience to warm up to him. Nevertheless, the novel's Duke wasn't the most emotional of man and I would like to have seen him played as a bit more of an intelligent lord and strategist. 

On the other hand, I must say that some scenes Isaac played out extremely well and with a lot of passion. Definitely the best acting in the film. 

CASTING OF PAUL & HIS ACTING 2/5

As for physical appearance, Paul is describes as being small and skinny for his age. So, Timothee sort of fits there. He has some feminine and childish facial features that make him look younger than he is, so that sort of works. But why did he have to keep his signature hairstyle? It somehow doesn't belong in the desert.

Moreover, one has the feeling he did absolutely no physical training for this rule.  One doesn't see him developing his fighting skills. In addition, he walks so clumsily. Somebody get him someone to teach him to walk with a bit of elegance. He is the last person I would think of as knowing even the basic knowledge of martial arts. In the book, Paul is supposed to have been trained in martial arts since he was a child. Physical aspect isn't the most important here, I know. However, when it comes to acting Paul's emotions, I didn't get anything from him, which is surprisingly because he's a talented young man. 

CASTING OF LADY JESSICA & HER ACTING

Rebbeca was wonderful and I was frustrated she wasn't given a bigger role in the sequel. 

CASTING OF OTHER MINOR CHARACTERS & THEIR ACTING

Not bad on overall, but some choices felt a bit- is commercial a good word? I felt like the movie tried to enlist as many A-list starts as it could. I think that in movie like this one, one doesn't always need that.

CASTING OF ZENDAYA AS CHANI

I don't think this was a necessarily a bad casting choice. The writing in this movie isn't very strong, so it's hard for me to judge any actor. One feels like they didn't have much to work with. Zendaya lacked chemistry with Timothee but is it her fault or the writing? 

"The drug's dangerous," she said, "but it gives insight. When a Truthsayer's gifted by the drug, she can look many places in her memory — in her body's memory. We look down so many avenues of the past...but only feminine avenues." Her voice took on a note of sadness. "Yet, there's a place where no Truthsayer can see. We are repelled by it, terrorized. It is said a man will come one day and find in the gift of the drug his inward eye. He will look where we cannot — into both feminine and masculine pasts."
"Your Kwisatz Haderach?"
"Yes, the one who can be many places at once: the Kwisatz Haderach. Many men have tried the drug . . . so many, but none has succeeded."
"They tried and failed, all of them?"
"Oh, no." She shook her head. "They tried and died."

CONCLUSION - PROS AND CONS IN A NUTSHELL

The adaptation isn't bad, but the writing is lacking. 

PROS AND CONS OF DUNE: PART ONE AND TWO

PROS:

GREAT CGI, LOCATIONS AND SOUND EFFECTS

AMAZING CINEMATOGRAPHY AND BEAUTIFUL PHOTOGRAPHY

CREATIVE VISION

CONS:

NO CHEMISTRY BETWEEN THE MAIN LEADS

RATHER POOR WRITING

MEDIOCRE ACTING

A PEAK INTO MY REVIEW FOR DUNE THE NOVEL- THE NOVEL THAT INSPIRED THESE FILMS!

Dune, the first novel in the Dune series, is (in my view) absolutely one of those life-changing reads. It is unique, that is for sure. The novel is wildly imaginative, set in an unique dystopian future and populated with some of the most memorable characters I have ever come across. Dune takes world building on a whole new level but at the same time, it speaks of our present human society. It offers a future vision of mankind, but our struggles are still the same. Dune is a very relevant novel that raises numerous questions about religion, power, politics and identity.

As many science fiction works I admire, Dune asks the question- What does it mean to be human? Some of its characters exhibit or acquire superhuman abilities, but even they are often trapped by the constraints of human society and their own social programming. It is fascinating to observe the conflict between the individual and the society in this book so rich in meaning and philosophical questions. The imagined world of Dune can be seen as a mirror in which we can see our inner selves. Many of the principal characters in this novel find themselves trapped between their duty to the outside world and their duty to themselves. Among the ruling class, often it is hard to remain truthful, even to the loved ones. There is always danger, lurking both outside and inside.

DUNE, A NOVEL BY FRANK HERBERT, BOOK REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION (modaodaradosti.blogspot.com)

MORE BOOK REVIEWS CONNECTED WITH THE DUNE UNIVERSE

I REREAD THE DUNE MESSIAH BY FRANK HERBERT (+SPRING STYLING) (modaodaradosti.blogspot.com)

Book review and recommendation: Dune Messiah by Frank Herbert (modaodaradosti.blogspot.com)

Thank you for reading and visiting!