My Dune review
Posted: 30 Oct 2021, 21:34
Ok, I can write pages and pages on this but I'll keep it as brief as possible. I saw Villeneuve's adaptation of "Dune" this evening on the big screen and the very first thought that came into my mind is for anyone who has read and enjoyed the book, you must go out and see this and preferably on the big screen. This adaptation is very true to the book and the visuals are so stunning that I think even a 70" HDTV won't do them justice. The caveat to this is that for someone who has not read the book or at least have some background knowledge with the story, I can clearly see why that person might be bored or confused. The best way I can put it is that this movie is not really "friendly" to those viewers who have no prior knowledge of the story.
Secondly, comparisons with the Lynch film from 1984 are unavoidable and I have a few observations:
1. I was disappointed with the portrayals of Dr. Yueh, Piter de Vries and Thufir Hawat. I haven't quite nailed down how much of this was due to the director and how much was due to the actor but those three roles I found rather dull and forgettable. Compare this with Dean Stockwell, Brad Dourif and Freddy Jones who played those roles brilliantly. I also found it interesting just how little screen time both Piter de Vries and Dr. Yueh had when you consider that this film (part 1) was 2.5 hours long.
2. However, Jason Momoa IS Duncan Idaho as far as I'm concerned and Josh Brolin was really great as Gurney Halleck. I love Patrick Stewart but Josh Brolin was much more believable as a master swordsman than Patrick Stewart was.
3. And now we we come to Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. What really amazed me here is just how understated Stellan Skaarsgard played the role but still maintained a compelling level of creepiness and dread. This was the polar opposite of the bombastic performance by Kenneth McMillan in Lynch's Dune.
Anyway my bottom line is that this movie is a must-see for anyone who has read and is a fan of the book. For those who haven't, it really depends on what kind of scifi the person typically watches. If they only care for the action-oriented scifi like Star Wars or the JJ Abrams Star Trek then they will most likely find "Dune" to be a total bore. If they like stuff such as "2001" and "Blade Runner" then there's a good chance they will appreciate "Dune".
Secondly, comparisons with the Lynch film from 1984 are unavoidable and I have a few observations:
1. I was disappointed with the portrayals of Dr. Yueh, Piter de Vries and Thufir Hawat. I haven't quite nailed down how much of this was due to the director and how much was due to the actor but those three roles I found rather dull and forgettable. Compare this with Dean Stockwell, Brad Dourif and Freddy Jones who played those roles brilliantly. I also found it interesting just how little screen time both Piter de Vries and Dr. Yueh had when you consider that this film (part 1) was 2.5 hours long.
2. However, Jason Momoa IS Duncan Idaho as far as I'm concerned and Josh Brolin was really great as Gurney Halleck. I love Patrick Stewart but Josh Brolin was much more believable as a master swordsman than Patrick Stewart was.
3. And now we we come to Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. What really amazed me here is just how understated Stellan Skaarsgard played the role but still maintained a compelling level of creepiness and dread. This was the polar opposite of the bombastic performance by Kenneth McMillan in Lynch's Dune.
Anyway my bottom line is that this movie is a must-see for anyone who has read and is a fan of the book. For those who haven't, it really depends on what kind of scifi the person typically watches. If they only care for the action-oriented scifi like Star Wars or the JJ Abrams Star Trek then they will most likely find "Dune" to be a total bore. If they like stuff such as "2001" and "Blade Runner" then there's a good chance they will appreciate "Dune".
