Rent Dune: Part Two (2024)

I Can't Think Why It's Called Dune? - Dune: Part Two review by Strovey

It is fair to say that Denis Villeneuve has an unerring eye for science-fiction/fantasy on an epic scale and as such would surely have been the only person up to directing the much-vaunted, exceedingly difficult-to-put on the silver-screen, Dune.

For the record, I have tried to read the Dune novels but perhaps they are too epic for me but I got some way into them but never finished. So, I am not a massive fan steeped in the lore. This I believe helps. It is impossible to not read opinions about either Dune movie before watching them due to their size and publicity. It seems to be there are only two views, 10 out of 10 will brook no criticism, or 4 out of 10 not the novels, missed ‘this stuff’ out.

I think I am in the middle somewhere. I really enjoyed the first film showing those in charge, the aristocracy if you like, in an epic story and they were not a-holes. That is good. The battling and death were epic and extremely violent, although military tactics, like so many films, seemed a bit 9-year-old in the sandbox with toy soldiers basic to me. Does no one sneak about and use tactics in these places, ever?

Dune: Part Two carries on where we left off, Paul, played with ease by Timothy Chalamet, who has the world at his feet at the moment, is now ensconced with the ‘Freman’ and although not fully trusted is part of their movement. Supported fully by the impressive and very believable Javier Badam and despite the sincerity of all characters involved my overriding feeling was ‘religious nutters’ – in real life, they would be ISIS or some right-wing conservative Christian supremacists.

As much as I like Dave Bautista and Stellan Skarsgard the baddies in this story are too bad, ridiculously psychopathic with immense armies, and it is clearly shown how immense they are, who obey everything they say despite the fact they might kill any one of them for no reason at any time on a whim. Ceausescu anyone?

The pacing focuses way too much on the machinations of the Freman, interspersed with a few raids on the baddies, which seemed a bit too easy, as the invaders seem hopelessly incompetent. So endlessly traipsing around deserts whilst story-building may keep some interested but my attention started to wane.

The ending ties everything up neatly, and to my mind seemed like childish wishful thinking for those who think the world is fair. Everyone got what they wanted, all those who had to die met their ends at the hands of those they had wronged – genuinely this took me out.

The special effects, cinematography and huge story are to be applauded, the acting ranges from believable great to a bit no-energy and perfunctory, I preferred one of the actors when he was traipsing around Bristol recently, and the story for all its adult-orientated serious world-building of political and religious intrigue also had moments of childish simplicity that took me out of what I was watching. Was it originally Herbert or the scriptwriters? Honestly, I do not know.

Dune: Part Two simply put was watchable, very well made and continued the story in a linear and understandable way, but at times it was a bit too ‘really?’ and it was way, way too long. Also, religious nutters do not heroes make.

Disappointing - Dune: Part Two review by AB

Why do directors who take on legendary books like Dune or LOTR think they know better than the authors? LOTR part 1 started out well enough but 2 started to diverge from the book storyline and by 3 was unrecognisable. And the same is happening with Dune. Where is Alia? It's either the longest pregnancy in history or Paul takes control of the Femen in record time. The rift between Paul and Chani is just made up. Who are the southern fundamentalists? Jessica never would have manoeuvred Paul into drinking the water of life. There is so much that's changed from the book to no good purpose that I'm not going to bother with 3

It's OK, but I ultimately preferred Lynch's 1984 version. - Dune: Part Two review by LC

David Lynch's 1984 version of 'Dune' is certainly not without it's flaws, and splitting the story over two films certainly gives this new adaptation the edge when it comes to narrative cohesion. However, on every other level, this feels like a step down. Where Lynch's version was filled with eye-popping design, colourful cinematography, and bizarre characters, this all feels very dull and worthy. The monotone color palette is matched by monotone performances, bland design and languid pacing, making this a bit of a snoozefest in comparison. For all it's missteps, the 1984 'Dune' was always visually interesting - this tells the story faithfully, but is pretty boring in comparison.