As I wrote several times on this blog and I will probably mention it at least once in this text, I have known "Dune" since I was a child. My first contact with this title was the game "Dune 1" by Cryo Interactive studio (an adventure game with elements of strategy). I played it briefly, literally a few days, because I came with my mother to visit my uncle, who then instilled in me a love for RTS games. It was the first time I played a game that built the foundations for my favorite type of computer game. This time, this title was created by Westwood - a studio that will later give the world two very important products - "Command and Conquer" and "Command and Conquer: Red Alert". "Dune 2" has aged worse than "Doom 1" but still has its vibe and some elements have been treated well by the relentless passage of time. I read the book for the first time when I was 10 or 13 years old. I liked it, but like this child - I was not able to appreciate it being a young, human being. A different film by David Lynch, which, for reasons I do not understand, was so criticized. It was a pretty good adaptation of the book - in fact, it had some simplifications compared to the original, some things were presented too quickly, but from the perspective of all the book adaptations I know in general, Lynch did a really good job. From the perspective of the new adaptation, it could have been a lot worse. Well, a new film ... This one also has its drawbacks, but I am far from the critical opinions of some reviewers, or admiration that gives this film a rating of 9/10 or 10/10. I am closer to the latter group.
Was there too much talk, boredom and excessively dragged out in the movie? I do not believe so. Ie. yes, some fragments were too long or misrepresented (and I mean mainly the finale - meeting the Fremen and Chani), but in my opinion, people who criticize the film in this regard are exaggerating. Or otherwise, I am surprised by those who are interested in films like me - they like to watch them, pay attention to the quality of performance in various fields - character creation, script, using its potential, directing, pace, editing and more. Even though I sometimes overly criticize mass entertainment cinema myself, I am not a fan of serious, bangs of crap cinema. What matters most to me is fun, whether it's for the body (spectacular action, editing, pretty heroines, depiction of epic or battle scenes) or the soul (script, brilliant dialogues, lots of good symbolism and spiritual elements, general thought-provoking). Dune provides a little pleasure for the body and a little more for the soul. I will probably be exposed to book fans, but "Dune", despite all my love for this world (and I know it from games, movies and books), has aged a bit. Of course, taking into account when it was created and what was the state of knowledge of the people of that time, it is an impressive work that deserved the cult that it is endowed with. However, looking at the latest adaptation, from my perspective, despite a few things that I genuinely liked and found interesting (and I remembered about them only after seeing them), it seemed empty to me. Sure, the film deals with many important topics that are relevant today, or rather - especially today (finding your destiny, role in this world, approaching fear and courage, tempering character, presenting the fanaticism of its role, behind-the-scenes political games, instrumental treatment of religion on example of the Bene Gesserit order), but during the screening I felt as if there were not enough of them, and the film was such a cluster of pretty scenery, wise slogans, which are at least worth considering.
It's hard for me to put it into words now. I can also express myself badly to mean something else, but I think it could have been better portrayed after all. More modern and less imitative than David Lynch's book and film. Before book fans get their guns ready to shoot me for heresy, let me finish. The film is really good in every way, I would have to show a lot of bad will to criticize it for any aspect of it on any point. In every way, even back to the point of the paragraph above, IMO is good at least. If I were to rate it on a 10-point scale, it seems to me that every important element of this film (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) would be a 7/10. I just see, for example, a very experienced player in a given genre (eg RTS), how much could be done in a new game of this genre, and how much was done. I know, it might sound funny from the perspective of a person who gets excited sometimes with just anything, but it just feels like that. I think Denis Villeneuve could do a bit more after "Arrival" or especially "Blade Runner". Ok, at times I was more bored there, but I didn't have that feeling. It probably results from the fact that I watched those films for the first time on a working day, and "Dune" on Saturday. However, in the position I am reviewing, I see a larger field to be used. In my opinion, those pictures made better use of the possibilities offered by the script or previous materials and films. And closing this and the previous paragraph with a clamp, as my friend Łukasz said - "When Dune is too long-winded, I already know that today people only watch popcorn movies." I agree, the screening for both of us also passed surprisingly quickly. When it comes to my girlfriend's opinion, the movie was too long for her. However, she does not like these types of movies, and also does not know the source material. On the other hand, I consider the opinions of such people to be important for the next parts. Many are not familiar with these books, the brand itself was not very strong in games and series. The first ones came out a long time ago - the medium "Dune 2000" and an interesting and good game, although IMO known by few players of "Emperor: Battle for Dune". Apparently, the second ones were released ... Well, their quality was, so to speak, "discussion", which resulted from a poor budget. Therefore, the opinion of such viewers is important, and for her the film was boring.
As for the plot, "Dune" is a story that takes place many thousands of years in the world we are currently observing. If I remember correctly, before the events of the first volume, there was a war between artificial intelligence and humans (was the creator of "Terminator" inspired by it? Hehe. I'm joking, of course, when James Cameron came up with the idea for this film, probably such visions for the future are not they were nothing new.) I don't remember the details, but it was Butlerian Jihad. Generally, if I were to summarize it, imagine modern times, but several times worse in terms of the deterioration of humanity. As my colleague Michał said - something like in the world of "Wall-E" - people indulge in pure hedonism, they do not develop, and whoever stands still, involuntarily withdraws. At least in some respects. Referring to the previous paragraphs, I regret that Denis Villeneuve tried to make a faithful adaptation of the 1st volume, because if he had developed this concept a bit more at the expense of the original book, we would have got something better ... Assuming he would have done it well. And the potential is big, just remember the recent failure of Facebook and the sounds of cracking influencers' dups, who had nothing to do with the excess of free time.
Ok, I'm not bored anymore. The universe created by Frank Herbert is like "Legend of the Galactic Heroes" - humanity has left Earth, colonized other planets, our population has increased dramatically, we have created technology beyond our imagination. There are no more states, they have been replaced by families ruling planets or planetary systems and organizations operating as corporations unknown to us, in the sense - corporations operating on a cosmic scale. I'm talking about Atreides, Harkonens, Planetary Guild etc. The most important planet in this world is Arrakis, better known as Dune. A desert planet with much worse conditions than in African or Australian deserts. Not only because of the temperatures or hardly available water, but also giant maggots that react to the slightest movement and without moving in a specific way, imitating the desert winds, the walk will end up quickly eaten by the worm. However, it has something that is nowhere else in the world - Spice. It is a substance that expands the perception of the perception of the world, extends life and enables space travel. It is ruled by the Emperor, who transferred power to the Atreides, and at the same time took away from the Harkonnen. The head of the latter family, Vladimir Harkonnen, unable to accept the loss of the addictive spice, as well as the enormous profits, decided to take revenge on the Atreides.
The cast makes a huge impression, just look at the names - only known faces. A lot of talented actors have been assembled (in my opinion, wasting their potential in some cases - why take Josh Brolin to a few fairly standard scenes?), Which I haven't seen in a long time except for event movies like "Avengers". It is a pleasant sight when all the relevant actors do not go below a certain level and at least do their job well. Aside from the case of Josh Brolin, I saw nothing wrong. When it comes to these "controversial" cases, such as the gender change of one of the heroes of the book, or the selection of Timothée Chalamet as Paul, I do not mind. The first case is a character from the second or even third plan, without much impact on the story. Second case ... Well, Chalamet is a skinny guy with a smaller stature than Kyle MacLachlan (Paul from Lynch's movie) and I understand people who might be bothered by it, but for me it was ok. The actor did everything right and his dimensions did not bother me. in the eyes while watching a movie. As for my favorites, only Rebecca Ferguson made a big impression on me. This does not mean that the other actors performed poorly - quite the opposite. Just none of them had a WOW effect in me. Another member of the Bene Gesserit order - I enjoyed watching her balance between her responsibilities to the order and her motherly feelings for Paul. She felt that she was a strong female character, which some creators do inept (such as Ray from the new SW trilogy or Mulan from the new Disney adaptation). She uses female attributes very well, which men show less often, and in addition, her acting skills are at a very high level.
I liked the special effects and the raw styling of this world, but it did not knock me to my knees. Except for the design of the Ornithopters, which look great, whether while flying or standing on landing sites. But it seems to me that apart from these planes, they could have been made better - maybe it was worth giving up some famous actors and spending the money on improving the quality of special effects and CGI? What I liked the least was the dials, which in this movie only look like an aura. Maybe I didn't take a good look at them during the screening, but do I only have the impression that they were only an ornament? In the old movie, we saw the weapons slowly penetrating the shields, and the warriors had to attack just as quickly for the strike to take effect. It looked much better and more spectacular here, but I felt a cognitive dissonance with what I was reading in the book and seeing in Lynch. As for the rest, I'll repeat it - it was correct, I can't use other terms like "good job", "7/10" etc. but I saw nothing that deserved more praise. I had slightly higher expectations after the beautiful, but gray "Blade Runner 2049". I wanted to see something comparable to those neon lights and holograms.
As for music, I don't normally understand the admiration of Hans Zimmer. Maybe I didn't search the web very thoroughly, but I found positive feedback mostly. I do not question that this is a talented composer who has recorded a lot of great songs (I included a 1-hour version of the theme music for "Rain Man" on purpose), but his best years have been behind him for a long time. Kind of like Steven Spielberg, who hasn't really done any good in years and is still credited as an authority figure. Either a student who had a talented brother or sister, or his primary school was also his junior high school (I don't know if this is what it looks like abroad - I speak in the context of Poland when I was a student myself or in the time of my parents), and the teachers remembered him as good student and treat him better than others because he has made a name for himself. What they all have in common is that they collect positive feedback for nothing. If that's not the case, I'm not saying that Zimmer has been recording weak or medium songs for years, because sometimes he will record a very good soundtrack, but he can definitely do more. "Dune" is another case where it cuts off coupons from its former popularity, which it has been doing for years. Is it wrong? It depends. I do not forbid him, I wish such work to every human being, but this does not mean that he should not be assessed. If this soundtrack was created by someone inexperienced, I would rate it positively, but for someone with a great track record, I have higher expectations. I expect more from Zimmer than just good craftsmanship. Repetitive cliche songs that were predictable. The music was well suited to the video scenes and fits the climate of the desert planet Arrakis, but none of the songs won my heart or evoked any feelings in me. Just a correct, cliché work - like a talented, but lazy student who can do more, and who did just enough to get no more than just a 4 on a 6-point scale. I didn't remember any song unlike the David Lynch movie or the Westwood studio game ("Dune 2"). Although I appreciate both products, I am not so nostalgic about them that makes it difficult to make a reliable assessment. Until I turned on the soundtrack to the old movie and it is much better than what I heard in the adaptation from 2021.
All in all, "Dune" is just a good movie and a nice adaptation, but nothing else. I was expecting a great movie like "Blade Runner 2049" or "Arrival", to which I will be returning every few years (more often not, so as not to spoil the enjoyment of the screening), and I only got a good picture. Well done job, I don't regret the lost time, but I will not remember this movie in 10 years' time except for the fact that such an adaptation took place. Such 7 or 7.5 / 10.
Thank you Michał for help with the substantive review.
