Dune: Part Two

As anticipated, a thrilling watch! I enjoyed 'Dune', though remember thinking it was obviously a complete set-up to a sequel and that this would only improve upon its predecessor - and that's very much the case. 'Dune: Part Two' is excellent! My interest did wane slightly at roughly the middle part, as was similarly the case with the first film in truth, but that was a feeling that only lasted for a relativiely short time. All in all, it's fantastic. The acting is top notch, the visuals are breathtaking (those sandworms tho) and the score is outstandingly hefty - you can always rely on the great Hans Zimmer! Timothée Chalamet stars yet again, as do the likes of Rebecca Ferguson, Zendaya, Dave Bautista & Co. The person I actually enjoyed most on screen was Javier Bardem, who is truly brilliant throughout. Bring on 'Dune Messiah'! On that note, happy to read that director Denis Villeneuve has noted that he won't be rushing that one out - and rightly so!

This is certainly a great looking film to see on a big screen with some really effective, almost industrially sounding, audio - but what happened to the story? It's wafer thin and really stretched out for 2¾ hours. We pick up with "Paul" (Timothée Chalamet) and his mother (Rebecca Ferguson) trying to convince the "Fremen" that they are worth the hassle. Fortunately, leader "Stilgar" (Javier Bardem) is convinced of the messianic state of the young refugee, whilst their own reverend mother is on her last legs which might give "Jessica" a chance to prove her own worth, and provide an opportunity to peddle some embellished mythology about her son's ascendant propheteering. All of this manoeuvring and politicking is having quite an impact on "Chani" (the under-used Zendaya) and on the relationship between her and the increasingly worshipped new Duke. Meantime, now fully reinvigorated and emerged from his bath of recuperative Guinness, the evil "Baron Harkonnen" (an almost Zeppelin-like Stellan Skarsgård) has recruited his lethal nephew "Feyd-Rautha" (Austin Butler) to get to grips with the rebellion on "Arrakis" that is bringing him into the gaze of an ill-satisfied emperor (Christopher Walken). Battle lines are drawn! Now whilst I did enjoy this, the rest of the film is a gloriously photographed but slowly paced hybrid of "Khartoum" (1966) and "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) with a bit of the "Phantom Menace" (1999) thrown in for good measure. The acting is adequate but the characterisations are all too routinely sacrificed at the altar of the stunning visuals and from about an hour to go, I was convinced this this was but part two of three (or maybe even more). Walken and Charlotte Rampling feature all too sparingly to make much difference, indeed even Zendaya's warrior-like tendencies seem to have been neutered rather and I though that Chalamet just tried far too hard to imbue his character with a strength that he was far more successful with first time round. That said, it does work well enough as a classy and well produced sci-fi adventure with plenty of action and mysticism but I needed more meat on it's bones. I still get distinctly squeamish when I watch what they do with the water, let alone where they get it from!!

An absolutely mesmerizing masterpiece, breathtaking cinematography and a spellbinding soundtrack that elevate the viewing experience to unparalleled heights. It serves as a testament to the brilliance of the book series, standing as the pinnacle of sci-fi cinema history. Thanks, Villeneuve!

Great but a little long. Sexier than LotR and no hair. Yell acting. Jabba bathes in black goo and kills women horribly. Walken is hilarious. Zendaya still an addict. Bridges is a bit self-serious. Amazing visuals. Really enjoyed...was glad and a bit bored by the end. Shorter Dunes please.

Saw it on the bigger screen, which was worth it. The worms were quite large. The movie has a great way of passing across the grand scale of the world in a way that michael bay can never understand how to do with his robots movies. It did stretch on quite a bit, looking back not even sure where all the three hours went. Its just all shaping up for the big battle with a bit of political intrigue here and there. Also, still have no idea how they get off the worms or how they load up large groups of people onto the worms, like, can they stop the worms whenever they want and let people climb on, and then giddy up, but if thats the case why dont they have stabled worms ready to go.

I had to watch Dune part 1 because if I didn't, I would not have known what to expect in Dune part 2. The movie was incredible. To see it on the big screen really makes a difference. You need to see every angle possible. I understand why it needed to be that way. I loved the movie. I would watch Dune 1 and 2 over again. I didn't like the scene where Feyd-Rautha died. But it was necessry if they planned on doing a third installment for Dune. The casting for this film was picked brilliantly. It fit them like they were part of the era of Dune itself.

**Not bad** Overall, a nice movie. But it was not something extraordinary. The acting and direction were pretty average. There were a lot of editing mistakes. In some scenes, you feel like it was rushed. Some scenes feel like they are missing context. Some scenes are unnecessarily slow-paced. There were a lot of stupid and logical fallacies. First, they show how dangerous those 'worms' are and run for life. Then they show you can actually 'tame' them like a cowboy, but with immense difficulty. Then you see the whole clan with tents, food, luggage, etc., riding them for traveling. I literally couldn't hold my laughter. Well, in the end, I was entertained. Rating: 7/10

I remember the first film, no not the first in this contemporary series but the first attempt to bring the books, to cinema. In terms of contextual cohesiveness and pacing I feel it did a better job, than its latter day counterpart. I believe with this effort they are going for sweeping epic but somehow it comes across as inexplicably pedestrian. Yes cinematography is remarkable, as are CGI effects but the pacing is slow and things happen that don't come together all that well or give the sense that they are contributing, meaningfully, to the overall story. Acting is competent but again, its not remarkable, which I think is in part down to a lack of depth, in characterisations. I know this review probably wont be popular or reflective of the mainstream but I sense they are trying to do too much and as a consequence, achieving too little. In summary, visually compelling but lacking in a certain intensity and depth. Feels contextually spare and at times redundant, if that makes sense. Still worth a look if you liked the books.

First of all, it just got dark when paul called out chani's rival princess :)) Funny though! The blue thing that they called they called WATER OF LIFE is just so mysterious,,it literally controls them i suppose! I literally enjoyed that part when chani slapped paul after being consious :))) also paul is a whole bloodline bearer ig while the harkonnens are just gay :.> Also the war parts were amazing. waiting for next part!!!

As a big sci-fi/fantasy fan, I generally look forward to seeing new releases in this genre. However, when the first part of this story was released in 2021, I was sorely disappointed by this tedious, overlong slog that, despite its stunning visuals and cinematography, never really engaged me. Though, for all my disappointment with the initial installment, it can’t begin to compare to my reaction to “Part Two” – an even more tedious, unengaging, overly complicated offering that had me bored by 20 minutes in. I found myself not caring a whit about the characters or their story (which could have used a scorecard to help viewers sort out everything), and even the supposedly superior visuals of this iteration failed to capture my attention or interest. I can only conclude that I must be missing something, given the generally positive reactions and accolades this film and its predecessor have received, but I’m mystified that I haven’t yet figured out what. By all rights, the elements would appear to be in place here to make this picture succeed – a stellar cast, great special effects and the skillful directing of filmmaker Denis Villeneuve, who created such excellent works as “Arrival” (2016) and “Blade Runner 2049” (2017) – but “Part Two,” like its predecessor, just never grabbed me. To be honest, I’m truly surprised that I made it all the way through, considering the nearly constant temptation to want to fast-forward through the egregiously dull sequences (of there were many). From all this, I can only surmise that this film and the one that preceded it were created simply to milk as much box office money as possible out of the source material, despite the fact that the story isn’t captivating enough to live up to that challenge. Indeed, if you’re like me and found the first part boring, you’ll probably find this one even more tiresome and lackluster (I’m certainly glad that I waited for this one to come to streaming and didn’t waste my money on theater ticket prices). And now, as I understand it, another sequel, “Dune: Messiah,” is in pre-production to continue a story that has still yet to reach conclusion after more than five hours of screentime. Be aware that the “Dune” films are far from the quality of other lengthy trilogies like the “Lord of the Rings” and “Dark Knight” series, films that definitely hold viewer interest from start to finish. Instead, “Dune” and “Dune: Part Two” are more like such mind-numbing stand-alone offerings as “Heaven’s Gate” (1980), “Ishtar” (1987) and “Tenet” (2020) than anything of a genuinely epic nature. Treat the hype for this one with a hefty grain of salt, and don’t say you weren’t warned.