Melange à Trois (Dune 2 Review)

Muad'Dib!

By , and
81

After criticized for overindulging in nerdery and Dunery, a defiant Jonah summoned David and Adaam to act as Judges of the Change and review Denis Villeneuve’s Dune 2. Spoilers ahead. All the spoilers. (Listen to part 1 of the discussion here.)

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
By , and
Comments (81)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Quinntheeskimo98

    Haven’t even seen Dune 1, but this podcast convinced me to do so, and I’ve got tickets for Dune 2 in IMAX on Thursday. You guys should 100% make this nerdfest a thing, I would listen to every episode. Maybe review Deadpool & Wolverine when it comes out? I’d also love to hear David’s thoughts on the Daredevil TV show, both the Netflix show, and the new one when I comes out next year. Keep it up guys, fantastic content!

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Nathan

    The first movie was better largely because it was closer to the book. The second deviated for two main and annoying reasons: (1) they didn't know how to write religion well. The book holds the prophecies ambiguously as real and fake. The movie never really shows the true believers as anything beyond lucky rubes. (2) They didn't know how to write a strong female character beyond a lefty girlboss stereotype. In order for Chani to be strong, she had to reject men and religion. In the books, she's remarkably strong, but not in a way Hollywood writes today. Jessica is also strong in the books, and composed; in the movie she's a mess.

    One of the consequences of this is that the ending line and the love story behind it are gone/changed: "Think on it, Chani: that princess will have the name, yet she'll live as less than a concubine—never to know a moment of tenderness from the man to whom she's bound. While we, Chani, we who carry the name of concubine—history will call us wives." It's a phenomenal ending in the book, and Chani's pouting exit in the movie is just awful by comparison.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    CarsonJ

    I'm sure two weeks later nobody else is looking at this comment section, but I finally got to see Dune 2 this past weekend, so if anybody is, were you bothered by the word "fundamentalist?" It took me out of the story to hear the newly-militant-atheist Chani using the word like she'd just stepped off her college campus.
    To be clear, I don't necessarily have a problem with this dichotomy in Fremen society, but come on, the word "zealot" is right there, conveys the same meaning, but doesn't carry the same "looking down on you" baggage of fundamentalism.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Nathan

      The writers of the movie seemed irreligious, and it hurt their writing.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CarsonJ

        Agreed. I love/loved Stilgar, and the writers treated him as a joke throughout this film.

        Collapse
  4. MWegemer

    I know other commenters have brought it up, but Jonah and David lose all credibility on this subject when they say the weirding modules were from the book. Like, whaaaaaaaat? You read the book three times, did you? You sure?

    Of course, I'm kidding about them losing credibility, but I am seriously thankful to hear Adaam express, at least, some misgivings about Paul's turn in this flick. After all the praise I've seen heaped on the film, his albeit minor criticism is nice to hear because Paul's transformation really didn't work for me and is why ...

    ... I hated this movie.

    For context, I read Dune for the first time in 2020, was quite taken with it, and have since read Messiah (Children is next on my reading list). So, I don't have the familiarity as some here who've read the whole series (multiple times in some cases), but my takeaway from Dune Part II is that it really demonizes Paul Atreides.

    The movie turns him from a well-meaning, complex character, trying to achieve his and his people's goals, while trying to avoid galactic calamity, into a cynical, heartless, power-mad dictator (and on the turn of a dime, no less). Yes, that's an element of the story, but even in Messiah, Paul is never comfortable with being a "God" and is trying to be rid of the whole damn business.

    This film tells us he's hesitant to assume his messianic role through some pretty wooden dialogue and a couple flashes of people starving to death, but it never shows or takes us on that journey with Paul. There's hardly any visualization of his prescience, of the countless possibilities he's weighing and contending with, and how he's trying to navigate those. The movie could've gotten pretty trippy in this area, and I wanted it to. The Lynch film at least tried. Instead, nothing more than lip service is paid to these ideas, so we could be subjected to a whiny, two-dimensional hero/quasi-villain, an overly emphasized Chani, and some generic sci-fi action fare.

    Anyway, I have so many other less-than-nice thoughts about this movie, but I don't want to bore everyone, so I'll just summarize: They unfairly demonize Jessica, too; as mentioned, Chani is unnecessarily overemphasized; Stilgar is a clown; Christopher Walken was a terrible choice, Mads Mikkelsen would've been so much better; I think Villeneuve just wanted to make a statement about European oppression and manipulation of indigenous peoples.

    Yes, Dune Part II is great on a technical level: cinematography, special effects, production design (although, Villeneuve's minimalist style I found a bit boring), etc., but that's all surface stuff. Any filmmaker with a $200 million budget should be able to get those things mostly right (I'm not saying they do, but they should). It's how they convey the emotional core of the story, the character arcs, the various themes and subtexts, etc. that really matters.

    And since the subtext and themes were handled so clumsily and the characterization of the main cast so off, how is this a faithful, let alone good, adaptation?

    Oh, and the score was so jarring I thought I was going to go deaf (maybe this was the theater's fault?). As much as I agree we should've seen more of the battle for Arrakeen, I'm glad we didn't. I wanted the hell out of there. If I heard one more blaring horn or belting scream, my eardrum would've exploded.

    This movie can stick a sandworm where the sun don't shine.

    #NotMyPaul #KyleMacLachlan4Evs

    Collapse
  5. Paul Bigbee

    I thoroughly enjoy the nerd corner of the Dispatch Imperium. I'd really enjoy and encourage you guys doing one of these podcasts every month or so on a specific piece of *adult* (not necessarily popular) sci-fi or fantasy TV, film or book. One recommendation: Netflix's "Blue Eye Samurai"!

    Collapse
  6. Austin from Atlanta

    While Alia is more interesting in the books, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more societal discussion of how profoundly pro-life Dune: Part Two was.

    Collapse
  7. Austin from Atlanta

    I think most of the differences between the book and the movie are going to come down to the Studio not having the balls to do to Paul's character what happens in the books, let alone do something like "God Emperor of Dune" on the big screen.

    So they have to make Paul fit more of a traditional anti-hero/Han Solo type of bold. The audience will think "sure Paul deals with moral dilemmas, but he's a pretty good guy at root...it's not like he's HITLER or anything, right...right guys....guys?" That's why Chani had to be completely rewritten as moral-dilemma-personified and why the Great Houses have to want to fight Paul.

    It's much easier for audiences to invest themselves in a good guy making hard choices than in a family of merciless autocrats doing awful, oppressive, genocidal things in the short-term for what they believe is the long-term good of humanity thousands of years from now.

    Collapse
  8. J+m

    All for more nerdery! I appreciated these discussions and would love to hear David and Jonah (and Adaam if he's watched/read it) talk about the Expanse. Is it possibly one of the best book to screen adaptations? (Biased response is yes, in the top five for sure.) if it has to be tied to punditry/current events, could we use it as a good primer for the intricacies of international relations?

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Rhbrowne

    No one mentioned one of the most obvious mistakes made in the movie. In the fight scene in the book, Paul is cut (scratched) by Feyd’s knife, but he is not stabbed. Feyd also has a poison needle on his hip that he tries unsuccessfully to use on Paul - but it’s not in the movie. Okay, fine. But in the movie Feyd stabs Paul in his abdomen (depending on where such a stab occurred - and this one looks like it’s in the gut, not merely on his side abdominal muscle - it would be fatal). Watch the movie: when Paul pulls back after he is stabbed, the knife is in his lower left abdomen. But at the end when he stabs Feyd and then backs up and pulls the knife out, it’s in his upper right chest near the right shoulder. A debilitating wound, but one he could easily survive. Amazing that no one shooting that scene (or the make-up artist) didn’t say, “Um, we’ve got a little problem here.”

    Collapse
    1. Austin from Atlanta

      Paul was stabbed twice in the movie. He uses the abdomen knife to kill Feyd while Feyd stabs him in the upper chest.

      I think the biggest miss in that scene is that they didn't make it more clear that Feyd "cheated," leaving people to wonder if Paul pulled a second, secret knife.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Erik Martin

    From the trailer it looked like a gratuitous killing, but in context my impression was that Feyd-Rautha was testing out his new gladiatorial knives to see how they performed, so it wasn't completely gratuitous. (Not that I'm endorsing that method of testing knives.)

    Collapse
Load More