It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I found this latest version of Dune in many ways the most disappointing yet, with poor story-telling, and under developed, unengaging characterisation.
Example, Gurney Halleck. This movie’s Gurney is completely one dimensional, displaying few of the subtleties of the book character, the gruff humour or knowledge of poetry and music, which help to make his character come alive for an audience.
Example Thufir Hawat. The concept of the Mentat is an important and interesting aspect of the book, yet barely mentioned in the film, while Hawat himself just disappears, apparently never to be seen again. Ditto Piter de Vries, a Mentat villain who made a deep impression on me when I first read the book as a teenager, but is a complete non-entity here.
Example Baron Harkonnen. Machiavellian in the book he’s a cardboard cut-out villain here. Visually compelling but empty.
I recognise that whenever a book is made into a movie decisions need to be made over what to include and what leave out, because a book generally contains far more depth than can be communicated in an hour and a half (or even in two or three or four hours). However, even allowing for that, so much has been left out of Villeneuve’s Dune that the story is rendered bland and generic, devoid of many of the necessary details which make a story coherent and engaging.
If the book is admittedly dialogue heavy, then this movie is dialogue light, a better balance is needed if the potential of the story is ever to be achieved satisfactorily on screen.
If more running time was required then why not make a trilogy? Audiences almost expect it these days (and in fact there is a third movie in the works now). Were the producers not prepared to show the level of commitment that the LOTR makers did?
Some suggest that Dune the book is impossible to film, but having watched the 2000 TV version I don’t agree. That production tells the story far better, while still making a number of erroneous choices and adding in un-necessary story elements that were not from the book.
Much has been made of the impressive visual aspects of this film, but even here the Director appears to be something of a “one trick pony”, as we are repeatedly shown images depicting humans as ants dwarfed by gigantic machines or ships or structures, a concept which becomes a gimmick and soon gets old. The sand worms are not much different than in other versions, just rendered with superior CGI. The desert city is derivative of “Blade Runner” (no surprise as Villeneuve directed the belated sequel) which, of course, is itself derivative of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Multiple moons hanging in the sky are nothing new either, although strangely these ones seem to remain in the same relative position at all times, which seems highly unlikely. Caladan seems almost as barren as Dune, except damp instead of dry, whereas my understanding is that it should be lush and green and forested. Interiors seem uniformly dark and dingy and too sparsely furnished. (I did love the ornithopters though)
The wait for the ideal screen adaptation of Dune continues…
I generally find RW utterly unfunny and thus prefers him in his dramatic roles. In DPS, he just gets out of character in a few key moments early on which always unnerved me. And that's one of the lesser issues I have with the film.
For drama, I might agree. But the one I love most is Hook.
My personal favourite is One Hour Photo. I love the ambiguity he brought to the character: he's a sympathetic villain, yet still a creep.
I totally forgot about that movie.
Here's a controversial opinion: my favorite Robin Williams movie is POPEYE. Pure nostalgia.
Another possibly controversial opinion: my favorite STAR WARS movie is STAR WARS (1977). Then JEDI and EMPIRE.
To date I haven't seen the most recent films.
I think the best Superman movie is SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, and it's my favorite of the Reeve films and anything that's come after. That's not too controversial..........but this probably is:
My all time favorite Superman movie is SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN (1951).
Force Awakens is the only SW sequel worth watching IMO
Whoa - now that’s a solid controversial opinion! Not even Empire worth it :O
I should watch PATCH ADAMS again. I saw it Christmas Day in '98, and it just didn't hit the spot. I may give it another try again all these years later.
Lol. Should have specified. I meant from the new trilogy
@Seve
Having now read the FH Dune novels (and actively working my way through all of BH/KJA's Dune novels), I both disagree and agree with you.
I think Dune is, indeed, hard to take to film, so any version we ever see will most likely be a work of choices and compromises. Lynch's film tried to stuff too much in one film; both TV series were overly long and extremely dull at times. Villeneuve's Dune films are the ones I prefer. Though they give certain characters the short end of the stick, they allow us the time we need to adjust to this world. This is particularly useful because, to those who haven't read the books, Dune presents a complicated world to get into. In choosing not to include every single aspect of the books, and by leaving some characters more one-dimensional, the films ease first-timers into this unique creation. The first time I saw the film, I hadn't read the books, and both the 1984 film and the TV series had lost me somewhere along the way. Villeneuve's film is the only one to make some sense to me the first time around. Now that I have read the books, I can see what you're getting at, though.
Nevertheless, I love the visuals, from start to finish. Combined with Zimmer's great score, they never lose their appeal. In fact, as with my favourite movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dune is as much a visual treat as it is a well-told story in my humble opinion.
That all said, we have been robbed of what could have been the most bonkers interpretation of Dune ever achieved on film: Jodorowski's Dune. If only...
Controversial for critics, maybe not for audiences. Little I saw of it, I hated it.
Shakespeare In Love is grossly overrated, superficial and undeserving of its Oscar winnings. Nothing Like the Sun by Anthony Burgess is everything SIL failed to be.
Robin Williams was a unique comedian, not to everyones taste, on the one hand manic and on the other an excessivley sentimental personality.
His special characteristics and skills were hard to capture to best effect in a structured context like a move, and onlt a few of his comedys were able to utilise them very well. This is not an uncommon problem with great comdians / comedic actors in movies. Vehicles that allow them to show off the various facetes of their talent are few and far between. Peter Sellers would be another example for me, he was also very talented but most of his films aren't that good IMHO.
In Robin's case "Good Morning Vietnam" came closest to allowing him to display the full range of his anarchic, scattergun, motormouth style of humour to best effect, but even then, the second half of the film is dragged down a bit by the overly sentimental side of him which I don't enjoy so much.
I recently found an audio file of out takes and rehearsals for his monologues in that film, on Youtube, which felt a bit like watching Peter Jackson's Beatles documentary "Get Back" in that it gave the listener a facinating insight into the creative process. Robin riffing off the top of his head, then sifting through the material to decide what worked and what didn't, then going again, incorporating some of the existing material while contiueing to riff for new stuff. I recomend it to those who are admirers of his
"Mrs Doubtfire" would be the other mainstream comedy he did which I can enjoy. Again there is the split personality on display, the manic purely comedic Mrs Doubtfire herself and the sentimentality of the father. (plus a nice comic cameo from Pierce Brosnan).
"The Fisher King" is the other film of his which I think shows off his talent best, however it's not exacltly a comedy by any means. Terry Gillium's surrealist masterpiece in my opinion, with manic Robin and sentimental Robin both on full throttle.
I enjoyed "DPS" but Robin's role is only a scene stealing supporting one. I think I only ever had one teacher like that and everyone loved him. It was during the last year of High School, so the ideal time to have a teacher who was more like a wise friend, pushing you to find your true self, just as structured school was ending and real life fast approaching.
On the dramatic side I thought he was great in "Insomnia" and decent in "One Hour Photo" but clearly he was born to be a comedian in his soul, so I wish he'd had more quality roles that allowed him to express that side.
Never read the books, just going on my cold watches... Lynch's Dune fascinated me from my first viewing. The VHS came with a booklet- a glossary of words and phrases which I read front to back. I always felt like something was missing from the film, like it was a production on the very edge of greatness... a splinter in my mind's eye. I've watched it so many times now. Both the theatrical & the extended versions (theatrical is better).
I just wish I loved Villeneuve's Dune movies as much as my offspring. May do a double feature some time in the near future to give them another shot.
For the life of me, I've never been able to enjoy any of Terrence Malick's films. Even Badlands.
Days of Heaven is brilliant. The imagery in that film is stunning in addition to recreating images based on famous paintings. Dropping the wine glass in the river is one of my favorite scenes. DOH and Badlands are so similar and so wonderful. I haven't cared for much after those two films.
The cinematography and imagery were great, but I couldn’t get invested in the characters or the story much. Things only got particularly interesting in the last 25 minutes or so for me. I did want to try Badlands at least eventually, but often times a director’s style just won’t gel with me too well.
It's funny because I think Trevelyan is a villain with too many motivations. Sometimes less is more.
What's Rupert Murdoch's motivation? Money and power, it's pretty clear.
Not sure this is really an 'other movies' opinion either, it's one for the thread about Bond movies.
I can’t fault his films visually. But I just don’t like them, or at least get much out of them (and I’ve tried). That said Malick seems like a genuinely interesting person.
There are other directors who I admire, but whose films I just don’t like. Ari Aster’s another one (I like horror films a lot, but for some reason never got along with Hereditary or even Midsommar). To a much lesser extent I’d say the same about Christopher Nolan too (although he has more movies I like).