Chronic_Johnson

I should probably start by saying that I haven't read the book, and my only other exposure to "Dune" is the spicediver fan-edit of the 80s David Lynch film adaptation.

A lot of people don't like the Lynch movie, and I understand why; it's often goofy and poorly paced with a very rushed 2nd half. It's also supposedly not very faithful to the original novel, although a lot of story beats in this new adaptation from Denis Villeneuve do seem very similar to what I saw in the Lynch fan-edit. Villeneuve's movie is much better paced, and far less goofy though.

The pace is slow, the tone is serious and the atmosphere is thick (thanks largely due to the soundtrack which is very memorable and sounds incredible, aside from some typical Zimmer Inception horn cliches that need to be retired at this point).

Dune is often referred to as being something like "Game of Thrones in space", which comes across much better than it did in the Lynch version through the bloodthirsty politics and behind-the-scenes scheming of various members of different Family Houses, religious groups and even some characters' personal motivations. My favourite element to come out of this being that the lead protagonist, Paul Atreides, is having none of their BS.

I like this version of Paul Atreides much more than the David Lynch version. He doesn't like all the scheming, including that which is done by his own family, and while his character development is nothing particularly new, I do appreciate the depth put into his own personal beliefs and how this may go on to have conflicts with responsibilities he will later face.

Baron Harkonnen is also very imposing and a great villain to have on-screen. He's much more intimidating than the cartoonish take on the character in the Lynch movie, and I wish he had more screen-time.

In fact, the same can be said about a lot of characters in this movie, so hopefully we'll see a lot more in a Part 2, which absolutely needs to be greenlit.

Even so, I wouldn't say this film was all it was hyped up to be. For one, this is probably Villeneuve's weakest film, but only because this is a story that's been told before and it doesn't feel anywhere near as revolutionary as some of his previous projects, both on a technical and thematic level.

Newcomers to the Dune universe may falsely judge that the voice powers in the film are ripping off jedi mind tricks in Star Wars, even though the Dune novel came first. In fact, I'm sure a lot of comparisons to other major film franchises will be made. Hopefully this doesn't impact overall reception and lower chances of a sequel.

On repeat viewings, it may even become tedious to sit through many of the slower moments of the film that are more focused on providing great spectacle (that is bound to have much more impact in the cinema than on a TV or laptop screen) rather than telling a story or conveying a message. The cinematography, directing and acting are all brilliant, but occasionally border on wanky considering how familiar and simple the story is overall.

For all the hate that the David Lynch film received, even from Lynch himself, it did have some very unique effects and designs that - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse - will probably end up being much more recognizable than the very well-shot but also very plain, brown and grey imagery offered up by Villeneuve.

6.5/10, but leaning closer to a 6.

This gave me flashbacks to the Tom Hardy film, Locke. Both films only feature one setting, lots of phone calls and are carried by intense acting and rising stakes. It works very well, although some moments of The Guilty did take away from my immersion when the writing seems more interested in getting its messages across than maintaining realism.

It did reach a point where I thought the protagonist's behaviour was a bit over-the-top for someone working in his field, but as his personal issues are slowly revealed the viewer does get a solid reason for why he behaves the way he does. One line delivered to the protagonist by his superior near the end of the film did almost have me rolling my eyes, though.

It's worth watching for Jake Gyllenhaal's performance and the edge-of-your-seat plot developments, but it's far from Gyllenhaal's best role and it won't be making a "Best Movies of the Year" list for me.

I did like this movie's ending more than the ending for Locke, and if this film succeeded at anything, it succeeded in showing me that I'd never have what it takes to work as an emergency call-taker.

7/10.

I was looking forward to this one, as I have an interest in and enjoy analysing my own dreams and thinking about how they reflect on my waking life. The technology in the film that allows researchers to capture video images of dreams is something that actually exists in the real world and is being studied (albeit not to the extent it has reached in this movie), so the set-up for the story is a great concept to explore. I liked the creepy atmosphere and the imagery of the dream scenes. I also thought the film would have some depth to it when I noticed it has "chapters" named after psychological concepts.

Unfortunately, it quickly devolves into horror cliches that don't really go anywhere or have any point as well as a completely unearned, somewhat uncomfortable love scene.

Also, without giving too much away, the film ends on a meme I saw floating around on social media several years ago, and it's delivered with a serious tone. I'm not joking. It seems they were going for a shocking plot-twist but all it made me do was sigh.

4/10.