PK_71

Rarely do you see a part one that is as clearly half a film, half a story as this one. Despite being more than 2,5 hours long, telling a story that is really not that complicated, not that unique, it only gets halfway. But I really like it, and I have seen it multiple times. This time, I rewatched it the day before I was, finally, going to be able to see part two. And I still liked it.

Denis Villeneuve has made several films that I like a lot, such as Sicario and Arrival, and with both of those he managed to tell compelling stories in only two hours. So what did he do differently here, and why do I like it?

From just watching Dune: Part One, my guess is that with this one Mr. Villeneuve had the confidence to take his time. I'm not mainly talking about his self-confidence, but the confidence of his investors.

The result is a beautiful movie, at times even visually stunning, that is never in any rush. It allows itself to dwell, to linger. Scenes are allowed to play out in full, allowing the viewer to enjoy, even ponder each one, before being flung into the next one.

I'm reminded of a review of the first Star Wars movie that I read many, many years ago, comparing the difference in pace compared to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Well, Dune: Part One is in some ways somewhere in between, with some intense fighting scenes similar to those in the Star Wars franchise, but with most of the film being more similar in pace to that of Kubrick's classic. But while I'm not as huge a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey as most people, I thoroughly enjoyed Dune: Part One. If you're in the right mood, attentive, but relaxed, I think you will really enjoy it.

This could have been a good film. Quite a few things about it are good, and it's not that far off overall. For me personally, however, there are also important aspects of the film that hold it back, that prevent it from being great. Close, but no cigar.

I normally like Daniel Auteuil, but in Caché he doesn't do it for me. I think that a big part of it is the character. I just don't find the main character believable. That is not only because of Daniel Auteuil's acting, or even mainly about that, it's about about the writing and the direction. The twists and turns of the story, and the reactions of the protagonist to them, just don't add up to me. Sorry.

If you like the first two installments of this movie franchise, you'll like this one as well. The Equalizer 3 is about as good as the second one, with the original film head and shoulders above both of the sequels.

Director Antoine Fuqua has proven many times that he knows how to produce an aesthetically impressive scene, and there are a few in this film as well. The story, however, is not entirely convincing. But at least there is a story, in contrast to the wildly successful John Wick movies, where the creators didn't even bother to take a stab at that, but went all-in on jaw-dropping (sometimes literally) aesthetics.

I would do anything to be in Denzel's physical shape, but even he can't hide the fact that he's getting older. Nine years after the original film, it is increasingly difficult to find the fight scenes credible. Dakota Fanning's character isn't very convincing either.

Don't watch this movie, unless you already saw the first one and liked it. But if you did, then do. (Duh, it's a sequel, stupid.)