solidsnake1983

I think that most people who went into this film was expecting a beat for beat of the same script that was written by Bram Stockers but if that were so we would of had a film that lasted 45 mins since it was a short chapter in the novel.

This on the other hand is a more drawn out depiction of fear and distrust amongst the crew and why back in the day every man on board a ship was full of superstition. I had myself laughing at certain parts when people had to remind others that woman aboard a vessel was a bad omen or when someone is mistakenly taken for a sick individual, they would suggest draining them of blood to be cured.

Of course all nonsense, but this is how the world worked back in the day. I felt as every character had an important role to play on the ship except maybe 2 characters but otherwise solid performances all around including Hawkins, Cunningham and the boy who's name is Woody Norman. (great actor for a kid) David Dasmaltchian is a superb actor and can turn from a brave sailor to a sobbing and very frighten man.

Now I loved the Dracula look and as he kept feeding his body would morph into a strong more vicious Bat like demon, my only gripe was not actually having an actor playing Dracula in his wing bat form but a majority of the time he is flying around and sucking,slashing and even ripping bodies to shreds. I get its easier to make a CGI character than to put someone under the chair and have them go through 4-6 hours of make up but for Draculas first phase it would of helped a lot more to build that creepy and eerie look that CGI cannot convey.

I also enjoy the cinematography to the point that I was finding myself gazing upon the back drop and wondering how much was CGI and what was green screen it was very beautiful but yet unsettling under terrential downpours and darkened skies with moonlit nights.

To all those individuals that are mocking those who havent read the novel or watched Coppola's film, have a hard time determining from what is a full length movie based on a novel and what is an exploited chapter of a book and drawn out to bring depth with sorrow and despair in what a voyage of 2 weeks would feel like aboard a ship with a beast that feeds on the living. 8/10

If you love gothic horror and films that are tight and very little areas to explore such as Alien or The Thing, you will enjoy this fresh take on a classic tale.

DUNE part 1 is a film that ends on such a high note that it almost makes it worse knowing we have to wait over 2 more years to get a sequel.

When I first heard about this film, I was super excited knowing it was Dennis Villeneuve directing. He has put out solid movies in the last decade that all have achieved miraculous and exciting cinema experiences. Every scene and every character is a piece of a larger puzzle as you slowly progress in the film and embark on a journey with our hero Paul, the Savior of house Atreides.

It's very much a slow burn, but a slow burn that is needed to give explanation as to why Paul is the saviour for the people of Arrakis, why he is different from any other human being and what makes him a great leader amongst the fremen.

As I just finished watching my 2nd viewing I felt the film was just as jaw dropping and beautiful as my first viewing in theatres and I can't wait to see what is in store for the future. My only hopes is that Dennis Villeneuve makes it into 3 parts as the books are extensively long and there is so much lore and story to unfold in the world of DUNE.