Dune: Part Two

Well, I liked it more than the first part. I wasn't as bored by it (I can't say I was bored at all, really), and the action was definitely well-staged. All the pluses I mentioned in my review of the first stand here, in that it is exquisitely shot and framed. The world of Arrakis and the universe of Dune have never felt more real. The action is exciting, never feeling like a CGI orgy. *coughrecentMCUmoviescough* But characterization continues and miscasting continues to be a huge problem, and a new problem -- unnecessary alterations from the book -- arises that keep this, in my opinion, from being the five star affair everyone else sees. Let's start with old business: the character flaws and miscasting. After two movies, I'm convinced Denis Villeneuve couldn't care less about developing characters. That or he doesn't know how. Supporting characters that were starved for attention in the first movie fare no better here; Beast Rabban (Dave Bautista) is still nothing more than a blustering brute. Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård) is still nothing more than a stock bad mastermind. Lady Jessica is (Rebecca Ferguson) literally exists for two reasons: to be a translator for her unborn child (don't ask), and to hector Paul with "you have to fulfill the prophecy" talk. Gurney Halleck (Josh Brolin) returns from the dead to just be another soldier. What about new characters? Well, Stilgar (Javier Bardem) is Flanderized in the most literal interpretation possible; just like Ned Flanders has been reduced to an overbearing religious fanatic on The Simpsons, that's all Stilgar is too. He is nothing but faith and praising Paul as the messiah. The Emperor (Christopher Walken), his daughter Irulan (Florence Pugh), and Feyd-Rautha Harkonnnen (Austin Butler), have bar napkin personalities. As in, whatever could be scribbled on the back of a bar napkin; Irulan is observant, the Emperor is old, Feyd-Rautha is a sociopath. The end. That leaves the two main characters, Paul and Chani, which is where the real trouble sets in. Chani (Zendaya) is a Freman warrior. She is distrusting of Paul; he is an outsider, he is not native to the planet or the Freman, and she does not believe in the messianic prophecies surrounding Paul (Timothée Chalamet) ... except that, literally in back to back scenes, she suddenly does, because the plot needs her to. There is no natural progression, no evolution of her character that illustrates her growing feelings and admiration and love for Paul. Chani goes from eyeing him with distrust and resentment, to eyeing him with care and affection, to kissing him, all in back to back scenes, with no more than a day having elapsed. And just as suddenly, when the movie needs someone to call out Paul's acceptance of the prophecy (a change from the book I will get to and have many words to say about), she suddenly shifts again. Chani has no agency in this movie whatsoever; she is a plot device, moved around by whatever the story needs her to be, leveraged like an asset. Paul (who also has significant and irritating changes from the book) continues to be the dullest person in this story, which is kind of a problem for being the lead. I never believed him as a young pup coming into the tribe looking to prove himself, nor a capable warrior, nor the chosen one. He's at least more lively in this, but Timothée Chalamet cannot bring Paul to life as anything more than a cliche. Worse yet, he and Zendaya have the chemistry of a fish and a blacksmith's anvil. You know that Folger's commercial that airs at Christmastime, where the brother comes home in secret to surprise everyone and the sister finds out and they're chatting in the kitchen? They have more romantic chemistry than Chalamet and Zendaya, and they're portraying siblings in a 30 second coffee advert. And now, the new problem: the changes from the book. I've said before I'm not a "the movie must be 1:1 with the book or I reject it" person, and I stand by that. But if a movie is going to be made of the book, whatever changes are made shouldn't undermine the book's themes and messages. It's a major reason why I despise The Shining; Stanley Kubrick's hack job of the script fundamentally and comprehensively misunderstands the book and reduces it to haunting and possession. It is clear to me that Denis Villeneuve does not understand the themes and messaging of Dune as a book, and the changes made to it for the film show that. Dune's story in the book is carefully and meticulously layered in a precise way to feed the narrative. The Emperor in the book is cunning and ruthless, a man who has let the power of the throne blind him to friendships in favor of preserving his seat, his pride blinding him to being out-flanked; The Emperor in this movie is a doddering old fool, clinging to life and his seat, easily manipulated by everybody around him. Chani's changes are equally bizarre and undermine the plot in different ways; in the book, she is a capable warrior, and through training with Paul and Jessica in the Bene Gesserit martial arts, the love between her and Paul blooms. She accepts that Paul has to marry Irulan in the end because of political reasons, knowing that while she'll carry no title, she'll have his heart. There is no trace of the bitterness or skepticism, no reactionary resistance to his being an outsider. In the movie, though, she is apprehensive and distrusting, until the plot decides to jerk her in the direction it needs, building to the monumentally stupid change in the ending, which sees Chani so upset at the political maneuvering of Paul that she abandons him and goes back to the desert. There is literally no reason for this change, and it makes the plotline of the next book (scheduled to be the next movie) impossible. Paul's changes are even worse, though, because they strike at the heart of Dune. Many people have decried Dune for it's "outsider savior" story, pointing out the racism and the themes of colonialism. The second part of that is true ignorance, as the Freman become the dominant force in the galaxy; kinda hard for them to be colonized when they become the colonizers, but I digress. Dune was never about exalting a white guy coming to save an indigenous tribe of people and championing colonialism; it was about the perils of blind worship, of putting one's life in the hands in a charismatic leader because one is desperate for change, and about the power of myth. It exposes the fragile interconnected relationships in government and economy, what drives them, and how easily they're broken and manipulated by outside forces. In the first half of the book (which is more or less the first movie), Paul sees first hand what the machinations of government and religion can result in. The second half is about how, knowing of the Bene Gesserit's planting of the myth of an off-world savior and his own genetic birthright through the Bene Gesserit's breeding program to be that messianic figure (even if it was meant to be the next generation that would fulfill the destiny), Paul exploits this to his advantage. He does love the Fremen, but he also sees his opportunity to strike back and break the system once and for all. He is more cynical about it all, and while does not run from his fate, he sees it as a means to an end. It can, somewhat simplistically, be boiled down to "if this is what you want, this is what you'll get". The Paul of this movie, however, has all these edges worn down. He is conflicted, he resists, he pushes back until circumstances force him to embrace it, and then he dives head first into it because suddenly he's The Chosen One. There is no nuance to this version of Paul. He is the stock reluctant leader character, re-molded from the book to give him a shop-worn character arc that's about as arc-like as a parenthesis. The Paul of the book is giving the Bene Gesserit what they've schemed for for centuries and ramming it down their throats; he's giving the Fremen worst version of the messiah they crave and giving them license to raze the galaxy; he consolidates faith and government under one banner in an effort to break the system entirely. The movie version of Paul is flattened. He is Inigo Montoya with an army and none of the charm. His goals exist because the script needs them to. By altering Paul, the script betrays not only him but its themes. It cannot get the messages across, because Paul, as a vehicle for those themes, is incapable of doing so. This Paul isn't a testament to the dangers of blind faith and hero worship. He's basically got the same story arc here as the frat in Animal House. Despite giving it the same score as the first half, I did enjoy this movie more. But it's still just as fundamentally flawed as the first one, just for different reasons. It shows a total misunderstanding of the source material, doubles down on poor writing, and buries a great cast behind two leads that feel like same-pole magnets being forced together. If you have no prior experience with Dune, and have seen the first one, it's fine. It'll keep your intertest. But if you know the story, this is, in my opinion, the least interesting way to experience it. Arrakis itself has never felt more real, but I’ve never felt less interested in its story or characters than with this version.