User Reviews

This is what Hollywood needs. A great story with a great director/producer. After that the best thing a studio can do is get the hell out of the way and let artists create art.

Dune Part 2 is creative, beautiful, tragic, and mesmerizing. Never once did I get bored or anticipate what was going to happen next. I haven't read the book so I have nothing to compare it to.

Denis Villeneuve continues to amaze me with the effort he puts into each of his films. The acting in this film was top notch too. We saw it in IMAX and the sound was earth shattering. If you're gonna see this movie, see it on the largest screen possible.

Phenomenal stuff. I'll probably calm down tomorrow but right now my heart's beating like crazy and my brain's screaming it's a bloody masterpiece. This is one of the few movies that I didn't try to control my expectations beforehand and it still surpassed them in many ways.

"Power over spice is power over all"- that kinda turned out to be a lie at the end. As The movie starts, I felt an immediate sense of tension through its score. It's a cinematic experience; I can't imagine feeling the same lying at home in bed, watching in headphones. The resonating vibrations as the sounds reverberate through the theater created an epic atmosphere.

When Part One came out people said it was "game of thrones in space", I wasn't really taken by that as much, especially since people said the same about Apple TV's Foundation series. So I just enjoyed the movie as Dune and bore no comparisons. After watching part two however I see it; the world building, the politics, the epic grandeur of it all.

However, the first half of Dune Part Two is pretty grounded and calm, delving into the lives of the Fremen. It almost feels like two distinct movies, the first half intricately setting the stage for the climactic third act and reinforcing character connections established in Dune Part One. Unlike the Part One's focus on lore, this movie is more devotion-driven, also resembling a political narrative, especially knowing of the hidden puppeteers behind the empire. The result appears to be an intricate web of schemes involving the empire, the witch-advisor women(can't spell their names lol), and the Baron's family. Despite the emperor's pulling the strings, the Baron's family still felt like main antagonist to me.

The second half of the movie is where we see the epic scale of dune. The movies not quick paced but you couldn't tell, I was absolutely immersed in it.

I absolutely loved the kind "The mahdi is too humble to say he is the mahdi." Theatre burst out in laughter. It felt weird, I wasn't expecting any humour. It's funnier than I expected. More lively than the first Dune movie. I'd already seen the Usul-worm-riding scene from the Dune Part One reopening bonus content. I was still just as excited and it didn't spoil a thing.

The visual brilliance, as expected was stunning, elevating every aspect. The authenticity of the scenes made it feel as if characters were immersed in the environment, rather than merely placed against a green screen. I loved the portrayal of time passing through Paul's changing eyes; the longer he stays the bluer his eyes get. Despite how lively it is, the plot, while progressing at a measured pace, remains engaging, drawing attention away from its deliberate slowness. It has much more action, the battles were absolutely epic, I feel like they could have been longer but they still captivated me.

Jessica disappears for a while, but just when I thought that, she showed up. Other than Paul and Zendeya, the rest of the cast doesn't really get as much screen time as you'd think. I loved the baby/embryo/featus scenes. Batista with no mask in the desert while his whole team's suited up was badass. I love him in darker roles, although I think some moments felt overly animated. But it gave an effective contrast to Austin Butler though, I couldn't wait to see what his character was like. Very fierce, intimidating and psycho. The girl shivering with the plate in her hands before the gladiator games made me chuckle. Butler did also sound like the baron at times.

Dune: Part Two stands steady on its own, it felt complete compared to the more introductory feel of Part One. Despite this, I still felt like it lays groundwork for Dune: Part Three/Messiah, leaving a sense of setup. The movie, while feeling like a precursor, still manages to provide a more conclusive ending. I also think you should watch Part One first, if that has to be said; and the prospect of a back-to-back viewing sounds like a fun afternoon.

One thing I can complain about is Stilger. I have mixed feelings. In Part One, Javier was fierce and was my favorite character, in this movie though he's depicted as a religious fanatic for the most part. It was done well, but I still miss the Stilgar who walked up to Duke Leto Atreides with no disregard. This felt like a different person, still fierce, just different.

Loved Austin butler though, I wasn't sure what to expect as I tried my best to avoid trailers and teasers apart from the Dune part one bonus content. That short lady in charge of extracting 'the water of life' had some insane calves on her, I'm extremely jealous.

While I was initially not convinced about Timothée Chalamet as the lead, he truly owns the role in the sequel, displayed acting facets I'd not seen before from him. The movie essentially unfolds as Paul Atreides' coming-of-age story, with Zendaya delivering an amazing performance. The first act, focusing on their love story, adds depth to the events at the movie's end. Zendaya's portrayal transcends the typical love story, I hope her role extends into Dune: Messiah, and hopefully adds further complexity to her character.

We see Paul undergo some transformations. From being the son of royalty to experiencing love, the narrative takes a surprising turn when he assumes authority in the third act. Although I liked it, it felt a bit rushed. But, I found solace/logic with the "water of life" spiritual poison, where drinking it resulted in a profound shift in your personality. The contrast between the before and after versions of Paul, as well as Jessica, is striking so it kinda made sense to me.

I think watching this movie at home won't do it justice, it's clearly made for the big screens if you can. It's pretty epic and I think it'll remain memorable as one of 2024's best movies, despite only being February. I absolutely loved it.

I'm going to write this as a review for both Dune movies, so I'll include my thoughts about Dune part one throughout. For me, the most difficult part about rating these movies is trying to judge them as they stand on their own without comparing them to the original book.

As movies, I think both are great: the cinematography is amazing, the sound design is good, the acting is good, I liked the visual style and how they interpreted the various technologies of the world of Dune. The soundtrack is good, it can be a little overbearing at times but the music in part two felt like an improvement on this from part one. One of the biggest complaints people had with both movies is the pacing, saying that the first movie was dragging and the second was rushing. I agree with the sentiments about the latter, but personally I enjoyed the slower pacing of the first Dune movie. The second movie definitely moves quickly through its first half, then it slows down a lot in the second half before rushing to its conclusion.

The casting is good for the most part, I personally disagree with casting Rebecca Ferguson but I'll get into that more later. In the first movie I wasn't especially impressed with Timothée Chalamet as Paul but I think he does better in the role in the second part. Jason Momoa was a perfect pick for Duncan Idaho and Oscar Isaac did a great job as Duke Leto. Stellan Skarsgard was a good choice for Baron Harkonnen but I think he could have been written better. I was really looking forward to seeing Christopher Walken as the Emperor Shaddam but unfortunately he felt pretty lifeless and didn't bring very much energy to the scenes he was in.

Overall, as they stand on their own, the Dune movies are great films. I don't know if I'd call them the defining sci-fi movies of the 21st century like other people are saying, but they're still very good, definitely rewatchable, and I would recommend them.

Now, moving on to comparing them to the books, because once you start doing that you get to the more disappointing side of these movies. One of the biggest issues with both movies, especially the second, is that they almost completely leave out the ecological message of the book. This is a book that has been used as a textbook in environmental science classes, but I guess the filmmakers decided that message wasn't important enough. The Fremen are shown to be working towards terraforming Dune into a green world, slowly but surely making wind traps and planting grasses to fix the dunes in place. It's a goal that they are working towards with total commitment even though they know that it won't be realized for several generations. That's a powerful message that I think a lot more people need to hear nowadays, especially in reference to the issue of climate change. The movie barely mentions this goal at all, which I think is a disservice to the original story, and it diminishes the Fremen as characters.

I think the fundamental issue that these movies have with their adaptations is an understandable one, but that it could've been solved in a better way. The main issue with adapting the book is that the characters are very difficult to relate to: most of them are superhumans who have insane abilities. For the movies, a lot of the main characters are altered to make them more relatable to the audience, which is an understandable change. For some characters, this greatly improves them from the book, such as Duncan Idaho and Duke Leto. For others, like Chani and Jessica, it reduces the strength of their characters, which I'll explain more later.

Additionally, the book has a lot of complex concepts and story plots that it never stops to fully explain to the reader, you're just supposed to pick it up as you go along and reread it to understand, making it a little obtuse. Dune is very dialogue-heavy, with a lot of the action happening in the background or only described briefly. To remedy this, the movies remove some of the more complex topics and add more action scenes, which are exciting and well choreographed, but in the second movie they start feeling repetitive and redundant, and they overpower the more intricate plot points.

While the first movie cleverly managed to insert a lot of exposition without feeling like it was constantly lore dumping, part two feels like it's more afraid to explain things than the first, possibly because of complaints that "nothing happened" in the first movie. The result of this is that the second movie is much more action-heavy, but it still wants to include the complex topics from the book, so what we get is a bunch of action sequences with scenes of political complexities strung in between them, but without the full explanations necessary to clarify them. It's easy to understand why people who haven't read the books would feel confused by this, the movie barely takes the time to explain what's happening before it's moving on to the next scene of Fremen blowing up spice haulers.

Getting into direct comparisons to the book now, and starting with the first movie: my two biggest issues with the first movie was how they changed Jessica and how they dumbed down the mentats. Starting with mentats, they are a hugely important part of all of the Dune books; Thufir Hawat is essentially a main character in the first book, and Peter de Vries is a terrifying mastermind behind the Harkonnen plans. Part of what triggers Paul's first vision of the coming Jihad in his name is that his mother tells him he was trained as a mentat from birth without his knowledge. In the movie, the word mentat is never said once; Paul's mentat training isn't brought up; Thufir Hawat is just a guy who rolls his eyes back in his head, says something smart and then disappears at the halfway mark; and Peter de Vries dies of poisoning. How disappointing.

But what I think is the worse change that they made from the book is how they changed Jessica's character. While the Dune books get much more feminist as they go on, the first book has very few female characters. However, Jessica makes for a very strong main character: she has complete control over her mind and body, and through her Bene Gesserit training she has almost superhuman strength, speed, and can control others with the Voice. Her internal monologue also shows that she's almost always two steps ahead of everyone except Paul. In the movies, Jessica feels much weaker. In the first movie she's almost always crying or on the verge of tears, which makes it a lot believable when she starts killing Harkonnens with her bear hands, and it makes the scene in the tent when Paul gets his vision (the only part of the book where Jessica openly grieves) much less powerful.

Moving on to the second movie is where the changes get more disappointing. The movie begins with Paul, Jessica and the Fremen fighting the Harkonnens in some battle between the fight with Jamis and them getting to Sietch Tabr, which wasn't in the book and felt like it was added for the sake of starting with an action sequence. After the fight, Jessica throws up involuntarily --- again, as a Bene Gesserit she should have total control over her body and it doesn't make sense for her to do that, even though she's pregnant.

Speaking of Jessica's child, Alia isn't really a character in this, at least not like she was in the book. I can understand this, I had no idea how they were going to handle having a toddler who walks and talks like an adult and kills a man, and they handled it by having Jessica not give birth during the movie. They also don't really explain how Alia is pre-born, which is a piece of information that people who didn't read the book could probably use.

Once Paul and Jessica get to Sietch Tabr, things feel a lot different. The book describes the interiors of the Sietch as being covered with drapery, rugs, and cushions. There are classrooms, plastic factories, and workshops. The movie doesn't show this at all: the Sietch interior is all smooth, carved stone rather than natural rock walls, there's no textiles to be seen, and essentially only the water reservoir is shown. In general, the depiction of the Fremen in the movie is much worse than the book. The Fremen are a very tight-knit community where people understand each other's needs so well that they don't even need to communicate them out loud. When Jessica feels like she needs a coffee, a Fremen with coffee simply appears without her giving an order. In the movie the Fremen are three things: good at stabbing people, fanatic believers in Paul, or people who hate the Mahdi prophecy and don't believe in Paul. In the book, this dissenting faction against Paul isn't really present, and Chani definitely isn't part of it. I can understand that the filmmakers probably added it to help drive home the anti-hero worship message which a lot of people missed from the book, but it could have been executed better.

I also disliked how they changed Chani. In the books she very easily falls for Paul and gives him unwavering support, and I think it's fine that they wanted to make that more nuanced for the movies, but I don't like the way they did it. The movie wants us to think that they love each other even though it constantly shows Chani ranting against the prophecy and disagreeing with Paul's actions. In the end, she leaves Paul after he agrees to marry the Emperor's daughter Irulan (even though in the book he makes it clear that he is only marrying her for politics, refuses to even touch her, and has three children with Chani instead). This ending will definitely complicate things if they do go through with adapting Dune Messiah to complete the film trilogy.

I'm running out of room to write, and most people probably won't read this anyway because of the length, so I'll just say again that I enjoyed the movies and think they're good, but some of the changes they made, especially in part two, were disappointing and could have been executed better.

As with the first film, the production was beautiful. I loved the opening scenes with the Harkonnen soldiers. The arena fight between Austin Butler and the last Atreides Robert Yuan (actors names) was fantastic. The battles with the harvesters were phenomenal.

The script, however, left me a little bit disappointed. What about the Guild Navigators? And how were the worms used after they came through the pass in the mountains opened up by the atomics? There was only one sequence of the initial charge (marvelous sequence when the gunships entered) but then nothing. The Sardurkar were not given enough respect in this film. There was only one scene that showed them respect and that was when they rose up from the fallen sand and rock debris and stood their ground preparing for the oncoming onslaught instead of panicking. Other than that I felt the film should have spent more time on tactical combat scenes in what was supposed to be an epic battle at the end of the film, maybe trim time off of the other dragged out sequences in the film. The first movie did a better job with the Sardaukar, you actually feared them. The epic battle at the end of this movie was less than epic. And poor Bautista, they should not have made him act like such a wimp, should have had a more glorious fight even in retreat.

As much as I like Walken, I thought he was poorly cast to be Emperor. The 1984 film had a perfect actor for the personality. This is Villeneuve's fault, he picked him.

The script also fails to emphasize that Paul is the Kwisatz Haderach at the end of the movie. Paul's initial ability to vaguely see the future comes from the centuries of genetic tinkering of the women of the Ben Gesserat, but after he drinks the water of life and not only survives but develops the ability to see an individual's past, as evident by the scenes in the Fremen temple where he looks at individuals and describes their past, and more clearly sees optional future outcomes, and after he actually fulfills all of the prophecies of the Fremen, the story is true, he really is the Messiah of Arrakis, justifying the religion, and he really is the Kwisatz Haderach, a man with abilities that no other man has. But the film appears to gloss over this. Shame. He is not just some populist charismatic man blamed by the likes of Zendaya's character for (perceived) fooling anyone to follow him and falling for the appeal of power and giving up his principles, he is more than that.

My critique of the first film was not enough emotion, well part 2 does a better job, especially after Paul survives the water of life and becomes the anti-hero, all hell breaks loose. And Zendaya's character being a more independent women than the 1984 film was interesting, albeit the combat skills or luck were not realistic unless you buy that the Sardaukar were that inept. Part 1 was a better drama than part 2, but part 2 has some great action sequences, besides the disappointments I mentioned earlier. Not a perfect film for this Dune 1984 admirer.

As an avid movie fan I see plenty of movies, many average, many bad, a few good and once in while great. But I use the word great scarcely. Dune 2 is better than great. Oppenheimer was a great movie but I wouldn't rush back to see it a second time in the near future. Dune 2, I would see it again tomorrow. The story is on par to the Star Wars legacy, the acting, on par with Oppenheimer, the SFX better than the two movies just mentioned combined. When the movie finished (over 2 and half hours) I still wanted more. The emotional ride was like nothing I can remember from ANY movie I can remember. Best movie of the year? I don't think so, best movie of a generation is more akin to what I saw. Wish I could give it 11 stars.

I have to start by saying that I absolutely loved the first movie. I wasn't familiar with the story and I went with zero expectations, only to be completely stunned by the masterful artwork that was Dune Part 1.

The music, the sound, the visuals, the entire world and its atmosphere, the characters even the plot, I found everything beautifully crafted and a breath of fresh air for the Sci-Fi genre.

I am not familiar with the source material so this is considering only the movies and while I had a deep desire to love this second part specially considering the reviews it has been getting and how much I loved the first one, I couldn't help but feel a slight disappointment... Let's start with the positives - the cinematography is consistently out of this world, it is a visual wonder, a mix of practical effects with CGI that blends in perfectly. The intense and dramatic sound effects associated with a thrilling and daunting soundtrack delivers! And of course the acting is consistently good, this time around it was great to see Javier Barden's character being developed and bringing some great topics to the table.

What makes me wonder the most to be honest is how different both the first movie and the second are being reviewed by the general public.. For once its running time is considerable (almost 3 hours) and somehow it feels strangely rushed... It's a bit odd to explain but in other words, we get so many scenes that feel that don't contribute at all to the narrative and out of the blue we transition to a scene where the main character changes the demeanor entirely without much build up leading to it.. The movie spends so much time trying to connect Paul to the Fremens, yet it fails to explore his own inner motivations, the moment we see his character changing, it gives you the feeling that you missed something.

Paul's betrayal to Chani also feels a bit irrelevant since the chemistry built on the first movie seems to just dissipate... The relationship with his mother is also very odd and inconsistent, her character becomes dark fairly early in the movie, in one moment she is her beloved mother and without much shared screen time he then seems to almost despise her by the end of the film without the audience having a deeper understanding of their relationship dynamic.

The newly introduced villains are one dimensional and having Austin Butler's character seemed pointless... there was no goal for him, he gets killed off almost instantly alongside with the Baron who got so much build from the first movie... An A list of actors like Florence Pugh, Christopher Walken and Léa Seydoux, all of them could've been amazing characters but get zero chance of showing that.

An entire plot with Paul's sister goes out the drain as well... messing with time started to become promising but it leads nowhere... I mean I could go on, in short the movie had many plot gaps, didn't develop the characters properly, poorly introduced the newcomers and relied heavily on its outstanding cinematography and sound.

It's a shame because I can't tell you how excited I was to write a praising review, but this was my honest opinion which apparently doesn't seem to align with the majority.

A lot of scenes drag without much substance to it, the highlight of the film was Javier Barden's character and the messages behind the dangerous of the concept of a Messia.

I am of course hopeful for the third movie, maybe with my expectations now lowered it becomes a great experience all over again.

"Dune" has been successfully put to the big screen. Not only is this a good adaptation, it passes with flying colors.

The character arc of Paul Atreides is fascinating and complex. I love how they delved into his psyche and motivations so prevalently in this movie. He is reluctant to take up the Messianic mantle because he knows it's a lie. But things go according to his vision and he becomes a morally complex character. Religious fantacism takes hold of the fremen.

It is up for interpretation what kind of character Paul becomes. Is he a tyrant? Was it the only path? What does religion have to do with it? Paul takes hold of the Bene Gesserit lie by exploiting faith.

This leads to other questions. Can one truly trust the arm of flesh? The frailty of man? Leaders have come and gone throughout history bringing different ideals.

One's own morality comes into play. Agency is vital to the human experience. Man will always falter. This leads to questions of a higher power and His role. Is there a God above? What are the implications of that?

We don't get stories like this in Hollywood anymore. There is no happy ending in Dune, and one can only ponder the moral complexities of it. The book and movie have made me contemplate many things and I deeply appreciate stories like that.

Others have already applauded the effects, acting and script, so I won't go into that too much here. What I will say is it was the best looking movie I have ever seen. Everything looked lived in. The fight scenes were choreographed masterfully. Each actor gave outstanding performances. Hans Zimmer gives a mesmerizing soundtrack.

Frank Herbert's vision was honored masterfully. Well done Denis Villeneuve.

I just watched this in IMAX and it was one of the greatest movie experiences I have ever had. Everything from part one was done even better in part two and the story was much more interesting. The outfits were so unique and really well made. Whenever I thought it was starting to move a little slow something insane happens and I'm instantly drawn back into the world of dune that Denis has remade and expanded on so much. All the shots of the different worlds were just breathtaking. The last hour of the movie is by far some of the best made cinema in awhile and the action was so good. The last fight was awesome as well. "You fought well Atreides."

This movie is a visual masterpiece that will be studied for decades. The colors are vivid, the lighting is gorgeous and the cgi is mostly indistinguishable from reality.

That said, despite being almost 3 hours long, the story felt hugely condensed. It felt like each scene gives you the bare minimum to understand what's happening, but elaborates on nothing. It felt like it wants you to immerse yourself in a unique and complex world, but gives every setting only a few minutes of time before hopping straight to the next. For example, the training of Paul. We never see him learn how to ride the sandworm, so when he succeeds, it doesn't feel as triumphant as it would have otherwise. The Harkonnens are also much less intimidating than they were before. Most of their screentime is comprised of them trying and failing to farm spice on Arrakis, until they are defeated by Paul and the Fremen at the end without much difficulty. They should have put up more of a fight. Lastly, I know from sources that an ecological message the was very important in the book was emmited completely from the film. The Fremen speak of bringing green back to Arrakis, but that's all we ever see them do.

Part of it may be a limitation of the format. If one must adapt a book full of complex lore, than either a trilogy or even a serialization may be the better option as you get more time to explain everything. I know that a third film is coming but it's not based on the same book anymore, and while I haven't read any of the books, I don't believe I should. I believe that film should stand on its own two feet, and this one does. Its legs are long and slender, with just the bare minimum of muscle required to stand, but it stands nonethelss :)

I gave this mess of a film 4 stars simply on the weight of the special effects and cinematography. The worm riding was the best part of the film. The interaction between the main characters are shallow and most often miss the main themes of the source material.

And why did tge director change one of the main plot points? Paul's sister Alia is born early with all the Bene Gesserit powers. She kills Vladimir Harkonin, not Paul. This completely changes the story line, and not in a good way.

I thought the first movie was a snooze fest, but kept telling myself "just wait until Part 2 when all the action happens. " Was I wrong.

I will never trust Denis Villeneuve again.