The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

A favourable review in NYT

‘Dune’ Is the Movie We Always Wanted https://nyti.ms/3Cio9ZE

I prefer the original... but maybe I'm just weird like that.

This one wasn't awful though... brought some interesting visuals to the table.

I just saw Dune today and I thought it was excellent. This was the first time I have been in a movie theatre since COVID and I am glad I saw it in a theatre. I enjoyed the scale and grandeur of the film on the big screen, it definitely added to my enjoyment of the film rather than watching it on my TV at home where you really can't simulate the magic of that communal theatre moviegoing experience. The majestic scenery and landscapes of Arakis really can't be captured on TV set and really must be seen on a movie screen in order to truly appreciate the scale of the film in my view. One thing I liked about the film was the amount of exposition revealed in the film seamlessly without weighing the film down. I thought the film did better than the book in that respect at times. I thought the cast was excellent, particularly Timothy Chalamet as Paul.

I finally saw it on a flight.

Overall I was disappointed

The effects were great and the actor who played the Baron was great

I did not like Timothy Chalamet as Paul or at least the way the way director instructed him to portray him . This Paul is weak and unsure of himself. Not the way the book or Kyle MCLaughan has Paul. Paul has doubts but is also very confident

Jason Momoa as Duncan is very different than the book. Duncan is not as important as Gurney in Dune, and is a syotic man. Jason plays Duncan as if he was Gurney

Dave Bautista as Rabban has a much larger role than Rabban has in the book, which was one chapter with the Baron and than other then references he is never seen again

Except for the Baron, the Lynch 84 cast is much better

The problem with the Baron in the new one is he's doing an impression of Col. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now. I kind of liked the manic energy of the Lynch version.

Other aspects
The Director took a lot of liberties with the story. I am not talking about making Kynes a woman.

The key scene with Paul being tested with the Gom Jabber, they had Jessica doing the Litany of Fear. When it is Paul who does it in the book.
When Duke Leto rescues the salt miners, Paul does not go into a trance

I didn't like Kyle Maclachlan as Paul in the original, I thought Chalamet was more age appropriate. The special effects in the 80's edition seemed atrocious and cartoonish, even by 1980's standards. Rarely, if ever does one see film adaptations of books be 100% faithful to the source material for a multitude of reasons.

bushwackerbob wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I didn't like Kyle Maclachlan as Paul in the original, I thought Chalamet was more age appropriate. The special effects in the 80's edition seemed atrocious and cartoonish, even by 1980's standards. Rarely, if ever does one see film adaptations of books be 100% faithful to the source material for a multitude of reasons.

Lets compare Lord of the Rings to Dune in terms of being faithful to source materiel

Forget the age for a minute I am talking how he portrays Paul. I thought Kyle did a far better job

Regarding the special effects, maybe

But I will take Classic DR Who with it's lousy effects over New Who just as I will take Star
Trek TOS over any Kurtzmann or Abrams version

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I didn't like Kyle Maclachlan as Paul in the original, I thought Chalamet was more age appropriate. The special effects in the 80's edition seemed atrocious and cartoonish, even by 1980's standards. Rarely, if ever does one see film adaptations of books be 100% faithful to the source material for a multitude of reasons.

Lets compare Lord of the Rings to Dune in terms of being faithful to source materiel

Forget the age for a minute I am talking how he portrays Paul. I thought Kyle did a far better job

Regarding the special effects, maybe

But I will take Classic DR Who with it's lousy effects over New Who just as I will take Star
Trek TOS over any Kurtzmann or Abrams version

How can you dismiss the age thing, it's supposed to be about a teenager coming into his powers and destiny, it's not supposed to be about a dude who looks 30. Maclachlan was 25 in 1984 but he looked older, he certainly didn't look like a teenager to me. Perhaps if you had seen it on a big movie screen, the glorious cinematic nature of the story and grand scale of it might have swayed you a bit more. The only time I have ever seen the original Star Wars film was on a VHS tape on a 20-inch TV, and I was unimpressed. Perhaps if I had seen it the way it was meant to be, on the big screen, I would have been more enthralled by the film.

bushwackerbob wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I didn't like Kyle Maclachlan as Paul in the original, I thought Chalamet was more age appropriate. The special effects in the 80's edition seemed atrocious and cartoonish, even by 1980's standards. Rarely, if ever does one see film adaptations of books be 100% faithful to the source material for a multitude of reasons.

Lets compare Lord of the Rings to Dune in terms of being faithful to source materiel

Forget the age for a minute I am talking how he portrays Paul. I thought Kyle did a far better job

Regarding the special effects, maybe

But I will take Classic DR Who with it's lousy effects over New Who just as I will take Star
Trek TOS over any Kurtzmann or Abrams version

How can you dismiss the age thing, it's supposed to be about a teenager coming into his powers and destiny, it's not supposed to be about a dude who looks 30. Maclachlan was 25 in 1984 but he looked older, he certainly didn't look like a teenager to me. Perhaps if you had seen it on a big movie screen, the glorious cinematic nature of the story and grand scale of it might have swayed you a bit more. The only time I have ever seen the original Star Wars film was on a VHS tape on a 20-inch TV, and I was unimpressed. Perhaps if I had seen it the way it was meant to be, on the big screen, I would have been more enthralled by the film.

I am more into the story than effects. Age is irrelevant Kyle played Paul effectivly, Chalmet did not

Femina wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I prefer the original... but maybe I'm just weird like that.

This one wasn't awful though... brought some interesting visuals to the table.

You are not the only one. (preferring the Original)