[Editor's Note: this one is a bit spoilery, I think we're past the statue of limitations on a 60 year old very famous novel]
This is a tough review to write. Partially because unlike many movies I have actually read the book, and seen the 1984 Dune, and seen Dune Part One, and it's hard not to bleed those things into it (sorry, it's quite easy not to bleed God Emperor of Dune in - I will be covering the movie as it exists, with no consideration to where inevitable sequels will take it. And they are inevitable, because you do not cast Anya Taylor Joy for a single scene as Alia unless you are making more of them). It's also tough because everyone seems to love this film, and when it comes down to it, I simply don't. I think it's fine; a movie worth watching. But the first movie felt like a lot of setup, and to me, the payoff for it never came.
I think the first problem I have is that this version of Dune is not a Smart movie. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of Dumb movies. And this movie is very serviceable as one, full of big showy set pieces, dramatic visuals, hammy overacting, and wide, sweeping action. If that's all you're in it for, I imagine you'll walk away very pleased. It's certainly far better than most at it. But I think because of Dune's history, and because I get just a vague underlying sense that the movie wants to appear smart, it just isn't enough for me. In a smart movie, things have to make sense; characters have to have plausible motivations, the text has to stake out some kind of position on something, there needs to be the appropriate pacing to stop, think, and explore the ideas it has, and I think this movie fails at all those things.
The pacing is not good at all - it whisks right by some things, it lingers on others, the transitions between scenes make little sense a lot of the time. There's absolutely no sense of time at all; Paulothee is not growing up with the Fremen, becoming immersed in their culture, convincing himself he's a true Fremen, building relationships - he simply does it instantly, in a matter of seeming weeks. Everyone changes their mind about everything very quickly, and acts very rashly. We know it can't be very long because we know how long human pregnancy lasts! And ultimately, pacing is just a question of vibes to a certain degree, but for me the movie's flow just wasn't great, a little too chopped up on the editing floor and without a natural progression of events. I don't think the timeline is a cohesive and coherent one.
A little side digression: I think it does surprisingly badly with its sense of place, as well (a surprise for a movie with pretty good visuals that are pretty well grounded). Maybe you could make an exception for the planet where they somehow haven't invented color, even though it was entirely a setup to show the black-and-white film shot set up to exactly mirror the Nazi marches in 1930s Germany, because at least they tried something. But Arrakis has none of the architecture of a desert people, and very few shots of anything except spice fields and interiors and sandstorms. Somehow never once, across either Dune movie, did I get the impression that anyone was too hot at any time. The movie looks good, but I think it just doesn't take advantage of any of the Middle Eastern heritage implied in the setting, probably because it is absolutely desperate to avoid making the Fremen Islamic in any capacity. Certainly this Dune is never saying the word jihad out loud.
This brings me to the main subject of my thoughts on the movie, which is its position surrounding religion. The first movie goes almost outs of its way to avoid religion; it's not about that at all. The second movie can't help but make it part of the focus, though, because obviously Paul is a religious figure. But the movie has the same problem that the books have, which is that it simply cannot decide if its religion is real or not.
On the one hand, you have the movie that I think Villeneuve wanted to make. In that movie, the Bene Gesserit have planted the seeds a religion, crafted a narrative and mislead the local people for their own gain; everything is part of their master plan of manipulation and control, and religion is simply a front for power, specifically that of the religious leaders such as the Reverend Mothers. Paul addresses this openly out loud repeatedly, it is hardly subtext. It is an implicit or explicit statement by many others, as well, from Chani's "who will our next oppressors be" cut to Paul as the opening of the first film, to Princess Irulan's conversations with her own Reverent Mother. The Fremen are being controlled through this artificial religion to keep them from freeing themselves and disrupting the political centers of the empire.
If Denis made that his film, I'd feel a lot better. But he sets all that up and then he just doesn't do it. The religion is actually real! Paul DOES have magic powers! He can see the future, he is the fulfillment of the prophecy down to every last detail. He drinks the magic poison, he IS cured by the tears of the desert spring. He does launch the holy war, and his enemies are always worse than he is! That is the major problem: to make that first movie, you must make Paul the villain, but Paul follows the hero's path the entire way. He makes sacrifices, acts with nobility, loses everything, and fights to aid the oppressed people in defeating the overtly evil Harkonnens.
Because the first movie keeps wanting to spring up, begging to be told, at the end Paul acts in ways totally inconsistent with his movie self; he discovers he is a Harkonnen (a symbol of evil, by blood), that the true villain was within him all along, and in doing so he disappoints Chandaya, who was busy making that first film. But Stilgar is helping make this second movie, in which Paul is actually presented as the hero, even to the audience. Stilgar is certainly never presented negatively, nor are any of the Fremen in particular, and neither is Gurney, or anyone on Paul's side. He's always doing his best to do the right thing. It makes his motivations at the end seem totally inexplicable and a wild derivation from the Paul of the first two thirds of the runtime, bravely resisting the paths of either death or submission. One could make a movie in which this ambiguity was the focus and conceit itself, but I don't think that's this film, which wants to have its holy cake and eat it, too. In the end I am Chani, feeling totally alone amidst the cheers, unable to understanding where this new Paul suddenly came from, and why no one seems to care that that the movie has undermined itself so deeply.
A smart movie might care about this distinction; one about making cool scenes with big rad worms and lasers and jedi mind powers might not.
Score: 6/10
IMDb: Dune: Part Two
PS: I tried to find the source of this particular googly eye header, and I failed you. I am sorry.
PPS: Imagine living 8000 years in the future and still being subject to feudal monarchy as your political system. Do better, future humans. You should all be living in spice communism and drinking spice energy drinks (which would definitely be a thing). Duke Leto's nickname (not present in the films) is even the Red Duke, and his icon is that of the Bull. His House is absolutely derived from the modern day Red Bull corporation and you can never convince me otherwise.
PPPS: Rest in peace, Thufir Hawat. Leaving you out completely was the second worst choice in the duology (after not casting Sting as Feyd a second time and making him wear the same metal underwear as the Lynch film). I get it, the movie you want to make is about the religious order and the politics just get in the way, but it's sad anyway.
PPPPS: Like all True Cinema, they did include the mandatory moment in which a character pointlessly said the movie title out loud (well, not the Part Two; I would have respected that even more if they'd forced it in there).
