I've now seen
Part Two twice in IMAX 70mm. Decided to jot down some thoughts. This being my first "review" and me being a non-native speaker, I welcome any and all critique! I've also posted the same on
Letterboxd. Would love to follow more people from here.
===============
Second watch. I suspect most viewers will find
Dune: Part Two a thrilling spectacle. But I struggled to get through my first watch, and I now stand by my position after my second:
Part One is the superior film.
Perhaps I’m naturally drawn to world-building, atmosphere, ambience, and a good mystery left for the imagination. That’s why I loved
Part One, despite its many flaws.
[Perhaps that’s also why 2001: A Space Odyssey
is one of my favorites, even though I remain perpetually perplexed by its message.]
Part Two IMO suffers most from an overcompensation for
Part One’s oft-criticized slow pacing. Here, the action is firing on all cylinders. There is scarcely a moment of rest. We leap from battle to battle. Yet as each action sequence lasts mere minutes and with little to no buildup, they all fail to deliver either the satisfaction or the emotional impact on par with, say, the ambush of Arrakeen in
Part One.
Compare that with
Part One. We were methodically introduced to House Atreides and their settling down on Arrakis. We followed Duke Leto and Paul as they surveyed the spice fields. We grappled with Paul’s struggles, uncertainties, and ambitions. We came to understand and empathize with the characters’ motives. So when the chips finally fell, we felt the punch.
Part Two in contrast is almost devoid of such character development. Stilgar, Chani, the Harkonnens—All appeared as flat as they could be. The only characters who underwent any change in heart were Paul and, to a lesser extent, Jessica. Regrettably, these changes were conveniently attributable to a mysterious consciousness-altering agent: the Water of Life. To put it another way, Paul and Jessica did not find within themselves the motivation to embark on a devastating Holy War—Something inexplicable made the decision for them. As a result, such developments can never resonate with us viewers.
Much has also been said of the beauty of
Part Two’s cinematography, but I suspect most applause hail from the casual moviegoers’ camp, who by this point must have been fed up with the cookie-cutter
Marvels and reboots that plague the modern film stage. The fact is,
Part One is also the far prettier film, with appreciably more variety in camera work, set locations, and costume design.
When Nolan
likened Dune: Part Two to
The Empire Strikes Back, he certainly had a point in the extent of action involved: Recall the impressive Battle of Hoth, Luke’s training with Yoda, Luke and Vader’s iconic duel atop Cloud City, and Han’s daring escape. But such an equivalence misses the heart of
Empire Strikes Back: The hero’s hubris being tamed by defeat. That lesson learned allowed Luke to transform
himself from the cocky pilot at the end of
A New Hope to the wise master at the start of
Return of the Jedi. That
personal growth is sorely missing here.
Overall, a solid and enjoyable crowd-pleaser from the immensely talented Villeneuve. But a far, far cry from the pantheon of the greats that the current 4.6 rating would suggest.
Side note on the technicals: While it’s always an awe-inspiring experience to sit in an IMAX GT theater, I disagreed with many of the 1.43:1 full-frame compositions in Dune: Part Two
. Many times it felt as though a shot was in 1.43:1 “just for the sake of it.” Many such shots evoked a tunnel-vision effect in me, when a wider scope or even flat aspect ratio would have looked more “epic.” Nolan’s judicious doses of 1.43:1 shots in Oppenheimer
, on the other hand, is near perfection.