![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This morning I finished watching the recent Dune movie. The first half came out during the worst of COVID. The second part came out this spring.
The first half is close enough to the book. The second movie is more like a 1950s adaptation. It has the same name, the same things kind of happen but it's really off the rails compared to what happens in the book. For instance, the book ends with a negotiated peace. Part two of this one ends in galactic war.
Compared to the other adaptations what do we have? If you want to stay close to the original, the Sci-Fi Channel mini-series is the easy winner. If you want a story about druggies doing wild things, the De Laurentis movie is your best bet. If you want lots of explosions and "realistic-looking" fight scenes, you won't go wrong with the Villeneuve version.
Explosions and fight scenes are hardly the only good things about the Villeveuve version. The Sci-Fi mini-series desperately needed a little more budget. The Villeneuve movies got a lot of budget and used it fairly wisely. I never considered the De Larentis film a good movie, not exactly awful, but no better than so-so. The Villeneuve films make a good movie, but not what you'd wish for as a devotee of the book.
The main character, Paul Atreides, is a difficult one to cast. He's literally the teenage kid who conquerors the world. Reading the book you forget that. I thought the 1986 (De Laurenits) Paul was a little too old. The Sci-Fi Channel was Paul was better, but not quite what I'd look for. The Villeneuve Paul (Timothee Chalamet) is very young and skinny for a hand-to-hand fighting expert, but he is a decent actor. They ought to be flogged for the stupid used-mop hairdo they had him in. It just made him look skinny and ridiculous.
I think Rebecca Fergusson, the Villeneuve Jessica, was not a great choice. Maybe I'm just getting too old, but she didn't look mature enough to be anyone's Reverend Mother. The part is much reduced in the Villeneuve movies, so it's not a great problem.
Chani was one of my favorite characters in the book. One of my favorite things about the Villeneuve movies is that nobody calls her "Chainy." Nothing jerked me more out of immersion in the other versions than that clinker. If you read the name as Chainy when you read the book no problem, but if you are going to spend the money to make a movie for wide consumption try to do better, people. I thought the Sci-Fi Channel Chani was worthy of the name Chainy, in other words, not great. (If I remember correctly Sci-Fi Chani has the same hairdo as Villeneuve Paul. It looks better on her!) The Villeneuve Chani, Zendaya, was a good choice, but I think they did her a horrible disservice making her, particularly in the second movie, little more than a skeptical, scowling Xena Warrior Princess with very little dialogue. It's nice that she had some depth in the first movie, but she needed more in the second.
Duke Leto is a small part, but I'd say Villeneuve got it right. Don't know why De Laurentis' Leto had a different accent than everyone else, and the Sci-Fi Channel Leto was miscast in my book.
Baron Harkonnen in the Villeveneuve version is a strength. It's easy to make him a comic book villain, and I don't criticize the earlier versions much for what they did with him. Both the Baron and his nephew Rabban are bloated by CGI in the Villeneve films. It was a valid choice.
Not sure what Villeneuve was going for with Fey-Rautha. The book doesn't exactly make him a central figure. In this movie he looks like a bald-headed, toothless, baby. They literally blackened his teeth so you mostly can't see them in the many scenes with his mouth gaping open. The actor is okay, I just don't know what they wanted him to represent visually.
To repeat, I liked the Villeneuve films as movies, but I would have preferred they stuck more closely to the original story.
The first half is close enough to the book. The second movie is more like a 1950s adaptation. It has the same name, the same things kind of happen but it's really off the rails compared to what happens in the book. For instance, the book ends with a negotiated peace. Part two of this one ends in galactic war.
Compared to the other adaptations what do we have? If you want to stay close to the original, the Sci-Fi Channel mini-series is the easy winner. If you want a story about druggies doing wild things, the De Laurentis movie is your best bet. If you want lots of explosions and "realistic-looking" fight scenes, you won't go wrong with the Villeneuve version.
Explosions and fight scenes are hardly the only good things about the Villeveuve version. The Sci-Fi mini-series desperately needed a little more budget. The Villeneuve movies got a lot of budget and used it fairly wisely. I never considered the De Larentis film a good movie, not exactly awful, but no better than so-so. The Villeneuve films make a good movie, but not what you'd wish for as a devotee of the book.
The main character, Paul Atreides, is a difficult one to cast. He's literally the teenage kid who conquerors the world. Reading the book you forget that. I thought the 1986 (De Laurenits) Paul was a little too old. The Sci-Fi Channel was Paul was better, but not quite what I'd look for. The Villeneuve Paul (Timothee Chalamet) is very young and skinny for a hand-to-hand fighting expert, but he is a decent actor. They ought to be flogged for the stupid used-mop hairdo they had him in. It just made him look skinny and ridiculous.
I think Rebecca Fergusson, the Villeneuve Jessica, was not a great choice. Maybe I'm just getting too old, but she didn't look mature enough to be anyone's Reverend Mother. The part is much reduced in the Villeneuve movies, so it's not a great problem.
Chani was one of my favorite characters in the book. One of my favorite things about the Villeneuve movies is that nobody calls her "Chainy." Nothing jerked me more out of immersion in the other versions than that clinker. If you read the name as Chainy when you read the book no problem, but if you are going to spend the money to make a movie for wide consumption try to do better, people. I thought the Sci-Fi Channel Chani was worthy of the name Chainy, in other words, not great. (If I remember correctly Sci-Fi Chani has the same hairdo as Villeneuve Paul. It looks better on her!) The Villeneuve Chani, Zendaya, was a good choice, but I think they did her a horrible disservice making her, particularly in the second movie, little more than a skeptical, scowling Xena Warrior Princess with very little dialogue. It's nice that she had some depth in the first movie, but she needed more in the second.
Duke Leto is a small part, but I'd say Villeneuve got it right. Don't know why De Laurentis' Leto had a different accent than everyone else, and the Sci-Fi Channel Leto was miscast in my book.
Baron Harkonnen in the Villeveneuve version is a strength. It's easy to make him a comic book villain, and I don't criticize the earlier versions much for what they did with him. Both the Baron and his nephew Rabban are bloated by CGI in the Villeneve films. It was a valid choice.
Not sure what Villeneuve was going for with Fey-Rautha. The book doesn't exactly make him a central figure. In this movie he looks like a bald-headed, toothless, baby. They literally blackened his teeth so you mostly can't see them in the many scenes with his mouth gaping open. The actor is okay, I just don't know what they wanted him to represent visually.
To repeat, I liked the Villeneuve films as movies, but I would have preferred they stuck more closely to the original story.