The vast ocean of burning sand; still, warm, and stretching for infinity, resides as the only bastion of solace for the war weary peoples of Arrakis. They speak of its beauty and sacredness with such reverence that it feels easy to let its rumored enchantments beguile you. But is such a place as wondrous as they claim? Or is it merely a pretty pile of sand bolstered by those already under its spell? Moreover, one could extend such a question to the sprawling tale of Dune: Part Two itself. For although it may dazzle with aesthetic beauty and interesting lore, the real question is if its story offers anything captivating during its three hour run time. And does it? Let’s get into it.
Dune: Part Two continues the story of Paul Atredies (Timothée Chalamet) as he unites with Chani (Zendaya) and the Fremen, while also seeking revenge against the conspirators who destroyed his family. However, as his enemies close in, he falls in love with Chani, before having a vision of a terrible future, which pits him with a choice between his newfound love and the fate of the universe. Now if that makes no sense to you, that means you either haven’t seen Dune: Part 1 or it’s been a while since your last watch. In either case, I HIGHLY recommend a rewatch or at least viewing a youtube summary because, although it’s not necessary, it will certainly help. But even without that refresher, Dune: Part Two is nothing short of masterfully crafted epic hosting a rich, lived in world, stunning visuals, deliciously deep lore, interesting characters, and an enthralling story, all of which makes it a must see experience. However, even with myself and the masses singing the film’s well deserved praises, I must admit, for me personally, the film falls a tad short, as it lacks the bite I was hoping it would have.
Now to restate for those ready to snap my neck and dump me into a river, I fully believe Dune: Part Two to be a good film; a MUST SEE, if only to make your own judgments on it. And no matter what those are, I'm sure you'll come away feeling it worth both its immense budget and lengthy watch time. And how couldn't you? The set pieces alone justify a second, third, (NAY!) a fourth watch in theaters. So then what’s the problem? Why don't I hold it up and shelve it within my personal pantheon of perfect films like so many others have? Well, for me it comes down to a few (some might call them) nitpicks that I have with the film. It severely lacks meaningful external challenge for its hero and at times brushes over important plot points that don't hinder the story necessarily, but do dull a bit of the adventure. But how?
By and large, I very much appreciate how much this movie allows its world, narrative, and characters to breathe. But even then, there are a couple of important concepts/ moments that I feel are rushed through to the film’s detriment. And given its already extensive runtime, I understand why this happened. After all, there’s only so much time to cover such a titan of a story as well as the deeper aspects of its source material. But even so, these moments I call into question are so closely tied to the overarching story, the world’s mythos, and the character development of both Paul and Chani, rushing through them feels like an severe undercut to what are supposed to be grave moments of tension or grandiose reveals that just fall a flatter than intended, ultimately diminishing their impact on the story going forward.
To avoid spoilers, all I'll say is that one moment in question is a revelation regarding a relationship between two characters. I want it to not necessarily mean more because it certainly IS a big deal. It just doesn't feel that way because of how quick the moment passes, offering it little chance to factor into this DENSE theatrical telling of Dune. The other moment in question is a hyped up circumstance that leads to a brush with death that feels like it could have been executed with far more creative and suspenseful flair. Had it been, the moment could have lived up to hype as well as given Paul a much needed visceral moment of adversity. Now don’t get me wrong. The moment still proves serviceable, but I can’t shake the feeling the film missed an opportunity to really up the ante going forward instead of simply forwarding the plot. Between the two moments in question, I think the short changing of the brush-with-death hurts the film more, very much like the toothless villains of the film. You heard me. Toothless.
Soooo … the villains; the devious hunters and murderous conspirators that all want Paul and the Freman wiped from the face of Arrakis. Despite all being well acted and dripping with an abundance of sinister and menace (at least the most high profile ones), none of them feel like they offer any real challenge or have much impact on Paul, say for the baby smooth psycho-stabster, Feyd Rautha (Austin Butler), which we will address later. As for the rest of the villainous roster - Glossu Rabban (Dave Bautista), Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård), Gaius Helen Mohiam (Charlotte Rampling), the Emperor (Christopher Walken), and their cohorts - they all only offer an illusion of challenge, acting more like breakaway walls to make Paul appear unstoppable. This isn't a deal breaker for the film by any stretch, as Paul still has a lot of internal, romantic, and familial strife to get invested in. But MAN, when nearly all of your big-bads are hardly a speed bump for a film’s protagonist, it does suck some of the wind out of the film’s sails.
Now as mentioned previously, the film still has Feyd Ratha and his sensational duel with Paul towards the end. But riveting as that fight may be, Feyd, unfortunately, holds no strong story ties, nor has any meaningful interactions with Paul until the very moment of the duel, which is the first time they meet. And yes, the moment offers a truly show stopping finale, set on the grandest stage with highest stakes. And yet, I can't help but imagine how much more punch this moment could have had, had the two characters either developed a deeper history with each other over the course of the film or had it built into their backstory from the beginning. But, oh well. Either way, it’s a mere gripe for a moment that ultimately still rules, which is more or less how I would sum up the entire film.
The fact of the matter is that Dune: Part 2 is a sensational spectacle worthy of its reverence, regardless of any nit-picks I find with it. Because truthfully, it is SO well made, acted, and executed that anything said against it would be but mere pin pricks in a masterfully woven tapestry of artistic splendor. However, like any good piece of art, its value and beauty are always subjective to the eye of the beholder. I recognize and marvel at its overall craft, but even then the flaws I find with it, small as they may be to some, really do keep me from loving it the way I’d like to. To me it does feel more akin to that pretty pile of sand, one that I can see holds so much wonder, so much history, and so much deserved love from a vast ocean of others … but I just don’t connect with it in that way. Maybe someday I will, but for now it shall remain as that pretty pile of sand. But regardless of my words, I implore anyone to take the pilgrimage and experience it for yourself. It’s sure to ignite something, if nothing more than imagination and admiration.
Comments
Post a Comment