“Dune: Part Two” was released on Friday, March 1, to American audiences. The movie was directed by Denis Villeneuve, and the screen play was written by Villeneuve and Jon Spaihts. The movie itself was based off the book, “Dune,” by Frank Herbert. The film is a continuation of the story “Dune” released in October 2021.
After the fall of the royal Atreides house in the first film, Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet) finds himself and his mother, Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), taking refuge with the native people of Arrakis the Fremen. Jessica believes Paul is the Kwisatz Haderach, a superhuman male made from a selective breeding process with the ability to rule the universe. The southern Fremen believe Paul to be the Lisan al-gaib, their prophesied messiah, there to bring prosperity back to the barren planet of Arrakis. Paul, who does not believe in prophecy nor in being a messiah, knows not what his future holds and chooses to become like the Fremen. What ensues is a high-brow sci-fi politically charged battle for the fate of Arrakis and, ultimately, the universe. Will Paul bring prosperity to Arrakis? Will he become the general and dictator prophesied, or will he be able to resist the temptation of power? Be aware, there are SPOILERS in the following review.
The good:
“Dune” is one of my favorite books. Many would consider it a piece of literary genius, and with that I have to agree. I had never heard of the series before the first movie came out in 2021, but once I saw the first film, I knew this was a series I would need to read. Of course, the transfer from literature is always a difficult task, which is what causes the “Dune” film process to be impressive. First off, let's discuss the budget. “Dune: Part Two” had a $190 million budget. Compare this to films recently, and its clear that Villeneuve knew how to use money properly. For example, the recent spy film, “Argyle,” had a budget of $200 million. In that movie, it seems none of the money was really spent on what was being shown on the screen. In comparison, “Dune: Part Two” is one of the most visually exciting films I have seen. It is a movie designed to be enjoyed in the theaters and takes pleasure in showing that even a planet made up of sand can be beautiful. I cannot speak highly enough of the visuals in this movie. From the giant sand worms to the spice mining facilities and the ornithopters, there isn't a point where you can feel the CGI like you can in other movies.
The music, like with the first film, is a major highlight. The combination of futuristic sci-fi elements with the almost tribal ones introduced by the Fremen, combined with the Romanesque gladiatorial style brought in by the Harkonnens, creates such a unique stew of music that pleases the ear. Of course, there is credit deserved to the star studded cast of “Dune: Part Two”. Zendaya plays Chani, Paul's lover and a hardcore Fremen member. She brings a sense of antagonism in her role that is unexpected from her character. Austin Butler, who plays Feyd-Rautha, Paul's cousin and one of the main antagonists, does an incredible job. He somehow seamlessly pulls off the exact tone and cadence of Stellan Skarsgard, who plays his uncle, Baron Harkonnen, the main antagonist from the first film. Javier Bardem was a surprising standout as well, bringing a grounded reality to the character of a religious fanatic. Rebecca Ferguson, who plays Lady Jessica, shows how terrifying a religious fanatic and political puppetmaster can be. Finally, on the acting side is Timothee Chalamet, Paul Atreides himself. This is one of the first films I have seen a depth of character. He does an incredible job of bringing the anger, confusion and simultaneous wisdom of the character of Paul. Chalamet brings a serious sense of gravitas to the role. On top of all this, the cinematography is jaw-dropping. When one moves from one area of the planet to another or to a completely different planet, it is clear that the designers behind this film understood the artistic need to make these places seem different.
Now, I could continue praising this movie. The costumes are amazing, the set is incredible, and the highlight of the film is the story itself. The adaptation to the screen is mostly true to the primary source with a few changes.
The bad:
As I said before, this is one of the greatest movies I have seen. There is little to be found that can be complained about. However, I did take issue with a few decisions made in this movie. The number one issue I take with this film is the relationship between Chani and Paul. In the books, it is made very clear that Paul loves Chani, and she is understanding of this. In fact, the final page of the book is a conversation between Lady Jessica and Chani. At this point, near the end of the book and the movie, Paul is choosing to marry the emperor's daughter, Princess Irulan. However, in the final page of the book, Jessica explains to Chani that it is nothing more than a political marriage. While he may be technically married to Irulan, she would be nothing more than a prisoner living in their palace, while Chani would be the one treated as Paul's wife. However, in the film, they chose to omit this conversation and instead make Chani an unbeliever in Paul. She is hurt by Paul's decision to marry Irulan, despite it being for the exact same reason it was in the book. She then leaves Paul to fend for himself instead of staying with him as she does at the end of the book. I do not know why the screenwriters elected to change this from the book. It takes the character of Chani and makes her seem small, wimpy, ungrateful and an idiot who doesn't understand the workings of the political world around her, which is a far cry from the character created by Herbert in the book.
My only other complaints also come from times where the movie strayed from the source material. Number one, the change that instead of Paul and Jessica staying with the Fremen for two years, allowing both to have children, they changed it to several months, cutting out much of the important plot progression created by the two characters.
The ugly:
I wouldn't say there is anything “ugly” about this movie. It is a visual work of art. There are aspects of the film that may not be good for all viewers. First of all, this is an adult movie for a few reasons. Number one, it is almost three hours long. Number two, there is plenty of violence and death, including multiple brutal duels. Number three, there are implied moments of intimacy between characters. Finally, this film is for adults because the subject matter will fly over most children's heads. This film is intrinsically about politics.
Conclusion:
“Dune: Part Two” is a work of art. It is one of the best movies I have seen in my life for a plethora of reasons. The source material is some of the greatest written, and the story is heartfelt and deeper than meets the eye. To the passerby's glance, it looks like a stupid movie about a desert planet. However, the movie is a deep look at the temptation of power, the corruption of power, the power of religious belief, the power of propaganda and the power of the masses. The cinematics are awe-inspiring, and the acting is above the normal caliber seen in film. I cannot speak highly enough of this film and its predecessor, and the book on which it is based. It is some of the greatest work of science fiction in history, and should be enjoyed by everyone who can. I give “Dune: Part Two” 9.5 out of 10 gator tails.