I first read Frank Herbert’s Dune when I was twelve and have re-read it several times in the fifty years since (yes, fifty. Oy). It is a hugely uneven novel, a mishmash of science fiction, mysticism, half-baked anthropology, and loony medievalism, and it has one of the worst concluding lines ever written (“While we, Chani, we who carry the name of concubine—history will call us wives.”) Yet, somehow, it works. It has enough genuinely interesting ideas, and enough genuinely thrilling action scenes, to bring its discordant elements together into a compelling package. I loved the first installment of Denis de Villeneuve’s new film adaptation and was looking forward enormously to the second. For the most part, it is terrific. I’m not a fan of Timothée Chalamet, and cringed when, in part two, he ambled over to a group of “Fedaykin” warriors, his fluffy hair falling in front of his babyish face, and chirped “so what’cha doing, guys?” But generally, he is convincing enough in the role of Herbert’s hero, Paul Atreides (also known as Muad’dib, Usul, the Lisan al-Gaib, and the Kwisatz Haderach—it’s that kind of novel). The film only disappoints at the conclusion, which it rushes through and changes from the book, stripping out some of its most dramatic confrontations and memorable lines (“I’m sorry, grandfather, you’ve met the Atreides
Thank you. I for one wish Villeneuve could short shrift Dune Messiah to tackle the (in my opinion) more fascinating if formidable (challenge to film) fourth book... I say no more lest spoilers abound..
Thank you. I for one wish Villeneuve could short shrift Dune Messiah to tackle the (in my opinion) more fascinating if formidable (challenge to film) fourth book... I say no more lest spoilers abound..
This begs the question: how does the new version compare to David Lynch's treatment?