Dune - Film Review
Oct. 31st, 2021 09:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAs long-promised, I finally got around to seeing Dune last night. I had to revive my HBO subscription, because apparently it would let me see what was offered but not allow me to watch anything. So I did it through my Roku television platform. (This actually justified getting the ROKU Smart Television as opposed to the FIRE Smart Television - if I was still on the Fire Stick? I'd not have been able to do it, since HBO didn't renew its agreement with Amazon.)
After much deliberation on the matter - I chose to watch it on HBO Max as opposed to the movie theater. I can always watch it in the movie theater later in the month, if so desired (although unlikely).
As luck would have it? Wales called this morning and told me she'd love to see Dune in the theaters. I told her that I wished she'd told me that a week ago, also I had a feeling she'd be bored by it. It's hard sci-fi, with a lot of exposition.
This bodes the following question - or the only one I had when reading everyone's reviews of the film - do you absolutely need to see this film in a movie theater to enjoy it?
Well, it depends. (Which is pretty much how most folks answered that question.)
1. What size television you have at home and if it is HDTV or higher?
This is a very dark film, a lot of it takes place at night - I'd say in fact 60-75% of it appears to be shot at night, and/or in darkened rooms. So, you won't be able to see it on a small television set, or one that doesn't have the ability to brighten or darken the picture. [There's one particular scene towards the end that I barely could see - and it may have been clearer in a movie theater. Granted it's a scene I don't care about seeing one way or the other, but you might. Paul's face to face confrontation with a sandworm at night.
Also, it's shot in a manner that requires a big screen television or movie theater screen. There's a scene where we see a hand sticking up from the sand in the desert and the sheer scope. OR another, where we see the huge scope of Arrakis, the city on Dune, and the people in relation to it. It's shot for IMAX. So wide screen visuals. This works fine for 55 inch and up, not so much for anything below that.
I can think of a couple of scenes that would not work on my old television sets. The aforementioned bits where we see the armies, the desert, and the sandworms. Also, like I said before - most of the film is at night. We have a scene where the Bene Gesserit (Jessica's Order of Female Mystics) arrives on her home planet - that is at night, the only light from the space ship and the clouded moons, with rain and wind...we see their vague shapes scampering in a group forward, lit only by the space ship behind them. I don't think that scene works well on a small screen.
2. If you have a big screen television is it better to see in the theaters?
Unless you are "really" into cinematography, and lighting, and well subtle film score and film editing - it's not necessary. (In other words a film geek.) Lord of the Rings this isn't. Nor is it Lawrence of Arabia, or for that matter 2001: A Space Odyssey. Or even Star Wars for that matter. It's more Game of Thrones.
I thought about it for Hans Zimmer's soundtrack. But the soundtrack isn't that big a deal. I barely noticed it, and I've watched a lot of films with noticeable soundtracks on my television including Hamilton, Snyder's Justice League, Game of Thrones, Star Wars, Sense and Sensibility, etc. Also, I had the sound turned up and on theater setting.
3. Despite all of the above, would it work better in a theater?
I don't really know? I think this is mainly a subjective thing? I mean it depends on your own personal comfort level regarding movie theaters right now? I can't do movie theaters yet, and preferred seeing it at home. And from what I saw on-screen, I didn't feel cheated in any way. Your mileage may vary.
That said, the following factors may make a difference in how you view it and if you decide to view it:
It's hard sci-fi, with heavy mystical philosophical leanings, so in other words? Not really much of an action film, and not really much of space film either. (Both are in it, just not the central focus?)
It's well-done, and well-made, and they don't use a lot of CGI - like Snyder did with Justice League, Villenevue (sp?) used film stock not digital to make the film, which is why they are telling folks to see it in the theater...but my eye didn't pick up on it.
Another comparison to Justice League? Also to Game of Thrones? It's a dark film, the color scheme is varying shades of black, white, grey, and beige, we do get varying sparks of blood red (it's actual blood) and sky blue (eye color only) which really stand out, since they are the only colors we see outside of black, gray, sandy yellow aka beige and white.
This is not a colorful film.
[ETA - since everyone appears to be commenting on that last line - clarification? It's not a colorful book. The film shouldn't be colorful. That was Lynch's mistake with the 1984 film - it was too colorful and over-the-top. Dune isn't a colorful book. It's not meant to be.]
4. What about plot? Will I be bored? Is it exposition heavy? Would it be better to watch at home, take breaks, rewind, etc? Does it help if you've read the book first?
One of my many Cousins complained online that it lacked plot. I don't think that's true, but I can see why he felt that way. Like I said above, under #3, it's not really an action film. The book isn't either. There's a reason the book was so difficult to adapt, and has to a degree defied adaptations. It's more of a cerebral book than visual one. Heavy emphasis on world building and character, with a convoluted political plot. There are appendixes, and it has its own language, religion, political schematic, etc. As a result, there's a lot exposition in the first film - in order to get to the plot, and the plot kind of gets lost within the exposition. Because of this - it kind of helps if you've read the book at some point?
I read the book over thirty years ago. Sometime around 1981 or 82, I never really got around to re-reading it, mainly because I was so obsessed with it in the 1980s, that I kind of devoured and memorized it. I also saw both of the previous adaptations. (This is by far and away the best adaptation that I've seen to date, and the best casting. The casting was surprisingly spot on.) Note? I only read the first book, and around the age of 14 or 15 years of age. I couldn't get into the others - mostly because they didn't have much plot at all, and were all about the world-building, so 15 year old me got bogged down and kind of bored. (I was geeky, just not that geeky.)
Anyhow, as I watched the film, the book began to come back to me - and I could visualize it in my head - which helped greatly. The film follows what I remember from the book. (Which is admittedly vague - since I read the book thirty years ago, but helped.)
So - if you are expecting a space opera or an action film? This is not it. It's far more interested in explaining to you in detail how a stultsuit (Freemen) suit works, the necessity of spice, and showing Paul training, visions of the future, and the military might of these families. Also what sandworms are. Like I said - lots of exposition.
Personally? I found it to be compelling - but that sort of thing turns me on. It is not for everyone. [I explained this to my friend Wales, who is a cinemaphile and wanted to see it for the visuals, I explained that the visuals are basically a lot of women in black running through the rain backlit by a space ship (which yes, cool, I rewound a couple of times, but not for everyone), sandstorm that goes on for ten minutes, and watching sand rumple underneath a sand streaked sky. Lawrence of Arabia, it's not.
It drags in places...I honestly thought they went overboard with Paul and his visions. I'd have cut it back a bit? And I didn't need to see all the over-shots of the military on Harkonnon, Caladon and Arrakis. I get the feeling they were very proud of their set design and wanted to show it off?
And, it would have helped if a good portion of the action/suspense sequences didn't happen in the dark? (This may have been less of an issue in the movie theater, I don't know.)
So that may have been why the plot got lost on my cousin? Also, about 50-60% of the film is exposition or the set-up for the plot.
The plot? It's not really that complicated. Typical boy's hero's journey.
The Empire is jealous of House Atredies, so pulls them off of their home world, Caladon, which is a water world, to control Arrakis and the spice on Arrakis for them. It looks like the British Isles to be honest. Maybe Scotland? Or Ireland? It did in the book too. So no, issues.
They are brought to Arrakis, which is a planet with no water, and pure desert. The exact opposite of their home world and up to this point controlled by their rivals, the Harkonnon's, the Emperor's War Dogs.
Everyone knows this is a political set-up. The Emperor wants to get rid of House Atredies, because he's afraid they have too much favor and will take over. The Emperor has no sons. Harkonnon hates Atredies, so has no problems taking them out for the Emperor. The Bene Gesserit (Lady Jessica's Order of Female Mages) wants to do it, because they want to control the spice trade, and have their own plans.
So basically, House Atredies is being set-up to be massacred. And there's nothing they can do about it, but try to protect themselves as best they can. Unfortunately they've been infiltrated by someone who naively thinks they can win/end their wife's suffering at the hands of the Harkonnon's. There was a subplot in the book about Lady Jessica being the mole, but this is only subtly alluded to here. It's there, I picked up on it, but only because I'd read the book and vaguely remembered it. I don't know if I would have otherwise. Also, the mystery isn't really built in there much and kind of an after thought. Most of the focus is on Paul's visions about Chani.
Anyway, the mole is the one who gets the assassin's inside. And is able to kill the Duke - who makes the mistake of leaving his rooms to check on a noise. The mole provides the Duke with a tooth that once bit into - will take out both the Duke (Leto Atredies, head of House Atredies) and anyone within range. Because he's not dead, merely paralyzed for life.
Lady Jessica, Paul, and Duncan Idaho flee with some help from Dr. Kynes (a geologist on the planet and Freemen, who was also working for the Emperor).
Everyone dies but Lady Jessica and Paul, who manage to hook up with the Freemen at the end, and after proving themselves - flee into the desert with the Freemen.
The plot gets a little lost in all the focus on the visions of future events and Chani, who isn't really introduced until the end of the movie.
Also the main thrust of the film's focus is on the whole thematic over-arching plot thread that Paul is potentially the Chosen One of the Freemen and the Bene Gesserit, and what that entails.
**
Overall? I enjoyed the movie. I found it compelling, far more so than expected. And seeing it on HBO Max helped, because I could take bathroom breaks, and rewind to pick up errant pieces of dialogue. The dialogue isn't easy to hear in spots.
It reminded me of why I enjoyed the book. It has some nice little philosophical quotes here and there, although oddly it's not Paul who is constantly thinking "Fear is the Mindkiller, I must control my fear", but Lady Jessica. That surprised me and is an interesting change from the book and previous adaptations. Another is "life is not a problem to be solved but a process to go through."
But I think you can enjoy it on HBO Max, depending on the size of your home theater options? Also, keep in mind it's not an action film, it is more world building and character focused with a slower pace. And filmed in dark corridors, with a dark color palette. Cinematography wise? Some excellent and gripping shots. But nothing you've not seen before.
After much deliberation on the matter - I chose to watch it on HBO Max as opposed to the movie theater. I can always watch it in the movie theater later in the month, if so desired (although unlikely).
As luck would have it? Wales called this morning and told me she'd love to see Dune in the theaters. I told her that I wished she'd told me that a week ago, also I had a feeling she'd be bored by it. It's hard sci-fi, with a lot of exposition.
This bodes the following question - or the only one I had when reading everyone's reviews of the film - do you absolutely need to see this film in a movie theater to enjoy it?
Well, it depends. (Which is pretty much how most folks answered that question.)
1. What size television you have at home and if it is HDTV or higher?
This is a very dark film, a lot of it takes place at night - I'd say in fact 60-75% of it appears to be shot at night, and/or in darkened rooms. So, you won't be able to see it on a small television set, or one that doesn't have the ability to brighten or darken the picture. [There's one particular scene towards the end that I barely could see - and it may have been clearer in a movie theater. Granted it's a scene I don't care about seeing one way or the other, but you might. Paul's face to face confrontation with a sandworm at night.
Also, it's shot in a manner that requires a big screen television or movie theater screen. There's a scene where we see a hand sticking up from the sand in the desert and the sheer scope. OR another, where we see the huge scope of Arrakis, the city on Dune, and the people in relation to it. It's shot for IMAX. So wide screen visuals. This works fine for 55 inch and up, not so much for anything below that.
I can think of a couple of scenes that would not work on my old television sets. The aforementioned bits where we see the armies, the desert, and the sandworms. Also, like I said before - most of the film is at night. We have a scene where the Bene Gesserit (Jessica's Order of Female Mystics) arrives on her home planet - that is at night, the only light from the space ship and the clouded moons, with rain and wind...we see their vague shapes scampering in a group forward, lit only by the space ship behind them. I don't think that scene works well on a small screen.
2. If you have a big screen television is it better to see in the theaters?
Unless you are "really" into cinematography, and lighting, and well subtle film score and film editing - it's not necessary. (In other words a film geek.) Lord of the Rings this isn't. Nor is it Lawrence of Arabia, or for that matter 2001: A Space Odyssey. Or even Star Wars for that matter. It's more Game of Thrones.
I thought about it for Hans Zimmer's soundtrack. But the soundtrack isn't that big a deal. I barely noticed it, and I've watched a lot of films with noticeable soundtracks on my television including Hamilton, Snyder's Justice League, Game of Thrones, Star Wars, Sense and Sensibility, etc. Also, I had the sound turned up and on theater setting.
3. Despite all of the above, would it work better in a theater?
I don't really know? I think this is mainly a subjective thing? I mean it depends on your own personal comfort level regarding movie theaters right now? I can't do movie theaters yet, and preferred seeing it at home. And from what I saw on-screen, I didn't feel cheated in any way. Your mileage may vary.
That said, the following factors may make a difference in how you view it and if you decide to view it:
It's hard sci-fi, with heavy mystical philosophical leanings, so in other words? Not really much of an action film, and not really much of space film either. (Both are in it, just not the central focus?)
It's well-done, and well-made, and they don't use a lot of CGI - like Snyder did with Justice League, Villenevue (sp?) used film stock not digital to make the film, which is why they are telling folks to see it in the theater...but my eye didn't pick up on it.
Another comparison to Justice League? Also to Game of Thrones? It's a dark film, the color scheme is varying shades of black, white, grey, and beige, we do get varying sparks of blood red (it's actual blood) and sky blue (eye color only) which really stand out, since they are the only colors we see outside of black, gray, sandy yellow aka beige and white.
This is not a colorful film.
[ETA - since everyone appears to be commenting on that last line - clarification? It's not a colorful book. The film shouldn't be colorful. That was Lynch's mistake with the 1984 film - it was too colorful and over-the-top. Dune isn't a colorful book. It's not meant to be.]
4. What about plot? Will I be bored? Is it exposition heavy? Would it be better to watch at home, take breaks, rewind, etc? Does it help if you've read the book first?
One of my many Cousins complained online that it lacked plot. I don't think that's true, but I can see why he felt that way. Like I said above, under #3, it's not really an action film. The book isn't either. There's a reason the book was so difficult to adapt, and has to a degree defied adaptations. It's more of a cerebral book than visual one. Heavy emphasis on world building and character, with a convoluted political plot. There are appendixes, and it has its own language, religion, political schematic, etc. As a result, there's a lot exposition in the first film - in order to get to the plot, and the plot kind of gets lost within the exposition. Because of this - it kind of helps if you've read the book at some point?
I read the book over thirty years ago. Sometime around 1981 or 82, I never really got around to re-reading it, mainly because I was so obsessed with it in the 1980s, that I kind of devoured and memorized it. I also saw both of the previous adaptations. (This is by far and away the best adaptation that I've seen to date, and the best casting. The casting was surprisingly spot on.) Note? I only read the first book, and around the age of 14 or 15 years of age. I couldn't get into the others - mostly because they didn't have much plot at all, and were all about the world-building, so 15 year old me got bogged down and kind of bored. (I was geeky, just not that geeky.)
Anyhow, as I watched the film, the book began to come back to me - and I could visualize it in my head - which helped greatly. The film follows what I remember from the book. (Which is admittedly vague - since I read the book thirty years ago, but helped.)
So - if you are expecting a space opera or an action film? This is not it. It's far more interested in explaining to you in detail how a stultsuit (Freemen) suit works, the necessity of spice, and showing Paul training, visions of the future, and the military might of these families. Also what sandworms are. Like I said - lots of exposition.
Personally? I found it to be compelling - but that sort of thing turns me on. It is not for everyone. [I explained this to my friend Wales, who is a cinemaphile and wanted to see it for the visuals, I explained that the visuals are basically a lot of women in black running through the rain backlit by a space ship (which yes, cool, I rewound a couple of times, but not for everyone), sandstorm that goes on for ten minutes, and watching sand rumple underneath a sand streaked sky. Lawrence of Arabia, it's not.
It drags in places...I honestly thought they went overboard with Paul and his visions. I'd have cut it back a bit? And I didn't need to see all the over-shots of the military on Harkonnon, Caladon and Arrakis. I get the feeling they were very proud of their set design and wanted to show it off?
And, it would have helped if a good portion of the action/suspense sequences didn't happen in the dark? (This may have been less of an issue in the movie theater, I don't know.)
So that may have been why the plot got lost on my cousin? Also, about 50-60% of the film is exposition or the set-up for the plot.
The plot? It's not really that complicated. Typical boy's hero's journey.
The Empire is jealous of House Atredies, so pulls them off of their home world, Caladon, which is a water world, to control Arrakis and the spice on Arrakis for them. It looks like the British Isles to be honest. Maybe Scotland? Or Ireland? It did in the book too. So no, issues.
They are brought to Arrakis, which is a planet with no water, and pure desert. The exact opposite of their home world and up to this point controlled by their rivals, the Harkonnon's, the Emperor's War Dogs.
Everyone knows this is a political set-up. The Emperor wants to get rid of House Atredies, because he's afraid they have too much favor and will take over. The Emperor has no sons. Harkonnon hates Atredies, so has no problems taking them out for the Emperor. The Bene Gesserit (Lady Jessica's Order of Female Mages) wants to do it, because they want to control the spice trade, and have their own plans.
So basically, House Atredies is being set-up to be massacred. And there's nothing they can do about it, but try to protect themselves as best they can. Unfortunately they've been infiltrated by someone who naively thinks they can win/end their wife's suffering at the hands of the Harkonnon's. There was a subplot in the book about Lady Jessica being the mole, but this is only subtly alluded to here. It's there, I picked up on it, but only because I'd read the book and vaguely remembered it. I don't know if I would have otherwise. Also, the mystery isn't really built in there much and kind of an after thought. Most of the focus is on Paul's visions about Chani.
Anyway, the mole is the one who gets the assassin's inside. And is able to kill the Duke - who makes the mistake of leaving his rooms to check on a noise. The mole provides the Duke with a tooth that once bit into - will take out both the Duke (Leto Atredies, head of House Atredies) and anyone within range. Because he's not dead, merely paralyzed for life.
Lady Jessica, Paul, and Duncan Idaho flee with some help from Dr. Kynes (a geologist on the planet and Freemen, who was also working for the Emperor).
Everyone dies but Lady Jessica and Paul, who manage to hook up with the Freemen at the end, and after proving themselves - flee into the desert with the Freemen.
The plot gets a little lost in all the focus on the visions of future events and Chani, who isn't really introduced until the end of the movie.
Also the main thrust of the film's focus is on the whole thematic over-arching plot thread that Paul is potentially the Chosen One of the Freemen and the Bene Gesserit, and what that entails.
**
Overall? I enjoyed the movie. I found it compelling, far more so than expected. And seeing it on HBO Max helped, because I could take bathroom breaks, and rewind to pick up errant pieces of dialogue. The dialogue isn't easy to hear in spots.
It reminded me of why I enjoyed the book. It has some nice little philosophical quotes here and there, although oddly it's not Paul who is constantly thinking "Fear is the Mindkiller, I must control my fear", but Lady Jessica. That surprised me and is an interesting change from the book and previous adaptations. Another is "life is not a problem to be solved but a process to go through."
But I think you can enjoy it on HBO Max, depending on the size of your home theater options? Also, keep in mind it's not an action film, it is more world building and character focused with a slower pace. And filmed in dark corridors, with a dark color palette. Cinematography wise? Some excellent and gripping shots. But nothing you've not seen before.
no subject
Date: 2021-10-31 06:25 pm (UTC)Quite, which I think adds to the issue of watching it at home. We have a 75" TV so pretty much any movie works well on it. But it is not a movie one watches on a laptop. In fact, if you can't see the images well I'd think this would be something of a slog to see because it's not one you're following for the dialogue.
Agreed about the repetitive Paul visions. Twice would be enough. And like you, I found it more compelling than I expected, which means that overall they made good decisions with difficult source material.
no subject
Date: 2021-10-31 06:35 pm (UTC)I could see the images for the most part fairly well...but, I'll admit there were two sections that were difficult to see - Baron Harkonnon sputtering on the ceiling, and the sandworm confrontation almost eluded even me.
I think that's why it needs to be seen in a theater. (Although neither image do I feel an overwhelming urge to see and like you I was okay with it.)
I do however foresee a problem with that technique - we've reached the day and age in which it is kind of necessary to be able to watch movies on multiple devices for repeat sales. So if it is limited to being seen on a big screen - that limits revenue stream, and makes it less likely for them to fund a sequel or other films. I could be wrong about that...but I'd think that would have an influence?
no subject
Date: 2021-11-01 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-11-01 05:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-10-31 07:55 pm (UTC)It's funny, it's not really an action film, yes, but in terms of what they skipped over, in terms of character building and background, and how briefly various important elements were touched, generally they did retain the important action scenes. Had I not had the background from the books, I wonder how much I would have cared about or understood the characters as they were overtaken by the action from event to event. I enjoyed it, with my memory of the books, but now I wonder if there's so much relevant material there that it needs to be a television series instead to have justice paid to it. Given that, I am relieved to learn that friends who aren't much familiar with the books also largely enjoyed this movie because I do want rather more to be made.
no subject
Date: 2021-10-31 10:34 pm (UTC)Glad you got to see it in a movie theater, I honestly don't think it works well on anything less than a 55 inch screen if that. Also, I tend to agree - it's more suitable for television. They did try once, but it wasn't successful.
Doom, duh doom, doom, Dune
Date: 2021-11-01 12:14 am (UTC)I read the book back in the 70s. I remember distinctly being able to understand most of the "foreign language" bits, and had a friend who wanted to discuss it with me. I have to admit I kind of skimmed over the druggy crap when I was reading it, so I was a little shocked by the De Laurentis movie when it saw it. Went back to the book and saw it was all there.
This is not a colorful film.
The De Laurentis movie was more than colorful enough than five or six versions needed to be. I preferred the Sci-Fi version which wasn't so over the top Hollywood-style.
Re: Doom, duh doom, doom, Dune
Date: 2021-11-01 01:29 am (UTC)There's two movies that I wanted to love and was horribly disappointed by, actually make that four, in the 1980s. David Lynch's Dune, Tim Burton's Batman franchise (sigh, I wanted noir, Tim wanted Nightmare on Elm Street meets Beetlejuice), and I've blanked on the third. It may come to me, it may not. It was there a moment ago. Oh, right, Return of the Jedi. Actually every Star Wars film after Empire disappointed me to varying degrees. But yeah, the Lynch version was a travesty. I still can remember bits of it - ugh. Sting as the Baron's nephew? (shudder), and oh dear god the hammy acting. And no, Kyle McLachlan did not work as Paul at all. (Lynch cast Kyle in everything, because Kyle looked and acted just like Lynch. I loved him at the time, but he was too stiff and all wrong for the part.)
I've also seen the television mini-series - which also disappointed me and I can barely remember, except that I thought the lead was too old for the part of Paul. And it was very slow and kind of plodding. Another travesty.
I'd say that the current movie is hands down the best of the bunch. It's good. I enjoyed it.
Mother: is the book colorful?
Me: No, not at all.
Mother: So would you say it is representative of the book?
Me: Yep, completely. The book isn't really visual though...hard to explain. It's more world-building hard sci-fi. But yes, this is a great and true adaptation of the book.
Re: Doom, duh doom, doom, Dune
Date: 2021-11-02 02:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-11-01 02:08 pm (UTC)I thought the movie was fine; not great, not bad.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-01 05:14 pm (UTC)I agree, the movie was good or fine, not great or bad. It was also the best adaptation I've seen to date - but keeping in mind that the last two adaptations were pretty bad, and forgettable, that's not exactly a high bar.
I don't think the books are really adaptable - they get really convoluted as you go. And I read the synopsis of the sequels - and well, there's a reason I stopped with Dune.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-01 05:52 pm (UTC)Yeah, the "Jessica is the traitor" subplot seems pretty important to me. Because they left that out, they also left out the dinner party which would have made a great set-piece. I guess the visions substitute for the exposition we get in the books, but as a book reader I'd rather have had a different selection from the material.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-02 02:09 am (UTC)Also, we have the meeting with the Emperor (Jose Ferrer) and the Guild Navigator - who tells the Emperor that he needs to kill Paul Atredes, but not why.
They don't do the Lady Jessica is a traitor subplot in Lynch's version either - although we do get more lead up to Dr. Wu being the traitor. (Wu is oddly enough portrayed by Dean Stockwell made up to look Asian (he doesn't look Asian, he looks like a white racist stereotype of an Asian...reminding me of how racist our media was in the 1980s and how far we've come).
I wish they'd done it in this one, I knew they didn't after reading selenak's review of the film, so was at least prepared.
***
Regarding what I read of the sequels on Wiki and regarding character arcs? They get a bit...hmmm, offensive? Herbert was on the conservative fringe of politics, and he delves heavily into Islam for inspiration on the religious aspects. Apparently Paul does a kind of Jihad and takes over the entire galaxy, neutering whole planets to suppress their rebellion and convert them to his religion and vision. He becomes a bit of a monster, succeeded only by his sister, and son, who are far worse.
I think I'll pass. I don't know if they were meant to be cautionary tales or the opposite. Not a pleasant verse, Dune.