![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dune - Film Review
Oct. 31st, 2021 09:50 amAs 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. ( spoiler )
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.
( plot spoilers )
**
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,( Spoiler )
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. ( spoiler )
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.
( plot spoilers )
**
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,( Spoiler )
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.
