Dune (2021) review by a Dune fanatic

 So, I watched the new Dune movie yesterday, and my mind is conflicted, stirred, perplexed and bewildered, so in order to sort myself out, I decided to write this review.

As a film nut I'm going to compare Dune (2021) by Dennis Villeneuve to Dune (1984) by David Lynch (and definitly not the Alan Smithee version), and skip the Dune miniseries as I only watched it bitsy and half-heartedly way too long ago to matter now. There will be tons of spoilers, opinions and other dangers ahead.

Now, other people have delved into the usual stuff about visuals (they are lovely), special effects (they are great), cinematography (it is awesome), sound (it is fantastic) and so forth, but I wanted to focus less on that and more on the story, the point of the book, the characters themselves, and dig into the nitty gritty of how these films cater to a serious Dune nerd like myself.

Storytelling

Now, the story of the book and how it is told has often been described as un-filmable, especially two aspects of it; the inner monologue by characters throughout that gives these characters such a richness and context, and the story arch itself that doesn't fall into a neat three act package. The original story is also quite long, filled to the brim with dense world-building and complex starting position. How on earth do you take something like that and try to make a film out of it?

Both movies takes a cue from the book and start out with a monologue, similar to how each chapter in the original book has some kind of quote, speech, or transcript from some source or another to give the reader an idea of the impact the story has on the universe. The book, by showing us the many different sources of information, inspiration and quotations, tells you clearly that Paul's story had a massive impact on the universe. This is an important story. However, neither of films do that; they use it to dump information and context on you in order to understand the film so that they can get started. 

(2021) uses Chani as a narrator to give Arrakis and the fremen some much needed context at the cost of making them less mysterious (more on this later), while (1984) is closer to the book using Princess Irulan to set the stage in a more "here's the chessboard; now play." 

Now, as a story in itself I thought (2021) had a nice structure and pace to it, and the order in which things came out worked well (with a few caveats). It felt linear and had a more natural form compared to (1984) that felt more staccato and whimsical, but this could be where (2021) has the advantage of only needing to create the first part of the book, as well as (1984) being directed by David Lynch.

Of the bigger changes from the book, I particularily liked the ceremony on Caladan with the herald of change, brilliantly played by the amazing Benjamin Clementine (and I would love to know how that came about!) to set the stage for understanding some of the more feudal aspects of the universe. But I never had any issues with (1984) either, they both did a decent job of conveying a very complex story, with pro's and con's on both sides.

Neither movie did a good job of explaining why technology is the way it is, though, especially the concept of no computers or thinking machines, and this is a weakness with both of them, both trying to convey the information in different ways (more on that later, especially the Mentat section below).

But I'll declare (2021) the winner of this section because it made it so much clearer why the Atreides got the stewardship of Arrakis, what they feared would happen, and how they hoped to survive it given enough time.

Mentats and schools

Neither movie explained the lack of computers well, which is a problem of understanding both the story of Paul and most of the main characters. A long time ago there was a war between man and machine that we eventually "won" called the Butlerian Jihad (more on this later), and any thinking machines was from then on banned, and so the current world is an adaption to that fact. If we can't build a thinking machine to do the complex stuff, we must do the second best thing; train existing thinking biological machines - aka humans - to be even better at it. Enter the mentat.

Mentats are people with special skills, training and drugs that make them better at complex mental thought. And here I'm giving the point to (1984) which by far made it clear that Pietr and Thufir were mentats, it linked up the juice of Sapho with the red-stained lips, it called them both mentats, it made it clear that these guys were special in certain ways. It didn't make it clear in what, but then neither did (2021). In fact, (2021) just made them do the weird eye-rolling-back-into-their-head thing as a hint, but that's not from the books, nor sufficient to understand their importance. I'll hand the point to (1984) which even makes a point of Thufir is one of the finest mentats in the universe, something worth keeping and using.

And I should make a note here as well something that both movies neglect; Paul is a mentat in his early stages, and this is also crucial to the original story and why the Bene Gesserit breeding program clashed with this fact. This is what's special about Paul, and not the Lisan al-gaib and religious tones set by (2021) film.

World building

If you don't explain the Butlerian jihad (the war on and the following cleansing of thinking machines) - the very thing that explains the mentats and other schools of training, like the Bene Gesserit - then you're not in the Dune world proper. Things important in the one is meaningless in the other, and this is a huge problem for both films; the characters, their behaviour, skills and motivations are driven purely by this fundamental core building-block of the Dune universe. Everything follows from there, and I think most flaws with either film stems from this very fact.

However, (1984) did a great job in painting a picture of a world of old-school uniforms, better at formalities, better at the subtleness of how special training shapes these characters. Now, some of that was simply a creation of being the 80's, with those costumes, special effects and film making tropes, but also David Lynch fantastic ability to make characters come alive through dialog and behaviour. Much has been said about the pugs - and Gurney fighting the Harkonnens carrying one into battle - but it works! 

(1984) made these characters full of color (some might say too full, like the Baron Harkonnen to which I'd agree), while (2021) toned them down, but maybe too much at the peril of explaining some of the extraordinary things about them in the process.

I feel both movies actually got the contrast between the various houses down really well. One can always nitpick about certain styles and hairdoo's and colors, but I'll just say that (2021) is a modern film, and we can't really fairly compare the two in those things, except ornithopters which (2021) did fantastically well! I want one now!

Dialog and characters

(2021) is more concerned with a softer, more human dialog, one more suited to, I suppose, modern ears. And for me that doesn't work; we're already over 10.000 years into the future, there's no need for that. These characters felt too normalized in this version, and if I dare say it, too relatable, too normal? This is an extraordinary world with extraordinary characters having extraordinary skills being thrown into extraordinary circumstances, there's no need or point to try to make them more moody angsty teenagers, or blubbering mess of a mother fearing for her son, or a bantering Duncan, or a dismissing Stilgar, or sugary Chani.

We can always argue the point that in order to make us relate to the characters on the screen, we need to make them relatable to us as modern people. However, (2021) tried to do that through language, and I think that was a mistake; nothing change and evolve and twists through time like languages. What doesn't change so much is at the core of being a human; emotions, behaviour and our physical bodies. So my observation here is that in (1984) we get more of that; little shots of the eyes, a creak in the corner of a mouth, Hawat banging on a table to himself "We're finding these sabotage devices too easily!", Yueh smirking, the Baron giggling at something horrible, Piters' hand movements and nervous chin scratching, and so on.

Looking back, I kinda appreciate the oddness of the (1984) movie's dialog more, as well as the more colourful character portraits; it gave the movie a sense of these characters' extraordinariness, their oddness (both to us seeing them from over 10.000 years into the future, as well as in their context of being extraordinary elites), and that's quite important. (2021) toned them down too much, made them too normalised. 

So, let's have some fun and address some specific characters, and compare notes and give scores!

Paul: (1984) was a stiffer, more formal Paul, while (2021) was a slightly more normal angsty version. Both good, but I'll hand it to (2021), Timothee Chalamet is fantastic, and I especially loved his take on the Gom Jabbar; the strength through peril and the hatred of Mohiam comes through brilliantly.

Jessica: (1984) had a more regal and present Jessica, while (2021) went for tough but real and slightly distant one. But (2021)'s Rebecca Ferguson really showed what a highly trained Bene Gesserit is capable of doing, and I would pull out the Gom Jabbar emotional turmoil as a highlight, as well as a fantastic ornithopter fighting Harkonnes scene.

Duke Leto: I'm calling this a draw; they're both fine. (1984)'s Jurgen Prochnow is formal and tender and full of emotions, while (2021)'s Oscar Isaac is more stoic and balanced. I'm tempted to give the point to (1984), because we have to remember the tremendous strain this character is under, however (2021) pulls it back to a draw for asking Jessica to protect Paul, not as a mother, but as a Bene Gesserit. That was brilliant screen writing!

Gurney Halleck: (1984) gave us Captain Piccard himself, Patrick Stewart, who brings a warmth to a formidable character that is much closer to the book than the colder (2021) Brolin. Gurney was an amazing fighter, but with a subtle twinkle in his stride, and (1984) wins this one hands down.

Duncan Idaho: In (1984) he's just a guy that Paul knows, some important person probably, that we see little of and then he dies. (2021) really took Duncan to the level he deserves, both as a companion and friend to Paul, but also as a formidable fighter and the goto person for gaining trust and respect by others (which is why he was sent to find the fremen in advance). These words are hard for me to write, but Jason Momoa did a fantastic job here.

Thufir Hawat: (1984) gave us a formidable Thufir through Freddie Jones, the character that truly runs the show, organises and plots and mentats his way through the paces. (2021)'s Thufir us a fairly low-key role, just some guy that is "important in some fighting way, probably" but you never get a feel for the tremendous intellect he really is. (1984) for the win!

Gaius Helen Mohiam: This is a tough one because (1984) Mohiam was, in fact, very very good, Sian Phillips delivered an authory figure with smarts and control, but, but, but (2021)'s Charlotte Rampling was simply outstanding (albeit we didn't see much of her) as a scary old lady with no concerns for the formalities of royalty, no emotional scruples, straight to the point, and just enough disdain for the process and glimpses of awe at realising Paul's strength and potential. Brilliantly done, and I hope we get to see much more of her later.

Liet Kynes: It's simply impossible to ignore the towering actor that is Max von Sydow in (1984), his performance was all the right subtleties and intonations, stoic authority mixed with just the right amount of wonder and fremen touches, a true masterclass Liet. That said, I have no issues with the (2021) Liet, not even the gender thing that got so many panties in a twist. In fact, I welcomed the change, and she was very good. Just not Max.

Shadout Mapes: (1984) saw Linda Hunt pulling out all the stops and then some, while (2021) had a normal person in the role. I found this one a bit hard to choose from, because on the one hand (1984)'s character was a true character, and I'm not sure Mapes truly is one? Or needs to be? On the other hand, let's talk about the two key points of importance in the main Mapes scene; 

1. Test the Lady Jessica for the prophecy: both movies does this, although (2021) does it far better (but there's some of the same crysknife interactions that were left on the (1984) cutting room floor).

2. Tell them about the traitor: and this is the clincher; (2021) doesn't do this at all. In fact, the knowledge of a traitor sub-plot is completely removed from the movie, rendering Dr. Yueh to a mere "some doctor that checked Paul after an incident, and then betrays them all and kills some people, and gets killed himself. Who was that guy?"

So, giving the victory to (1984) on this point alone, let me tell you about...

The traitor Dr. Yueh: The original book and the (1984) movie made it clear from the beginning who Dr. Yueh was, and that he is a traitor about to cause the downfall of House Atredies. (2021) doesn't show him until after the hunter-seeker scene, and then just after as he's doing the dirty deed and subsequencially killed off.

The trouble with all of this is that Dr. Yueh is an important character, a mentor to Paul and a friend, a highly influencial person that is much trusted and consulted. There is a sub-plot throughout the first part of the original book about how they know there's a traitor (first suspicions, then Mapes, then mentat probabilities), how this created some tension between Jessica and Thufir, how it worked as a distraction against the Atreides, and so on, and how much of a kick to the teeth Yueh trecery truly was.

So this one is (1984) hands down, not only because Dean Stockwell is a fantastic actor who played him really well, but also because (2021) didn't have much of one.

The baron: (1984) had a crazy character in it, while (2021) had a growling brood in it. Neither approached the baron for the intellect he truly is. His fatness and fondness for boys are mere distractions, causing you to fail to the see the true monster; pure scheming unscrupulous intellect. Neither movie got him right, but I'll give it to (2021) because he felt more real, more of a towering threat.

Piter DeVries: (1984) gave us a chilling bushy Brad Dourif full of quirks, gestures and an eerie hint of uncontrolled evil within. (2021) on the other hand went with "some guy next to the baron." He was totally underused, underplayed, a total waste of talent. So, referring to my earlier point that the (2021) universe doesn't need nor explain mentats; we saw it with Thufir, we see it with Piter, and of course this means (1984) is the winner.

Rabban: A draw; either is fine.

Chani: A draw; either is fine. Some of Chani's dialog in (1984) was quite stilted and odd, but Chani is more for the next movie and I won't use that against it. Yet.

Stilgar: This is an odd one, and I stress that I can only base it on the little we see of Stilgar in the (2021) film, but I didn't like Javier Bardem's Stilgar, which is odd because he's a phenomenal actor that really can deliver some fantastic characters. Just not this one; nonchalant, a bit sloppy, and felt like "just some fremen guy" rather than what we see from Everett McGill in (1984), the stoic leader than only speaks carefully considered and exactly the words needed, no more.

Important stuff left out or put in

There's of course tons of stuff left out of either movie; the book is long and complex, so something have to give. But what? How do you choose? Well, here are some of my thoughts on stuff that was either left out or added in, but shouldn't have. First, let's take on each movie, and then a section towards the end of stuff they both missed out on;

Let's start with (1984) and the usual complaints; replacing weirding modules (pew-pew) for the weirding way (training and knowledge), having the inner monologues (with some caveats; I don't think they were that bad, but they should have been more carefully crafted and timed), giving the Baron some skin disease (and a weird doctor), showing a third-stage navigator (cool to look at in a movie, but would never happen in the Dune universe), making the Bene Gesserit a) bald, and b) have telepathy (neither are true).

Then my main complaints about (2021) with the missing mentats (they're there in character, just not in importance and meaning), all the character notes mentioned earlier, no knowledge of the traitor or good use of Dr. Yueh, Liet Kynes killed from the back by a sneaky Saurdakar (simply would not happen).

I'm dying to summarise and tell you what I really loved about (2021), but before that, and to bring some context to the summary and some of my criticisms above, we need to talk about;

Missed scenes

There's a few scenes I feel are a must in any Dune adaption, but which they both missed (and I'm only looking at stuff that happens in the timeline they both share);

1. Paul being told he's probably a mentat

This is a crucial part of what makes Paul the protagonist in this incredible story; he's caught in the cross-line between the Bene Gesserit breeding program, and his secret mentat training. He's not actually the Kwisatz Haderach, but something unexpected that share a lot of the similarities with one.

This is, of course, a problem with the (2021) film that doesn't explain or afflict us with the mentat concepts, and how important they truly are to this universe. The notion of a mentat Duke gives plenty important characters the chills, in both good and bad ways. His mentat ability paired with bene Gesserit training is what makes him at times so super-human. If you don't explain this, then Paul is just some noncontextual superman, a white saviour of the noble savage. And that is not the story of Dune, quite the opposite.

2. Banquet at the Arrakeen palace

It's a scene in the book that explain so much in terms of politics, the fragility of power, the indifference of the Fremen, the workings of the palace vs. Arrakeen (the city), and is a true masterclass in storytelling of laying down some truly complex and perplexing concepts in a way that's relatively easy to follow. I can understand why both movies avoid it, it would be an almost unsurmountable feat to get right, but I wish they tried.

3. Count Fenring visits Baron Harkonnen

Count Fenring is actually quite an important character from the book (he's the culimination of a branch from the Bene Gesserit breeding program declared a failure, so he's the closest we get to another one like Paul), and he's a trusted Bene Gesserit agent who, after the battle of Arrakeen, visits and interrogates and subtly threatens the Baron (on behalf of the Emperor, but also the Bene Gesserit) in the middle of a party (Feyd's arena battle). It's a fantastic scene, in which, again, dense complexity is delivered masterfully in a very short chapter.

4. Lady Jessica finds the greenhouse in the Arrakeen Palace

Lady Jessica finds an old greenhouse in the palace, and within it a secret message to her from the previous Bene Gesserit occupying it ... Lady Fenring, if my memory serves). Again the message contains urgent matters of a traitor and some other juicy information that truly creates a tension around Jessica's situation.

5. Gurney Halleck and his men joining the smugglers

To their defence, (1984) has Gurney pop out of the woodwork in a skirmish in the desert where he emotionally catches up with Paul again, and tells him he joined some smugglers, and who knows what the (2021) follow-up movies will do. But right after the fall of Arrakeen (while Paul and Jessica enters the desert), some surviving Atreides under Gurney Halleck takes refuge at a smugglers base, and later joins them out of the necessity for survival. This is a very tense scene where you're torn between the humans in peril and the smugglers with mouths to feed. I'd love to see that done well.

7. Reactions to the first Fremen vs. Sardaukar fighting, and ...

6. Thufir Hawats capture

There's a scene where Thufir gets to see first-hand Fremen handle the dreaded Saurdakar, and they do it with ease and only minor losses, and it blows Thufir's mind! One Saurdakar can take on a hundred soldiers without too much of a sweat, and here's the Fremen slapping them around like a nuisance! Now, lots of the Fremen do get killed next and Thufir does capture, but the point about the fiercness and fighting power of the Fremen becomes so clear (and neither movie [so far] has managed to do that)

7. Arrakeen

I'll add this point here that neither movie really delve into the city of Arrakeen at all; we don't get a sense of the people, their lives or that the city is a humming metropolis of smells, sights and sounds. To their defence, Dune Messiah (book 2) does this in far greater detail, but it's a shame we don't get anything from the city. At least in (2021) we get a) some rabble at the airport shouting Lisan Al-gaib, and b) underground pilgrims watching Paul as he walks under the (very important and symbolic) palm trees. But that's it.

So, did you like it?

Given all I've said so far, you'd think I hated it, but no, I loved it. There were missed opportunities, for sure, things I'd prefer them to have done differently, but as adaptations go, this was an outstanding one. It felt epic, it felt like a proper story, had just enough mystery and world-building to make it compelling, with generally great actors throughout.

I was disappointed when, after Paul kills Jamis, there was no "How does it feel to be a killer?" from Jessica, true, but then I was really happy with them fighting and escaping the Harkonnens in the ornithopter, an outstanding scene! I loved the Herald of the Change scene! The ecological testing station was spot on! The ornithopters were amazing! The lasgun incredible! The shields done really well!

I also loved Jessica's hand language, and it's a shame they didn't use more of it, and for more characters (as they do in the book), and come to think of it, it might be a great way to find a middle ground betwen the inner monologues and having none. I don't think they really got right just how well trained Paul truly is, that every day is training, and most of that training is not in fighting (which is the only training they actuall show).

I found the aesthetics to be a bit too clean at times, but I guess humans have evolved to sweat less and get less dirty? Minor issue. The ship and equipment designs were outstanding. The Saurdakar and especially Salusa Secondus was amazing, if brief, truly showed the Saurdakar as brutal and threatening as you'd want them to be. I loved the spice masks of the spacing guild, the spice harvester, even the odd carryall with the baloon was great. Oh, and the sand compactor Paul uses in the tent was incredible!

The sound and music was great, and I felt Hans Zimmer had toned it down a notch for this one, just the right amount of noise-to-music ratio. I wasn't blown away by it, except maybe on Salusa Secondus, that was great!

And as everyone else has said, the cinematogrophy is fantastic, all around great framing and placements of things and people everywhere. Yes, the movie is maybe a notch beige, but then, so is the desert if you've ever been there.

So, in summary

Biggest flaws; the mentat issue, and no traitor sub-plot. 

Scenes that could use some work; anything mentat, anything Dr. Yueh, anything Stilgar, killing Jamis

Biggest wins; looks, feels, tech, effects, story, fighting, Jessica, Mohiam, Duncan.

Favourite scenes worth the ticket price alone; Herald of Change, Gom Jabbar, the hunter-seeker, fighting Harkonnens in an ornithopter, Salusa Secondus, escape from the ecology testing station.

I give it 7 out of 10 Arrakeen spice morsels, but a solid 9 out 10 off-world movie star rating.