101–110 of 185 posts
There haven't been many good sci-fi films in the past decade though, especially if you think the Marvel cinematic universe is boring. Competition is thin.
agree, Dune for me was one, Inception being another. I liked Moon(small budget but excellent), interstellar was ok. And thats about it.
I would like to see the average age of people who prefer the new Dune movie to the old David Lynch one. Are you all Millennials and younger?
Lynch's world building, Captain Picard vs Sting, rather well-acted, Toto's soundtrack, that intro (oh man, that intro).. what's not to like! I see it as completely different takes, I prefer the old one - has soul to it. Kind of same with old Blade Runner vs 2049. Newer films are technically awesome, yet kind of vapid. And, yes - tastes are different, but let's talk in 20 or so years and see which stick. Old ones alre…
> Even better than the first film The first part left me quite underwhelmed, tbh. Maybe I had too high expectations given the director, but while the visuals are amazing, the characterization of some characters (like lady Jessica or Thufir Hawat) are very far from how the books depicts them, and I don't think is an interpretation thing. I understand that Dune is too big of a masterpiece for a simple 2 part movie (it…
> The first part left me quite underwhelmed The books are chock full of the various character's internal dialog, and when you make the choice to leave that aspect out, there is quite a bit of richness missing. This version went the "show, don't tell" route. Visually, its amazing, but so much additional information from the book to help you understand the characters, the groups they belong to, and their motivations wa…
While I agree it makes it difficult to understand motives, on the other hand I love that they don't over-explain stuff. So many movies ruined by not trusting the audience with half a brain.
Also, I do not think a mega-promoted mega-budget Hollywood blockbuster needs more marketing here. "Esquire says" - so what?
> Even better than the first film The first part left me quite underwhelmed, tbh. Maybe I had too high expectations given the director, but while the visuals are amazing, the characterization of some characters (like lady Jessica or Thufir Hawat) are very far from how the books depicts them, and I don't think is an interpretation thing. I understand that Dune is too big of a masterpiece for a simple 2 part movie (it…
I read the Dune books after seeing Part 1, and I was slightly disappointed at how _little_ characterisation most characters have. Most of them have no history or relationships outside of the ones present in the book and very broad "Paul's doctor came from the secret society of very good doctors". IMO Dune a good piece of literature, but the lackluster worldbuilding makes the Universe feel small and empty. Nothing int…
I’ve noticed that the larger the scale and budget a movies get, the more vacate the film is. A small scale film like The Social Network is much bigger to me than Dune 2 which I recently saw through a friend working in the film industry. Dune 2 is one of the largest scale films ever made but its thoughts and ideas are equally small in the other direction. It’s valid to be mesmerized by the technical feat and the sheer…
Yeah I feel this. I just watched Prisoners for the first time and didn't realize it was Villanueve. It felt like a much more impactful and 'whole' film than Dune Part One.
I could not stand the first part of the movie Dune. I'm sorry for the fans, but it was amongst the worst movies I have ever (partially) watched. Slow and incomprehensible for me. P.S. I have not read the book.
> Even better than the first film The first part left me quite underwhelmed, tbh. Maybe I had too high expectations given the director, but while the visuals are amazing, the characterization of some characters (like lady Jessica or Thufir Hawat) are very far from how the books depicts them, and I don't think is an interpretation thing. I understand that Dune is too big of a masterpiece for a simple 2 part movie (it…
I've probably seen Dune 1984 too many times to have an objective opinion, but I feel like the acting in Dune Part 1 is comparitively very very muted. All the characters (minus Duncan) seem bored the whole time, which is disappointing in relation to the bombastic Shakespearean performances in the Lynch film.
This is how I've felt about most Villeneuve movies I've seen. The main (or at least major) characters look like they're walking knowingly, resignedly towards some destiny they can't control (Arrival at least this kind of makes sense, and Paul for parts of Dune) with an absurdly flat affect most of the time. It's like we're watching them watching themselves go through the motions of life without being able to direct or control it.
Very pretty movies, interesting soundtracks, with strangely flat acting from people who can do much better.
It seems that reviewers like this are still on the Paul-as-hero boat. It's easy to take the first film and even the book that way, despite the premonitions of future destruction and disaster that exist in both, and I assume part 2 is going to largely continue the same way. But I really hope Villeneuve has the guts to hold true to Herbert's overall message about "heroes", where after defeating the evil Harkonnens and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Children of Dune was on the same level. Both were, by far, the pinnacle of Sci-fi (Syfy) channel during their glory days. Stargate is cool, Farscape is too, BSG is my all time favorite, but this - this was BSG before they had the budget. This enabled them to do BSG. They knocked it out of the park. Twice.
Tangentially related, their maxiseries Taken was also excellent. Difficult to learn it even existed given that an action movie franchise which used the same name pretty much crowds it out of search results It’s another one I ended up getting on dvd.