The first Dune movie from Denis Villeneuve was fantastic, ranking among my top 5 movies of 2021 for its scope, its pacing, multiple strong performances, and outstanding visuals. The film did well enough for Villeneuve to finance a sequel to complete the story from the first (and only worthwhile) of Frank Herbert’s novels. While Dune: Part Two still has the same strong special effects, the script isn’t as strong as that of the first film, and the limits of Timothée Chalamet’s range become all too apparent as the film progresses. (It’s streaming free on Max, as is the first one, or can be rented on Amazon, iTunes, etc.)
Dune: Part Two picks up right where the first film left off, after the Harkonnens have taken over Arrakis, killing most of Paul Atreides’s (Timothée Chalamet) family, while he and his mother (Rebecca Ferguson) have joined up with the Fremen, a tribe of nomads who live in the desert, led by Stilgar (Javier Bardem), who help the pair escape after Paul wins a duel against one of their warriors. The sequel tracks two major plot lines that will intersect at the film’s conclusion. The first covers Paul and his mother’s time with the Fremen, hiding from the Harkonnens and coexisting with the skeptical nomads while they plan how to retake the planet. The other follows the Harkonnens’ effort to control the planet’s spice trade, with Rabban (Dave Bautista) serving as his uncle’s (Stellan Skarsgård) proxy, but Rabban’s brother Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler), a sadistic lunatic, is angling for the job.
The film seems to stay true to the book by devoting substantial time to Paul’s tenure with the Fremen, including how he works to convince them that he’s worth their protection but isn’t a prophet or a hero, just someone fighting the same evil forces he is. What works on the page doesn’t work as well on screen, though, as the result is a film that can’t manage its pacing, with long scenes of explanations and far too much of the movie’s constructed languages. There are some great action scenes, and the intrigues of the Harkonnens pulse with their own energy, even if Feyd-Rautha’s madness is over the top. Unfortunately, the script gives too much time to Paul, and not in a way that lets his character fully develop – and a lot of that comes down to the portrayal.
Chalamet is a highly decorated actor, with an Oscar nomination and three Golden Globe nominations under his belt, but I’m starting to think he’s more limited than it first appeared. (As if I weren’t already dreading the Bob Dylan biopic enough, now I’m worried we’re going to get Paul Atreides on the guitar and harmonica singing “Shelter from the Storm”.) There’s too little variation in his tone or expression here, which not only doesn’t fit the story, it doesn’t fit the character of the novel, either. Paul Atreides matures and develops substantially over the course of the book, and the script clearly allows him to do so as well, but there’s little to no difference between his affect and his delivery from the first movie to even the end of this one, when we get to the Big Speech and then the story’s resolution. I’m just starting to think he’s not as good of an actor as we thought he was, or as we thought he’d become.
Chalamet’s mediocre performance is even more stark because of the strength of many of the other people in the film, notably Bardem, as Stilgar, the leader of the Fremen and the one who believes that Paul is the prophet of their religion; Ferguson, as Paul’s mother, who becomes the spiritual leader of the Fremen, in accordance with the prophecy; and, of course, Zendaya, as Chani, Paul’s love interest, a much stronger character in the film than she is on the page, thanks also to Zendaya’s assertive portrayal. The cast even includes two other Academy Award winners beyond Bardem, Christopher Walken and Charlotte Rampling, both of whom play small roles without a ton of dialogue, but they help further overshadow Chalamet’s toneless performance.
Perhaps Dune: Part Two would work better if viewed immediately after the first film, rather than three years later – and I’m sure it would play better on the big screen than on my home television. It sounds like it’s going to get a Best Picture nomination, and possibly a Best Director nod for Villeneuve, neither of which is an outrage, although I’m guessing I’ll find ten movies I rank higher by the time this cycle is over. It’s just a disappointing ending given how great the first film was.
Idk that felt that way about chalamet but this movie felt like filler. Meant to move the plot forward and it did okay with that. But it was really all leading to a third movie where we get a final resolution.
The problem I had with this movie is that the high point of this movie wasn’t great and there wasn’t enough juice anywhere to else to make it compelling. Would chalamet have overcome that? I doubt it
it absolutely is worthy (and better) when seen on a big screen so as to appreciate the incredible cinematography and effects. i would also note that dune is best considered a single six hour film vs. “part 1” and “part 2”. back to back viewing of the two components, while loooooong, is probably the way to do it.
When are we getting a review of David Lynch’s disastrous production from 1984?
I’ve only seen it once, but it was in the theater where it hit pretty well. Not sure I agree on Chalamet or Zendaya. I thought his portrayal of Paul’s slow embrace of his messianic fate and his turn toward pragmatism by the end was convincing. I wanted to like Zendaya’s performance more, but she felt ‘young’ where she needed to be more sophisticated and her affect was almost anachronistic at points. Her own resistance/slow embrace arc (falling in love with Paul) played to her strengths, and her reaction to his betrayal was very moving, so I don’t want to overstate my criticism. It’s just interesting that Keith’s take on Chalamet feels better applied to Zendaya based on my viewing experience.
I’m looking forward to watching the films in a single viewing this winter. We were disappointed that we didn’t have the opportunity to do that at the theater, instead having to watch Part 1 at home the night before.
Per Brian’s comment, the fact that this is the second film in a trilogy that is also a bit trapped by its status as beloved IP made the pacing a bit wonky for me at times. Being married to a screenwriter has rendered me incapable of watching films without logging the beats, and I’m hoping everything adds up in the full trilogy. In some ways the complaint many had about the first film feeling incomplete — which I understood but didn’t share — hit me with Dune 2.
“It’s just a disappointing ending given how great the first film was.”
Is it an ending? It seemed clear to me watching it in the theater that it was setting up a third movie with material from beyond the first book, but trying to treat it as a trilogy with a single story line.
There is a third movie coming tentatively titled Dune: Messiah. Filming is expected in 2026 with a release date in 2027. Presumably it will cover the events from Herbert’s Dune Messiah.
It concluded the events from the first book, so I view it as two halves of a single whole. Also, the book Dune: Messiah started the rapid decline in quality that went over the cliff in the next two books and I have very little interest in continuing with this unless Villeneuve is willing to change a lot of plot details.
My biggest gripe with Villeneuve’s two Dune films is the virtual absence of the Spice Guild, and how the Guild is even above the Emperor. It’s a massive change of canon, especially at the end. The Guild and the Landsraad both capitulate to Paul when he threatens Dune’s spice production after the Fremen defeat the Harkonnens and the Sardaukar. The lesser change of canon involving Alia didn’t bother me. I agree with Keith that these two films are really just one story from one book. Dune Messiah was still a good novel, but it’s hard to top perhaps the greatest sci-fi novel of all time. Maybe Villeneuve can come up with a great film, though.