A triumph of style over substance, Denis Villeneuve‘s Dune: Part Two (2024) is a tough film to review, as it lacks depth, but clearly excels cinematically in what it sets out to achieve — capturing the climax of a tale that has already existed in the imaginations of the readers of the eponymous 1965 novel by Frank Herbert, and doing it with admittedly dazzling visual skill (cinematographer, Greig Fraser). Yet, it has all the failings of its predecessor, Dune: Part 1 (2021), plus some extra ones — as the previous narrative absences seem to be even more emphasised in what is, essentially, the bottom half of an empty bottle. The director has smoothly continued his disdain for the craft of scriptwriting, opting for verbal minimalism, a trick that works well when there is a stellar wordsmith at hand, which, in both Dunes is, sadly, not the case, even though they are based on masterful storytelling (script is written by Jon Spaihts, and Villeneuve, himself). This, in turn, makes the actors rely on their talents alone, and, in Dune II, as in Dune I, there is, as ever, a spectrum of abilities. Genius is in the details, thus, the joint charismas of a Charlotte Rampling, Javier Bardem, and Stellan Skarsgård create so much out of so little, yet, the lack of material to latch onto for most of the cast makes for an extremely uneven film. Its sophisticated visuals barely manage to prop up a dialogue that seems to have been written on cocktail napkins, and in-between takes.
“All dense plot and mild tedium, a bounty of sensual imagery wasted on zero substance,” had been my impressions of part one (in a nutshell), yet part two surpassed my already low expectations, the plot now seemed to have been lost to all except die-hard insiders — as it simply did not care to allow anyone that was not already a fan of the work into the story. The first half an hour felt as if I were airdropped onto a film set of a Hollywood desert war saga, with an overblown budget and no awareness of itself beyond its gates, while struggling to pick up even a single thread of the action unfolding, or indeed care about any of the characters’ fates.
On the other hand, the overflow of perfect frames and Middle-Eastern-inspired costumes (kudos, Jacqueline West) conjured a pleasant atmospheric feel of an outer-space Arabia, without a sliver of irony regarding what this thinly-veiled vision of the Other could actually entail in our dire planetary reality. Spice-hunting, indeed.
Inundated with a cornucopia of beautiful pictures, this incredible form without a soul left me feeling as hollowed out as the storyline itself.
Leaving aside any claims of cultural appropriation, which I support, but are not mine to make, I believe that my frustration with the director’s refined high concept is due to the discrepancy between the evolved visual language of Dune II (and Dune I) and its simplified dramatics, further prompting a seemingly bottomless pit of unkind interpretations. At this point, I firmly believe that Villeneuve must think cinema is photography, which is sort of as misguided as believing cinema is theatre. Cinema, in fact, is neither, and both, at the same time, and absolutely requires a strong script to prevent the director’s vision from sinking, even in times when words are absent. Especially then.
There were moments when I was watching these carefully choreographed, intrinsically designed sandy landscape antics, and the only thing I could think of was lavish haute-couture fashion shows, the stand-off between the opposing tribes and royal houses on screen resembling a bizarre Zoolander–style intergalactic spat, here with no comedic intent, whatsoever. Even the sadomasochistic glee of a Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler), second-in-line at the House Harkonnen, seemed to be a mere exercise in kinky fashion, the clever black-and-white depiction of their world only amplifying the feel of a Vogue spread dedicated to alternative lifestyles.
There is nothing wrong with all of the above, quite the contrary, but I don’t think that was what a film adaptation of Herbert’s masterpiece should have been aiming for.
So, why not mention the story of Dune in this review at all? Maybe as a protest of sorts, as despite its evident technical and artistic achievements, and grand score (by Hans Zimmer), Dune: Part 2 annuls everything it contains in its simulated realms at the altar of the director’s stylised presentation — and that, in my mind, goes against the very idea of what filmmaking should be.
The story, itself, must be king (or, the messiah, in this case).
★☆☆☆☆
Author: ©Milana Vujkov
Lola On Film 
23 responses to “Dune: Part Two”
One star for a movie like this is a complete joke. Even if you don’t like the story, all the other aspects are 3 stars minimum. You’re not a good reviewer. (92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes… I think you are the problem).
One star is also for films that undermine the art of filmmaking. Which, I believe, this one does. For reasons that I have stated. You are within your rights to dislike this review, as much as I am within mine to dislike Dune 1 & 2.
I think what you need to do is ask yourself why every decent critic is describing this as one of the best science fiction films of the last 50 years and why you are saying it is one of the worst. You clearly have some psychological issues that you need to sort through to explain why you think you know better than everyone else and how you could dislike a film that everyone else is floored by.
I personally didn’t like Chalamet much outside of Call Me By Your Name and then…THIS. This movie blew me away and I didn’t want to like it because I’m somewhat of a contrarian and I’ll admit that. To me, things that get tons of praise that I don’t believe deserve it causes me to be that way and it is what I wanted to feel about this. However, I am not a liar. I cannot lie to myself, much less others like you have to be lying to yourself. Either that or you have absolutely no intellectual or emotional depth. I imagine the entire theological, sociological and ecological symbolism must have just gone right over your head. Sure, you have the right to dislike it but you need to explain why outside of just declaring that it had no substance as assertions without explanations are meaningless. I mean, even I, who didn’t want to like this film (not a huge Zendaya or Chalamet fan, as I said as I thought they were overrated and while I still think Zendaya’s Chani was probably one of the slightly weaker characters in the film but the fact is when you are talking about being in a cast with Rebecca Ferguson, Javier Bardem, Charlotte Rampling, Josh Brolin, Christopher Walken and Florence Pugh, just to name a handful, being a slightly weaker character still makes you far better than most other characters in almost all other movies) was sucked in by this amazing masterpiece. I couldn’t dislike it and not only does that mean I liked it, but I loved it.
If you cannot see what is right in front of you and get that chip off your shoulder and be an unbiased and fair reviewer, then nobody can take your views seriously. I could see a 3 out of 5 stars, maybe, at worst if you really had something to complain about but again, just asserting this had no substance (again, you must not be educated or informed and definitely of average average intelligence to believe such a thing) without being specific makes YOUR review of this film completely lacking in substance, not the film. I sort of want to say “grow up,” so I will. Grow up child. Grow up.
Approved this comment for the single reason that I wanted my readers to see it, as a representation of online abuse that is so prevalent in our society. This person believes I have psychological issues and low intelligence because I gave a bad review to a film that they like, and that is popular. People seem to have lost an overall capacity of criticising someone’s work without resorting to smearing one’s character. Aaron — I will not publish your answer to this. I think that’s fair enough.
“resembling a bizarre Zoolander–style intergalactic spat” – I really really fail to understand how on Earth you came to that conclusion.
Easily, if you take into account the first part of the sentence, in which I mention that, at times, I found the tribal conflicts presented on screen resembling a stand-off between lavish haute couture shows of warring fashion houses. But, without the comedic intent.
This is a really embarrassing review and the fact that you think a *visual* medium should not focus on visuals (or at the very least, acknowledge that this type of presentation is every bit as important/legitimate as narrative heavy films) just displays how narrow minded you are. You’re the type of reviewer who’d listen to 20th century composition and ask: “Where are the melodies?” There’s no acknowledgement at all in your review about visual story telling, which just doesn’t seem to exist in your world and this film has in spades. Did you watch Stalker and wonder where the quips and heavy ‘narrative’ was?
This review is just an exercise in self indulgence, whilst completely missing the point of the subject matter. The fact that you’re so smug about it is an added irony here.
Did you read my review, at all?
Also, mentioning STALKER in the context of DUNE II is an abomination.
I felt utterly transported by this Dune series, an otherworldliness very rarely captured in cinema, and I was totally immersed and absorbed in it’s story so far (not read the books). Not sure where the Villeneuve hate is coming from either, I mean, Arrival and Sicario, Prisoners, BR2049 is a pretty stellar filmography. This review just kinda screams of ‘look at me’ desperation.
Quite liked his SICARIO, it had a good script. And I have no problem accepting that others enjoy both DUNEs. Also, nowhere in the review did I show a hatred of Villaneuve, as a person, only a strong disagreement with his idea of filmmaking. What I fail to understand is why people (like yourself) resort to ad hominem insults just to make a point? Don’t you have any other arguments? A film review is what it says on the bottle — an analysis of a film text, according to the perspective of the reviewer.
“At this point, I firmly believe that Villeneuve must think cinema is photography, which is sort of as misguided as believing cinema is theatre.”. Cinema as an art form can be what you make of it, there are plenty of experimental or ob-docs out there for example, like Samsara. Non-narrative cinema is just as valid as its counterpart, however you’ve taken it upon yourself to dismiss that idea and artistic expression. Funny how you take issue of your cutting “…written on cocktail napkins, and in-between takes” review being cuttingly reviewed.
Cinema as an art form cannot be anything you make of it. This is why the term contains the word “form”. Non-narrative film can be incredible cinema. Experimental film is possibly my favourite film form. But, non-narrative film and experimental film is not what Villeneuve chose to do. He made a visually well-crafted mainstream spectacle, based on a weak script with underdeveloped characters. Well-intentioned advice when attempting to write any review [even of a review]: you need to understand the form and what you are analysing, and be able to articulate your point well. Then, you can be as cutting as you want. Ad hominem is rarely considered valid critique.
I agree with your review
Thank you.
A agree with this review. The visuals are awesome but it does lack substance and it fails to capture my full attention. It is like a great song with weak lyrics. Art is about depth and should intrigue our senses and touch our soul. I am watching this the second time and it is worse the second time around. Story tellers have lost touch with the audience relying on visuals and over the top violence, it is created with a certain arrogance that insults the viewer’s intelligence to think that all we need is shock and awe, people watch it because that is all there is. I do wonder if the movies these days are using a lot of AI to help write and edit them, which is why the details are missed and the flow is calculated and empty.
Thank you. You said things I missed to say that are much more important. Alarming, actually. Filmmaking of that ilk trains the audiences to expect less of cinema, and of art, in general. In time, with AI omnipresent, people will not be able to gauge what quality, depth, and artistry actually is, not only in writing, but in all aspects of filmmaking (and indeed, all art). A fine piece of art is earned through the artists’ dedication and labour, through their life experience. We will be accepting beautiful entertaining form empty of substance as the norm. Living the inner lives of machines. That is pretty tragic.
The whole time I was watching this film I felt that it had no depth, the storyline was jumpy, and like you said, had no substance. As a fan of the book and the original film when young, as much I as I want to like this film, it has no character beyond the visual.
I’m a photographer, and I LOVE good cinematography, which this film has. But it does feel like a fashion show more than a film. Compare this to stay, Seven Samurai or Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, and you can see there where a story has both style AND substance. .
I don’t think it’s bad that a lot of people love the film, the same way a lot of people like fashion shows, or straight action films. It DOES have a great look to it. But it could have been so much more.
Fully agree.
Just a couple questions. For your statement on storytelling and plot and/or the lack thereof, isn’t that the point of the film? At least that’s how I saw it, this grand absurdity on how people ignorantly and mind-numbingly pick and worship leaders without their own intellect but rather within the masses. It almost leaves the audience in this state of despair, not from lack of script and storytelling because we already know what the story is from the beginning. It’s not hard to solve. It’s a story very similar to today and has been for all time. The complete “crabs in a bucket” mentality for power and control which erodes at any and every type of living being. This seems to definitely be an underlying tone in the film, not this superficial savior of the world eye candy that appears to be what the film is. That’s just what I got from it.
On your comment about cultural appropriation, I find this very interesting but lacks any justification including the link you referenced. The Muslim Arabs borrowed most if not all of their culture, art, inspiration, etc from Persia and Byzantium. Matter of fact, before they did this they hardly had any culture, art, etc at all. They had some poetry but that’s it. You can look that up in the Religion & Arts section of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Thank you for your review! I read every one on here and love them!
I loved the film, I think it’s one of the best films I have ever watched. What I don’t understand though, is the hate in this comment section. I agree, I think it didn’t have substance. It was less about the words that were said and more about what you were seeing, the feelings the screen was giving you. I watched this movie in IMAX a few days after it came out and I will tell you, it was an amazing experience. But I don’t know why people are getting mad at you. Like, I won’t be surprised if you said you have gotten death threats from this review. You were honest and critical. You were not telling the people who made it or anyone who liked it to go jump off a cliff.
The movie is a good example of bad filmmaking. It is based on an excess of spending money to satisfy mass culture…
a noisy mess of absurd, violent fight scenes with famous actors, based in a
contrived and monotonous screenplay.
The fans of the movie are like the crowd
scenes of obedient aliens.
Agree with everything, except the obedient aliens bit, people just tend to defend what they passionately like with a bit too much force, when, in fact, it’s to each their own.👽