No Sides but Human Frailty.
Dune: Part Two.
Directed by Denis Villeneuve.
By Blake Patterson.

  If Dune: Part One was an emotionally and psychologically hollow experience, Denis Villeneuve's sequel has improved in its acting and writing because Villeneuve's sociopolitical interest in the weaponization of religion is convincing and potent in his approach. When a death occurs, the audience feels the pain of the death because the characters have been realized as people rather than devices in anticipation of further world-building--such as the underwritten character development for Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac) and Duncan Idaho (Jason Momoa) in the first installment. In the second installment, Villeneuve takes advantage of the settings (such as the desert and the sandworms within it and a breathtaking black-and-white gladiator game) aesthetically, but the spectacle (as impressive as it is) does not overwhelm Paul Atreides' arc from a young hero of potential to a tyrannical messiah.
  While the arc may be predetermined (in some ways), the evolution is emotionally efficient due to the performances and Villeneuve's handling of the divide among the Fremen regarding whether they believe Paul is a messiah. Timothée Chalamet's performance as Paul has transcended the laughable mopiness of the previous installment by giving an authentic portrayal of a young man conflicted by the purity of love and the anger of political retaliation. The ensemble ranges in quality from the unsubtle (Dave Bautista in early scenes as Beast Rabban) to genuine menace (such as Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen). Despite flaws in their performances, the ensemble's overall contribution leads to a satisfying climax. The juxtaposition of Javier Bardem's believer (Stilgar) and Zendaya's romantic nonbeliever (Chani) intensifies the character study of Paul and his odyssey. The chemistry between Chalamet and Zendaya is uneven in some scenes. However, their dysfunctional chemistry contributes to the sense of loss in Chani's belief in Paul as a lover and not a politically inclined savior.
   As a study of faith and its power, Villeneuve and Jon Spaihts defy the conventional binary of good and evil in their execution because they know the central conflict (which will provoke parallels to the current war in Israel and Gaza) is morally grayer in the history of human violence for political purposes. The morally muddy nature of the narrative is particularly apparent when the deaths of people the audience views as villains provoke them to acknowledge how violence is still violence, even if the parties believe they are righteous in their actions. Villeneuve solidifies the attitude through Reverend Mother Mohiam's reference to "no sides" in the issue since both are as sadistic as each other. The animalistic equivalency among the characters recalls Villeneuve's Prisoners and how its provocative narrative development involves the realization of a brainwashed abductor being a victim of abuse and Jackman's vigilante range demonstrating the human condition's potential for violence as an answer while not recognizing its tragedy. By transcending the notion of a hero's revenge, Villeneuve captures the universal essence of Paul's tragedy and how it reverberates through various cultures, no matter the person's intentions.

Side note:
I am as surprised as you are by the reaction. I thought I might need alcohol afterward.