To get back into reading, I read Frank Herbert's Dune, and decided to re-watch the films afterwards. Not that a film absolutely has to stick to the source material, but I thought it might bring a fresh perspective on these works, and that there would be some interesting comparisons to be made.

So here are a few loose thoughts on Villeneuve's two adaptations. Spoiler alert : I think Dune is a book that will never be perfectly adapted, because it's far too dense, far too talkative, the characters have too many thoughts, and it's hard to transcribe that to the big screen. But I still think Villeneuve's work is pretty good. It lacks poetry, the form sometimes takes precedence over the content, but his films are generous without taking people for fools, and they capture many of the book's ideas (even if some elements are fragile). I now think that the first installment is better than the second, because it introduces the universe, its atmosphere and its codes, whereas the second part is messier in its narration, which is somewhat sidelined in favor of spectacle.

+
For me, the first major strength of these two Villeneuve films lies in their aesthetics : production design, cinematography, art direction, costumes... When I read the book, this is really how I pictured Caladan & Arrakis. There's a grandiose, dry feel to it, and the coldness of Villeneuve's direction is appropriate. For a film of this type, it's essential to be in tune with the visual and aural universe, and I was.
Of course, you may or may not like the cold, monochromatic style of these films, but I find them a pleasure to watch. As for the criticism of a certain “over-aestheticism”, on the contrary, I think that it fits with the atmosphere of the book, where the characters take themselves very seriously, and where everything seems so big and so sad at the same time.
There's a real mystical mood that's quite unsettling. Yes, we're sticking to the codes of the American blockbuster, but Dune stands out for its direction and atmosphere.

+
On the whole, adapting a book so dense with information into two 2-hour films is a complicated task. But here we have the essential elements, and everything fits together quite well. There are a few differences in the chronology of events and in the story (I'll come back to that), but some of these variations don't affect the scope of the work.

+
After watching both films, we're able to grasp the main ideas around interference, white savior complex, the freedom of peoples and the prophetic figure. There are even a few interesting additions, such as the Fremen groups less convinced by Paul, or the character of Chani who is more torn.
The same goes for all the political shenanigans, which are relatively well orchestrated, and the gravity of the situations is constantly contrasted with the immensity of the environment, making these ego wars in space almost ridiculous, as are the backlashes that most of the characters suffer. The surprise effect, in which the Fremen, completely underestimated, rebel and crush the imperial forces, is also well executed - just as in the book, the climax is brief, abrupt, and present some similarities with the Vietnam War, where pretentious whites found themselves crushed by a valiant people who knew the terrain. There's an “anticlimactic” side to it in the good sense of the word : this lack of drama is deliberate, to show that the characters are all following myths they don't even explain, that they're lost in their aspirations. Dune is not an epic tale, it's a story of illusions and disillusionment.

-
To go into the shortcomings of Villeneuve's films, we have to note a certain Hollywood sensationalism. ittedly, I said it wasn't overblown beforehand, but it's still there, with music that's a little too omnipresent, fights that are sometimes inappropriate (the Sardaukars look so lame), actors who are sometimes a little shouty where they're supposed to be unsettlingly calm in the quieter, more mystical book.

-
Some characters are forgotten, even though they had much more important roles: Piter, Thufir Hawat, Jamis' wife, the Guild, Paul's son (!!), Fenring, but above all Alia, who is supposed to be born before the final battle, and who has a fundamental role in the overthrow of the ruling power and in the fear felt by the Bene Gesserit.
Beyond that, the characters in the book have many thoughts that are extremely important in understanding their aspirations. In the film, we can guess them from their faces, but only to a limited extent, which detracts from the psychological depth of the universe.

-
While the environment is very well detailed and staged, the relationship between the men and the environment is less well developed. We don't feel enough of the need for water, the difficulty of this planet, perhaps because of a too rushed part where Jessica and Paul find themselves together.

-
In the film, it sometimes seems as if Paul is an immense omniscient, who knows everything to an inordinate degree, whereas it's more nuanced in the book. Even after drinking the Water of Life, he's only able to see fragments, ideas, some of them ending up shattered. We even come to think that the Fremen waited all this time for their prophet for nothing, as they had ample means to rise up on their own. In the film, Paul is really too overpowered, almost assuming the role Alia is supposed to have, and he's also far too overexcited, where the Paul of the book remains calm, with a coldness that's almost sad and melancholic.

-
One of the film's biggest problems is its temporality. In the book, Paul takes years to be accepted. In the film, despite some semblance of ellipsis, it's all far too rushed, whereas in the source material the Fremen take a long time to fully form and accept Paul. The same goes for Stilgar - in the book, he only becomes a fanatic after the battle, whereas in the film he comes across as an idiot repeating Lisan al-Gaib all the time (Bardem is amazing anyways).

In short, the films lack an enormous amount of detail about the relationships between the characters, their thoughts, the age of time, and everything feels very rushed. They lack the necessary wisdom imposed by the story.
But this makes sense, because as I said in my introduction, I think Dune cannot be perfectly adapted. As a result, I still think Villeneuve's films are fine (provided you like the artistic proposition), since they don't distort the book or its themes, and manage to strike a pretty fair balance between entertaining genre film and literary work adaptation (a balance respected above all in the former installment, less so in the latter).

As for the 3 main themes, I'd say :
- Belief is well introduced, the seeds are well sown in the first film, but the development is a bit rushed in this second movie.
- For politics and scheming, the essentials are there, but they don't fully compensate for the impossibility of conveying the characters' thoughts on the screen.
- Finally, as for men's relationship with nature, the immensity of the latter and the relativism it imposes are well handled, but this is less the case for its harshness and its implications.