🏆 2nd Watch | Denis Villeneuve Ranked

"But there is one condition for this to work, Paul."

"Alright, Chani."

"I'd like you to tell me that you are a false prophet... I'd like you to tell me that you are, and have been, a false prophet... and that God is a superstition."

"... But that's a lie... It's a lie. I cannot say it........ I would like a one-hundred-thousand drachm g bonus plus the five that is owed to me with interest."

"That's only fair."

".....I am a false prophet and God is a superstition. If that's what you believe, then I will say it."

"Say it like you mean it."

"Chani..."

"Say it like it's your sermon... Don't smile."

"I am a false prophet. God is a superstition."

"Why don't you stand up?.... Put your crysknife down."

".... I am a false prophet. God is a superstition."

"Paul, Paul, stop. Just imagine this is your speech here now. You have a full congregation here, so..."

"I am a FALSE prophet. GOD is a superstition."

"Say it again."

"I am A FALSE PROPHET! GOD IS A SUPERSTITION!"

"I can't hear you in the back."

"I AM A FALSE prophet! GOD IS A SUPERstition!"

"Say it again."

"I AM A FALSE PROPHET! GOD IS A SUPERstition!"

"Say it again."

"I AM A FALSE PROPHET! GOD IS A SUPERSTITION!"

With universal acclaim, Dune: Part Two has already elevated to a status similar to that of The Two Towers and The Empire Strikes among fans. Many are already calling Dune: Part Two one of the greatest sequels of all time, if not the greatest. People call it a major improvement from the first installment in the Dune series, with the visual effects, the performances, Hans Zimmer's score, Greg Frasier's cinematography, and Villeneuve's screenplay being considered an upgrade from the first Dune. It has been hailed as an incredibly immersive experience, gripping the audience from start to finish with its cautionary tale of false prophets. A couple days ago, however, I witnessed Dune: Part Two in IMAX and unfortunately didn't see the same magic in the film as others did.

I thought the movie was great, but not the ten-out-of-ten masterpiece that so many people have asserted, and especially not a masterpiece on par with The Two Towers or The Empire Strikes Back. If you desire a comprehensive analysis of what I disliked about the movie upon my initial viewing, you can read my previous review here. However, the heart of my criticisms revolved around one key idea: the screenplay was heavily flawed. Given Denis Villeneuve's faithful adaptation of the first half of Frank Herbert's novel, perhaps I expected the same treatment with the sequel. However, Dune: Part Two made many changes to the book, some of which were quite instrumental. In addition to these fundamental changes, which lessened the film's quality and effectiveness of the themes, the script lacked fluidity. The pacing wasn't an issue, but the rhythm was. It wasn't consistent with the many irregular beats that prevented the story from flowing as smoothly as I would've hoped. As I said in my previous review, it lacked "narrative momentum," thus making Dune: Part Two only captivating for a few scenes at a time. Subsequently, it diminished my emotional response to the film, which unfortunately made Dune: Part Two feel much emptier.

The motive for a lot of Denis Villeneuve's changes boiled down to how people initially perceived Frank Herbert's novel. When people read Dune for the first time, many people misinterpreted the story. They viewed Paul as a hero who fulfilled his vengeance for his father instead of an antihero whose rise to power led to genocide. However, Herbert's vision was still very identifiable. At times, the novel explicitly stated key details that highlighted Herbert's pessimistic vision. Herbet's vision was executed subtely in the novel. However, subtlety doesn't hinder intensity, as his themes and messages were more powerful in the novel compared to the movie. Villeneuve made it clearer that Paul wasn't a conventional hero, but Herbert was the one who truly left a scar. Paul's dialogue, thoughts, and mere presence had shaken me up. However, his lack of humanity didn't just radiate onto me but also the characters in the film. For example, Stilgar is called a "creature of the Lisan al Giab," similar to how Gollum was a creature of the One Ring. He had a lot more depth in the novel. But in the film, he was immediately portrayed as a blind follower of the Lisan al Giab. This remains consistent throughout the entirety of the film, making Stilgar a flat character. However, in the novel, he is a dynamic character; before becoming this devoted "creature," Stilgar starts as a great friend to Paul. Stilgar's transformation is important because it highlights Paul's transformation. Seeing how far Stilgar has come as a character helps the reader understand just how far Paul has come as a character. However, this dynamic is absent from the movie. Thus, Stilgar and Paul are both weaker characters, and Paul's character transformation is less impactful. Some might cite the lighthearted scene with Paul and Stilgar before Paul ventured to the desert to test his survival capability as evidence of Stilgar's friendship with Paul, but you would be wrong. Stilgar wasn't a friend of Paul; he was a friend of the Lisan al Giab. After the Battle of Arrakeen, Jessica felt no comion towards Paul. "It was as though she had been rendered incapable of any emotion for her son.” Furthermore, Gurney is denied closure with regards to the Harkonens, as Gurney didn't kill Rabban in the book. Paul denying Gurney's request to fight Feyd-Rautha has an entirely different meaning in the book: In the film, Gurney was asking for dessert. In the book, Gurney was still looking for his main meal. Closure is an important step in any psychological wound. As a result, by denying Gurney his closure with the Harkonnens, Paul is essentially leaving Gurney with an open wound. 

"You’ve heard of animals chewing off a leg to escape a trap. There’s an animal kind of trick. A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death, that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind."

These were the words that Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam said to Paul Atreides in the opening scene of Dune. During this scene, despite the excruciating pain, he endures the pain, ing the Gom Jabbar test. This test is one of the most important scenes in the entire novel because it lays the foundation for the heart of the novel. At the heart of Frank Herbert's Dune is a tale about Paul's transformation from man to beast. This is the reason why the Gom Jabbar test is so crucial to the film; it establishes Paul's baseline as a human. The only other scene where Paul and the Reverend Mother interact is during the final scene. These scenes share a powerful duality, with the scenes representing complete reversals of each other. In the opening scene, the Reverend Mother requested Paul. In the final scene, Paul requested the Reverend Mother. In the opening scene, the Reverend Mother uses the Voice on Paul. In the final scene, Paul uses the Voice on the Reverend Mother. In the opening scene, Paul proves his humanity. In the final scene, Paul proves his inhumanity. These parallels emphasize the extent to which Paul has fallen as a character. He used to be the son of the noble Duke Leto Atreides, but he ended up becoming the Kwisatz Haderach, an entity even his own mother fears.

"In the direct path—on the landing field and across the spice storage yards of the plain—extensive damage. As much from battle as from the storm."
"Nothing money won't repair, I presume," Paul said.
"Except for the lives, m'Lord."

However, many people somehow interpreted the novel wrong. Perhaps the novel was too subtle for the readers to understand. Or maybe there was something else at play? Perhaps people were so fixated on the idea of the "white savior" that they were mentally blinded from the real message. How people perceived Dune mirrors how people perceived Tyler Durden from David Fincher's Fight Club. Tyler Durden is not an honorable character. His morals and ethics are clearly lopsided, right? Well, it doesn't take long to find YouTube sigma edits of people idolizing Tyler Durden. Does this mean that David Fincher wasn't clear enough on how morally bad of a character Durden is? Absolutely not. There's a bigger picture, and a huge reason is because these people are hardwired to ire figures resembling Tyler Durden. For example, many conservatives view Tyler Durden as a role model for masculinity. While Paul Atreides is certainly different from Tyler Durden, similar to how some people are hardwired to ire the characteristics of Tyler Durden based on their personal beliefs, some people are hardwired to accept the idea of the white savior, and seeing the white savior narrative in Dune would mean to misinterpret the novel. Dune is a novel that subverts our expectations of the genre that countless stories have engrained in our minds, including Avatar, the Temple of Doom, Gran Torino, Lawrence of Arabia, and the Last Samurai. Many readers who misinterpret Dune simply don't prepare for their expectations to be subverted, which causes them to miss out on the true nature of the novel. 

Frank Hebert responded to this misinterpretation by eliminating any moral ambiguity in his sequel, Dune Messiah. However, Denis Villeneuve responded by changing the source material itself to better reflect Herbert's intentions. Unfortunately, this did have some drawbacks, drawbacks that compounded the consequences of Villeneuve’s simplification of numerous themes and plot details. 

As stated earlier, I had expected a faithful adaptation of Herbert's magnum opus. Subsequently, after witnessing pivotal changes that I was almost positive Villeneuve would incorporate into his film, I was shocked. Perhaps this led me to experience a mental shockwave of disbelief, whose effects didn't wear off until after the film. Consequently, a decent portion of my experience involved considering the impacts of each deviation from the novel rather than how the film works as a separate artwork. Upon reflecting on this, I knew I had to watch Dune: Part Two again in the future. However, I didn't expect that inevitable day to arrive as soon as it did. But nonetheless, my goal during my rewatch of the highly acclaimed Dune: Part Two was to try to judge the film as a separate entity rather than an adaptation. After all, an adaptation's quality isn't determined by its faithfulness to its source material; just look at The Shining. After watching Dune: Part Two in the cinema for the second time, even though I couldn't completely eliminate the novel from my mind, I'm glad to say I liked it more, despite many of my initial problems still remaining, though with a diffused severity.

I still don't quite consider Dune: Part Two to be a masterpiece. There are masterful elements to it, yes, but the film just doesn't have the same emotional fervor as films I would consider "masterpieces." Even compared to Dune, there are elements that don't sur the quality of the first film. One such aspect is world-building. Dune: Part Two barely expands on the world that Dune introduced in 2021. All the film really expands upon is the Fremen, but given how the first film intentionally withheld information about the Fremen, we were naturally going to learn more about the Fremen in the sequel. Despite this, we don't really learn a lot about the Fremen. There are southern and northern groups of Fremen with varying religious beliefs, and... there's the Water of Life that you can get by killing a baby sandworm. Furthermore, the visual worldbuilding was stale too. While the use of color on Giedi Prime was definitely immersive, I feel as if I know nothing about the planet outside of the gladiator arena. We barely got to see the planet where the emperor resided for most of the film. Even on Arrakis, the sietches never really stood out. Dune: Part One's was still flawed and basic, but it was a lot better than Dune: Part Two's. I was able to understand the world that these characters inhabit. However, Dune: Part Two did nothing to enhance it. Furthermore, Part One had more spectacle. Dune made me feel a sense of awe, but Dune: Part Two shockingly made me feel nothing. There were rarely any times where I was truly mesmerized by the scale of the film. Everything just felt bigger in Dune: Part One. However, the most shocking detail is how this has persisted over two viewings. Furthermore, while I do ire Hans Zimmer's score more upon my rewatch and acknowledge the motifs in some of the songs, there are still some tracks that just don't sit right with me, especially during the action sequences with accompanying bombastic music like during the Harvester attack. Besides, a lot of the motifs in Dune: Part Two that I appreciated were used better in Dune: Part One. Nothing comes close to topping the track "Sandstorm." In of just general flaws, Chani and Paul's relationship never quite cultivated into anything truly significant. Thus, given how the entire film revolves around the effectiveness of their bond, the film wasn't powerful enough from an emotional perspective. I wish I felt more sympathy for Chani. I wish I felt more repulsion from Paul. I wish I felt more fear for Feyd-Rautha. Furthermore, Paul didn't feel as powerful or influential over the Fremen as I would've deemed believable. Paul never convinced me that the entirety of the Fremen would or should give their allegiance to him. I wish the final act was as extraordinary as many are hyping it up to be. People are comparing the third act of Dune: Part Two to The Two Towers, which I find disgraceful. The third act of The Two Towers is tense, powerful, and spellbinding, with the tri-climax of The Battle of Helm's Deep, the battle at Osgiliath, and the Battle of Isengard all integrating together into one masterful third act. The Battle of Arrakeen was short-lived, insignificant, and underwhelming. The Fremen were understandably a force to be reckoned with, and the brevity of the battle demonstrates the power imbalance Paul has, but the film glosses over the battle and just how much power Paul has. Besides, I thought films were supposed to have a little more cinematic flair. Regardless, while the Feyd-Rautha and Paul duel is great, the rest of the third act doesn't even lay a penny on the sensational third act of The Two Towers. I just hate these comparisons to The Empire Strikes Back and The Two Towers. They're not great comparisons. If anything, Dune: Part Two should be compared to The Godfather: Part II. But still, The Godfather: Part II is one of the greatest films ever devised, while Dune: Part Two is just a great movie. Also, on a side note, what happened to the visual effects of the atomic explosion? Why does it look so flaky?

Now that I've gotten my criticisms out of the way, I would like to solely discuss the elements of Dune: Part Two that I actually enjoyed, which is a lot. Contrary to what some of you might think right now, I do like this movie. You might have forgotten, especially after reading this much (thanks if you've still reached this point; I know it was probably tough to read for some fans), but my rating of the film is 4.5 stars. Albiet, it is a low 4.5 star in my opinion, but a 4.5-star film is still a remarkable film. I do consider Dune: Part Two to be a cinematic achievement. However, so many critics and reviewers have called Dune: Part Two a peak science-fiction masterpiece. It's flawless!10/10!!!Better than the Empire Strikes Back!Perfection! This is what I disagree with. Dune: Part Two is great, but is it flawless? No. Is it better than the Empire Strikes Back? No. However, let's end this review on a good note. 

Earlier in this review, I said that at the heart of Dune lies the story of a man who transformed into a beast. That remains mostly the same in Villeneuve's Dune: Part Two. The difference is that the driving force of this story is the relationship between Paul and Chani. Thus, at the true heart of Villeneuve’s Dune: Part Two is a love story. The complex relationship between Paul and Chani is integral to how the film presents its themes. Though Paul is the protagonist of the film, we are shown the story through the lens of Chani. This is similar to Inception, where we experience the film through the lens of Ariadne, despite Cobb being the main character. Dune: Part Two creates a distinction between the northern and southern Fremen, which at first is characterized by their different beliefs about the authenticity of the Lisan al Giab prophecy. Chani, Paul's love interest, belongs to the northern Fremen who do not believe in the Lisan al Giab, knowing that the Bene Gesserit have planted lies to "enslave" them. This creates an interesting dynamic between Paul and Chani: They are lovers, but Paul supposedly fulfills a prophecy that Chani repudiates. This generates tension, which also makes the audience skeptical of Paul's supposed prophetic identity, a negative perception of Paul that becomes more severe as the film progresses.

In Sietch Tabr, Paul says to his mother that he needs the Fremen to believe in the Lisan al Giab, but after Paul notices Chani's sentiment towards the prophecy, Paul surprisingly rejects the idea that he is a messiah. Thus, the film establishes Paul's loyalty to Chani, something that will become strengthened with the multiple romance scenes that will develop the relationship between Paul and Chani. This characterizes the first third of the story. The film develops the relationship between Chani and Paul. However, the film also starts to show some signs of conflict. As Paul leads more and more successful attacks on the Harkonnens, he gains more zealot followers. This allows the film to smoothly transition to the second act of the film. Where the tension is introduced. 

The second act is where we finally meet Feyd-Rautha for the first time during the mesmerizing sequence on Geidi Prime. Feyd-Rautha is cruel and cunning. Feyd-Rautha's introductory scene perfectly conveys this. It immediately establishes this foul atmosphere, which lingers for the entire film. However, Feyd-Rautha isn't the villain of the story. Neither is the Baron. It's definitely not Rabban, and it's not the emperor either. The real villain of the story is Jessica. While the Emperor and the Harkonnens are certainly a source of conflict for Paul, the main source of conflict lies with Jessica, who wanted Paul to drink the Water of Life to become the feared Kwisatz Haderach. Jessica perfectly highlighted the manipulative nature of the Bene Gesserit. At first, she was devoted to Paul, having a close connection to her son. However, then she drank the Water of Life, and she instantly changed. In their first scene together post-ritual, Jessica violently grabs Paul, saying that he needs to drink the Water of Life to become the Kwisatz Haderach. However, it's ironic, as not even ten minutes prior, she said it was fatal for men. This reveals Jessica's true allegiance. She wasn't devoted to Paul, but to the Kwisatz Haderach. Jessica is trying to force Paul to risk his life by drinking the Water of Life in order to become the Kwisatz Haderach. This brilliantly shows just how manipulative and determined the Bene Gesserit truly are. Additionally, Rebecca Furguson impeccably conveys this with her performance as well. She was truly unsettling in the movie. The creepiest shot of the movie is undoubtedly the one where Jessica stares at the "weak" Fremen, with the camera positioned so that it's almost as if she's looking at our soul. Overall, Jessica is just such a haunting character. Everything about her flawlessly executed Villeneuve's vision. 

However, after the second act, the conflict had already been established. Now it was time for the conflict to boil to a climax. Paul had finally become the Kwisatz Haderach and the Lisan al Giab, with Chalamet being unrecognizable from earlier in the film. The emperor and Feyd-Rautha had landed at Arrakis. Earlier in this review, I did say that I felt underwhelmed by the climax and wished we got more out of it, but the visuals were undoubtedly stellar, especially when the sandworms emerge from the cloud of dust. Furthermore, after the Battle of Arrakeen, when the Baron was already killed, we received an exceptional final sequence, including the excellently choreographed Paul and Feyd-Rautha duel. The fight was electrifying, drawing numerous parallels to earlier prescient visions and Feyd-Rautha's gladiator fight during the incredibly immersive sequence on Geidi Prime. Overall, while I did have some problems with how individual scenes impacted the general rhythm of the story, the seamless three-act structure resulted in a runtime that flew by. 

The cinematography from the first Dune was exceptional, but Greg Frasier somehow stepped up his game with Dune: Part Two. His keen eye for composition was once again put on full display, but this time with some extra flair that Part One lacked. However, before I venture into the beauty of Greg Frasier's cinematography, I would like to thank Sergio Leone and Tonino Delli Colli, the director and cinematographer of Once Upon a Time in the West, respectively. The pair completely mastered the art of utilizing the depth of field of an image. Once Upon a Time in the West's iconic shot of the blurred man stepping into focus was so influential, and it's clear that it had an effect on Greg Frasier's cinematography here. In Dune: Part Two, Greg Frasier utilizes the shallow depth of field to capture a blurred, dream-like state. The low-angle shot of Jessica leading Paul down the path to the Holy War is an all-timer shot. It was exceptional on so many levels. However, Greg Frasier's use of color was also impeccable. Dune: Part Two has a much wider color palette than its predecessor. While it still has the beige desert, at times the palette is dominated by red too, symbolizing the blood of his future victims as he rampages across the universe in his Holy War. However, Greg Frasier's most impressive use of color involved the Harkonnens. Throughout the entire film, the Harkonnens are plagued with black. Their costumes are black, their faces are covered with black shadows, their architecture contains many black rooms, and even the Baron has a spa with black liquid. The Harkonnens love black, symbolizing their cruel and hostile nature as a house. They truly are a house of darkness. However, their home planet is illuminated by a blinding white color. However, Greg Frasier didn't just use a standard black-and-white camera to capture this aspect of the Harkonnens' home world. As most probably know, they utilized infrared cameras, creating a distinct visual language that had never been seen before. While the resultant color was white, it created a blinding light, as if it sucked the life out of everything. Everything lost its texture, as if everything had been reduced to nothing. It truly conveys just how bleak of a planet Geidi Prime is. 

Besides Zendaya as Chani, who was still fine but more oftenly played Zendaya than Chani, all of the performances were outstanding. Timothee Chalamet is the obvious standout, who was unrecognizable at the end of the film. While I wish the script had more effectively conveyed Paul's bestial nature, Timothee Chalamet compensated for the script's weaknesses. While still lacking his sharp coldness from the novel, Chalamet's performance still resulted in a cold, heartless character. Dave Bautista as Beast Rabban is underrated. He was a little too vociferous, but one could also see his fear. Rabban was clearly unsettled by the Fremen after the failed attack; you could see it in his eyes. As stated before, Rebecca Furgeson's performance was frightening. She perfectly communicated the manipulative and creepy nature of the Fremen. Her performance, compounded by the concealing costume design and tattoos, resulted in a character who was impossible to sympathize with. In my opinion, she was the true villain of the story, as she was the catalyst that led to the Jihad. I have my own problems with Stilgar, but those issues revolve around the writing. In of acting, Javier Bardem was great. His devotion to the Lisan al Giab was perfectly communicated by the Oscar winner. During every scene with Stilgar, one could sense just how transfixed he was by Paul's presence. Christopher Walken didn't feel like an emperor at all; he felt weak and overshadowed. However, that's what made him so effective in the role. The emperor was never supposed to be this powerful a figure. All the power belonged to Paul. I wouldn't consider Austin Butler to be an all-time performance, but he certainly was a standout in Dune: Part Two's cast. As stated earlier, the energy he brought to his role lingered throughout the entire film. Stellan Skarsgård as the Baron was exceptional too, however. At times he was commanding, but at the end, we see the Baron for what he really is: weak and pathetic. However, the general takeaway is that Dune: Part Two is filled with many exceptional performances. 

Upon rewatching Dune: Part Two, I do ire more of the film's elements, but I still disagree with the notion that it's one of the best movies of all time. There were some fundamental changes to the book that weakened the impact of the film's messages, but flaws still remain when you put the novel aside. While the film featured a seamless three-act structure, its overall rhythm wasn't fluid, with the story feeling jumbled together. Despite some immersive sequences, particularly on Geidi Prime, Dune: Part Two failed to capture the same awe and amazement for the world of Dune as its predecessor did. This emotional neutrality was present in the more heartfelt scenes too. Despite a terrific performance from Timothee Chalamet, who captured Paul's bestial nature, I didn't care enough about his relationship with Chani for his transformation to truly sink in. The entire film revolved around Paul and Chani. Chani was the gateway that allowed us to see Paul for what he really was: an antihero rather than a hero. The reason we grew skeptical and distant from Paul was because Chani grew skeptical. However, Paul and Chani's relationship wasn't intimate enough to convey just how heartbreaking it was for Chani to leave. The sense of loss wasn't really realized. Consequently, the film's execution wasn't as stellar as it could've been. However, that doesn't mean the film was a failure. At the end of the day, the film still communicates its pessimistic message about the dangers of powerful, influential figures. Overall, Dune: Part Two is still an amazing film. Besides, if anything, the fact that I've given so much criticism to a film that's 4.5 stars should show just how great the strengths of Dune: Part Two are.

⬅️ Previous Review: Dune: Part Two