Movie Review: Villeneuve's "Dune" Offers Visual Appeal, But Is The Film Compelling?

As a science fiction fan, I sort of have an interesting relationship with “Dune.” 

I’ve seen every incarnation — every attempt — to bring Frank Herbert’s 1960s-era literary franchise to the screen. 

I’ve never read the original novel. I tried once in the 1990s; I just couldn't get into it. 

The first attempt to bring “Dune” to the screen was director David Lynch’s big-budget adaptation released in December of 1984. 

I remember the marketing for that film more than anything. I recall seeing commercials promoting midnight screenings. I also remember the chords of the soundtrack by Brian Eno (and his band Toto) feeling very distinctive. 

As was the case with sci-fi movies in that era (that didn’t come from George Lucas or Steven Spielberg), it looked strange, bizarre, and (to a 12-year-old kid) glorious. 

I didn’t see the movie in the theater. I’m sure the tepid reviews had an impact, but that hadn’t stopped me in the past (I recall seeing other oddball sci-fi movies like “Ice Pirates” at our local 99 cent theater — the Gemini 2 — during that era). 

My mom and I rented the movie on VHS when my dad was away at a work conference. It felt like a confusing mess at the time, but the visuals and overall style of the film stuck with me. 

Roughly 16 years after the release of Lynch’s “Dune,” the Sci-Fi Channel offered a three-part miniseries titled “Frank Herbert's Dune.” 

I actually own that miniseries on DVD. It certainly didn't have the budget, scope, and visual effects of Lynch’s cinematic vision, but the story was given room to breathe, and the production’s look left an impression on me. 

(The cinematographer for the miniseries was Vittorio Storaro, who brought a color-saturated “comic strip” look to the production — similar to the visual style he brought to the underrated 1990 film “Dick Tracy”).  

By now you know that “Dune” has been reincarnated once again. It was one of the movies I was curious about in 2021 (it was originally slated for release in 2020). 

Full disclosure: I didn’t feel a burning need to see another attempt to bring “Dune” to the big screen. But Denis Villeneuve is one of today’s best directors and I like his work. 

I’ve reviewed two of Villeneuve’s movies on this blog — 2016’s "The Arrival" and 2017’s "Blade Runner 2049".  The latter of the two had me excited to see where he could take Herbert’s sprawling tale. 

“Dune” tells the story of Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet), a moody young man who is trying to find his place in the universe (which is pretty much standard operating procedure for every young sci-fi/fantasy protagonist). 

His father — Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac) of House Atreides — is ruler of the ocean planet Caladan. Early on in the film, we learn that he has been tasked by the Padishah Emperor Shaddam Corrino IV (it’s a mouthful) to replace House Harkonnen as rulers of the desert planet Arrakis. 

Arrakis is the universe’s only source of “spice.” The spice has all sorts of interesting benefits. It has mind-expanding effects and is key for travelers navigating space. 

At play are various interests looking to control the flow of spice, including Fremen — Arrakis’s native desert dwellers. 

The other key player is House Harkonnen, the previous rulers of Arrakis. 

One of the narrative aspects that bogged down 1984’s “Dune” was the political web presented in Herbert’s novel. It can be a lot for a viewer to digest in a two-hour movie, and Lynch’s film had an early “info dump” that made it hard to get into the film. 

Villeneuve does a decent job doling out these plot points in more digestible dribs and drabs throughout his film’s 156-minute runtime. 

In addition to “Dune’s” spice-focused plot thread, a storyline involving Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) adds mystical elements to the overall plot. 

Jessica is Leto Atreides’ concubine and Paul’s mother. She is also an acolyte of the Bene Gesserit — an exclusive order whose members possess advanced physical and metal abilities. 

Paul is suspected by the Bene Gesserit to be the Kwisatz Haderach, a messiah-like figure who will bring balance to the Force... err... I mean... lead humanity to a more enlightened future. 

All of the aforementioned plot points lay the foundation for the story moving forward. The prevailing challenge with “Dune” is that a screenwriter has to give enough exposition to hook those new to the story, but avoid going overboard and turning the film into a world-building slog.  

Villeneuve’s “Dune” only tells about half the story presented in the novel (a fact that won’t spoil anything for those who are unfamiliar with “Dune”). Which means this film is primarily focused on setting the scene. 

I saw this at Aksarben Cinema with my friend Scott (who has also seen the 1984 film and the 2000 miniseries). He checked his watch at one point and said, “there’s a lot of story left to go... how long is this movie?” 

Villeneuve has mentioned that his grand vision is to make a trilogy — with the first novel occupying the first two films and Herbert’s novel “Dune Messiah” being the basis for the third. 

(A second film was green-lit shortly after the “Dune’s” opening weekend at the box office.)

Considering the fact that I was pretty familiar with the source material, I found “Dune” to be a bit slow at times (... my eyes got heavy at various points). 

That doesn’t mean “Dune” isn't an expertly crafted film with a beautiful visual style. It simply means that there is a considerable amount for viewers to digest, and it is worth preparing yourself for before going in. 

I couldn’t help but compare this to the new Apple TV+ series “Foundation” (based on works by Isaac Asimov). There are a number of similarities and some notable differences. The advantage that “Foundation” has is the fact that a multi-season series can take time to “deep dive” into all the world-building intricacies inherent in these types of science fiction properties. 

The main performers in “Dune” were all solid. 

Of note were a couple of supporting performances. Josh Brolin and Jason Momoa stood out to me. The reason I say that is because this territory can often find actors speaking lines in sort of a “regal monotone voice” that can be lifeless. 

Brolin (who played Gurney Halleck) and Momoa (who played Duncan Idaho) both infused some personality into the material. I think the production benefitted from their performances (small as those roles were). 

One aspect of the film I found to be less than stellar was the musical score by Hans Zimmer. All too often, Zimmer’s stylings in “Dune” felt more incidental than they did anthemic. I know that has become a trend in modern movies, but I do think a hummable soundtrack aids this genre. 

Some have proclaimed Villeneuve’s “Dune” to be the best science fiction movie in years. The film has received a variety of critical accolades (and will likely get several Oscar nods). 

I’ll be the first to admit that my criteria for what makes a movie “the best” varies quite a bit from high-brow cinema snobs out there. I don’t need art. I just want to be entertained and have a good time at the movies. 

As I mentioned earlier, “Dune” is a competently crafted film — it looks and sounds terrific. 

I’m not quite sure I’m ready to deify it at this point. I’ll see how the second part goes before I render my final verdict. 

It certainly isn’t for everyone, and it does require a bit of patience. Some viewers will consider that a virtue. I tend to favor science fiction and fantasy films that are more accessible for casual viewers. As a result, I found “Dune” to be something of a mixed bag. 

But that’s just me... 

Previous post: Movie Review: Bond Goes Awry in “No Time To Die”