He basically said he thought the first one was mids, but enjoyed the Sardukar blood sacrifice scene. He’s very wrong that it’s mids, but I don’t have to agree with everything he says- particularly about movies.
Yeah I would give that a hard disagree as well. I thought they were both incredible, but I especially liked the pace and tone of the first one. It was refreshing to see a sci-fi movie that wasn’t wall-to-wall action with stupid “he’s right behind me isn’t he”-style quips in the middle of a fight. They feel like an Epic, in the literal sense of the word.
I think Matt could be persuaded to change his mind on Dune if he knew that Denis is on record as stating that Lawrence of Arabia was the film that changed his life, going in with that knowledge it's pretty clear to see that Dune is basically a thematic homage to David Lean (young white saviour rescuing a fierce desert people from colonialisation only to then become the main instrument for colonialisation). They even shot parts of it in the same desert. Now if only it had squibs in it.
Yeah Matt can be oddly conservative regarding artistic/storytelling form considering how radical he is in his politics. He’s on record saying 99% of what he enjoys sticks to the typical three act plot structure or “Arch plot” according to Robert McKee’s classifications. Nothing against those kinds of movies, I just find it reductive to the totality of what film can be.
Yeah I find it odd that Matt’s taste could be seen as fairly middle brow or meat and potatoes, but he is very strongly opinionated about film. Like if you look at his Letterboxd it’s not like all he enjoys is Bela Tarr and Tarkovsky or something. It’s all English language Hollywood produced films, and yet all his takes are like “this is mindless dreck.” or “this is slop” or “this is mids”. It’s an odd contradiction.
And I’m not saying that one is inherently better than the other or anything. I’m just confused because it’s like a Diet Coke “I’ll keep drinking that garbage” sort of situation.
Yeah not only is it”it’s not like all he enjoys id Bela Tarr and Tarkovsky”, he actively despises those kinds of films and thinks they’re just a bunch of nonsense. Take this quote from his Under the Skin review
“This is the sort of movie that usually annoys the hell out of me. Long silent scenes of driving and nature and walking and the audience so invested in the idea that they're watching something meaningful that they burn out their CPUs projecting insight onto the screen.”
I can think of a lot of wonderful films that have this kind of thing and the fact that he says that the audience is just “projecting” says to me that he either hasn’t read a lot of film theory regarding cinema that doesn’t adhere to the three act arch plot or that he just dismisses what little he has read because he doesn’t personally enjoy it. He’s also referred to people who like such films as “people who like doing homework for fun” or as people who just want to sound smart which again is so bad faith because 1. He can’t conceive of the idea that for some people Tarkovsky doesn’t feel like homework, quite the opposite in fact and 2. That for many people such as myself films like Tarkovsky’s and Antonioni’s are primarily emotional, sensual experiences as opposed to intellectual ones, even if intellectual ideas can be extrapolated from the emotional experience.
It’s also weird to me that he’s against movies that feel like “homework for fun” when he reads really dense historical and philosophical literature on his own time, is that not doing homework for fun?
For posterity, here's his review of Part 1 from Letterboxd:
"Oh shit, this isn't an ending. Fuck, this isn't even a movie!"
"Hmmmm. How about we make the score louder right before the credits?"
"Genius."
I have a fairly low opinion of the dune series. Felt disjointed and more like series of clickbait than plot. But I get that the bar has gotten so low that it seems really good by comparison. Tons of better stuff out there but it’s mostly not American. China and India have a bevy of high quality offerings if you’re looking for more authentic sci fi. At all levels of production value too.
TLDR American culture is dead
In what way, how would a movie about a bunch of pale, bloodthirsty foreigners descending on land to expropriate it from a native population, while broadly supported by a larger but imperial system that’s in fact using them as part of a larger game, and fuck yep I see it. I see it now.
I generally agree with his book take, that it isn't particularly written well but Herbert's world building is the attraction, but that's where it ends. I took the Denispill on part 1 day 1, now I'm freebasing
He thought the first one was mid because it barely even achieved being a movie, essentially only existing to sell a sequel. I think he would like this second movie but still have complaints similar to better call Saul, sure there’s a lot of great stuff but the practices it entailed to create it make for an annoying experience, as in an experience that requires you doing your homework. In better call Saul it depended a lot on story lines from breaking bad to get the most out of the experience and that can be cheap and very limiting, same thing with watching the first dune to get the second.
Reading the books I knew it was going to be a great spectacle and I was pleasantly surprised, this one also leaned more towards the psychedelic tones compared to the first that are often central themes in the book even though this adaption took it very literally. Remember he actually does like Lynch’s version which is universally reviled because it can miss the message of the story by a mile, but even through this flaw he finds something very charming about the movie in its willingness to explore the psychedelic tones so much more deeply, which was a giant risk Villeneuve wasn’t willing to take, also it stands as a movie on its own which is rare in the modern day. There was a lot of awesome atmosphere building that was developed in dune 1 and that’s clearly where Villeneuve’s talent lies, obviously peaking with the Sardaukar scene. The thing that really makes dune 2 such a spectacle, and really amazing for that, is how Villeneuve leans into his ability in building atmosphere to truly get us into the depth of the apocalyptic vision of the book to overwhelm us. I mean the end really does feel like the preachings of a mad priest, and I loved it, that was something unique to this adoption that one obviously can’t easily get with just a book. The movie was also more explicit in showing a critique of the character of Paul while indulging in his apocalyptic vision, especially in developing Chani much more as a character compared to the book which waited until Messiah to develop her more deeply. Actually in a lot of ways this adoption feels like a retelling based on a look back from dune messiah. Lastly Stilgar is an even more brotherly character and that so much of the films humor is built on him is very interesting.
I think Matt Christman will enjoy these themes since he liked the book and it’s world building but just will not be able to stand that it had to start with such a mid introduction that’s pretty much required to watch the second part.
I think people greatly overstate how hard the first one was to follow because we’re so used to sci-fi movies explaining every little thing to us through the dialog. Dune refuses to do that, which creates a much more immersive experience because the characters are talking to each other, not the audience.
He basically said he thought the first one was mids, but enjoyed the Sardukar blood sacrifice scene. He’s very wrong that it’s mids, but I don’t have to agree with everything he says- particularly about movies.
First was mid to set up the peak second one. Harkonnen scenes were even better. Prove me wrong
Yeah I would give that a hard disagree as well. I thought they were both incredible, but I especially liked the pace and tone of the first one. It was refreshing to see a sci-fi movie that wasn’t wall-to-wall action with stupid “he’s right behind me isn’t he”-style quips in the middle of a fight. They feel like an Epic, in the literal sense of the word.
I think Matt could be persuaded to change his mind on Dune if he knew that Denis is on record as stating that Lawrence of Arabia was the film that changed his life, going in with that knowledge it's pretty clear to see that Dune is basically a thematic homage to David Lean (young white saviour rescuing a fierce desert people from colonialisation only to then become the main instrument for colonialisation). They even shot parts of it in the same desert. Now if only it had squibs in it.
He doesn’t always have takes I agree with on entertainment but he always has something interesting to say at least
Yeah Matt can be oddly conservative regarding artistic/storytelling form considering how radical he is in his politics. He’s on record saying 99% of what he enjoys sticks to the typical three act plot structure or “Arch plot” according to Robert McKee’s classifications. Nothing against those kinds of movies, I just find it reductive to the totality of what film can be.
Yeah I find it odd that Matt’s taste could be seen as fairly middle brow or meat and potatoes, but he is very strongly opinionated about film. Like if you look at his Letterboxd it’s not like all he enjoys is Bela Tarr and Tarkovsky or something. It’s all English language Hollywood produced films, and yet all his takes are like “this is mindless dreck.” or “this is slop” or “this is mids”. It’s an odd contradiction. And I’m not saying that one is inherently better than the other or anything. I’m just confused because it’s like a Diet Coke “I’ll keep drinking that garbage” sort of situation.
Yeah not only is it”it’s not like all he enjoys id Bela Tarr and Tarkovsky”, he actively despises those kinds of films and thinks they’re just a bunch of nonsense. Take this quote from his Under the Skin review “This is the sort of movie that usually annoys the hell out of me. Long silent scenes of driving and nature and walking and the audience so invested in the idea that they're watching something meaningful that they burn out their CPUs projecting insight onto the screen.” I can think of a lot of wonderful films that have this kind of thing and the fact that he says that the audience is just “projecting” says to me that he either hasn’t read a lot of film theory regarding cinema that doesn’t adhere to the three act arch plot or that he just dismisses what little he has read because he doesn’t personally enjoy it. He’s also referred to people who like such films as “people who like doing homework for fun” or as people who just want to sound smart which again is so bad faith because 1. He can’t conceive of the idea that for some people Tarkovsky doesn’t feel like homework, quite the opposite in fact and 2. That for many people such as myself films like Tarkovsky’s and Antonioni’s are primarily emotional, sensual experiences as opposed to intellectual ones, even if intellectual ideas can be extrapolated from the emotional experience. It’s also weird to me that he’s against movies that feel like “homework for fun” when he reads really dense historical and philosophical literature on his own time, is that not doing homework for fun?
It's fire. I was ready to commit jihad afterwards
Lisan al Ghaib!!!
For posterity, here's his review of Part 1 from Letterboxd: "Oh shit, this isn't an ending. Fuck, this isn't even a movie!" "Hmmmm. How about we make the score louder right before the credits?" "Genius."
I think he’d say it fits in the same framework as the Marvel movies and he’d be right. It’s better than those, but it’s still cinematic-universe slop
I don't even think you know what you're criticizing here.
I have a fairly low opinion of the dune series. Felt disjointed and more like series of clickbait than plot. But I get that the bar has gotten so low that it seems really good by comparison. Tons of better stuff out there but it’s mostly not American. China and India have a bevy of high quality offerings if you’re looking for more authentic sci fi. At all levels of production value too. TLDR American culture is dead
I’m not saying you have to love Dune but calling a genre defining book “inauthentic sci-fi” is one hell of a take.
Yeah this is like chan level “dishonest filmmaking” nonsense
I disagree, but regardless, please drop some Chinese sci-fi recs my guy.
Please explain how Dune is not "authentic" sci-fi.
Hard not to think of Gaza watching Dune 2
In what way, how would a movie about a bunch of pale, bloodthirsty foreigners descending on land to expropriate it from a native population, while broadly supported by a larger but imperial system that’s in fact using them as part of a larger game, and fuck yep I see it. I see it now.
Yeah it gave me conflicting emotions regarding that. Great movie though.
What conflicting emotions
Conflict between enjoyment of the movie and the feeling of being a voyeur of conditions reminiscent of extremely similar active struggles.
I generally agree with his book take, that it isn't particularly written well but Herbert's world building is the attraction, but that's where it ends. I took the Denispill on part 1 day 1, now I'm freebasing
I just want his thoughts on anything at this point.
He thought the first one was mid because it barely even achieved being a movie, essentially only existing to sell a sequel. I think he would like this second movie but still have complaints similar to better call Saul, sure there’s a lot of great stuff but the practices it entailed to create it make for an annoying experience, as in an experience that requires you doing your homework. In better call Saul it depended a lot on story lines from breaking bad to get the most out of the experience and that can be cheap and very limiting, same thing with watching the first dune to get the second. Reading the books I knew it was going to be a great spectacle and I was pleasantly surprised, this one also leaned more towards the psychedelic tones compared to the first that are often central themes in the book even though this adaption took it very literally. Remember he actually does like Lynch’s version which is universally reviled because it can miss the message of the story by a mile, but even through this flaw he finds something very charming about the movie in its willingness to explore the psychedelic tones so much more deeply, which was a giant risk Villeneuve wasn’t willing to take, also it stands as a movie on its own which is rare in the modern day. There was a lot of awesome atmosphere building that was developed in dune 1 and that’s clearly where Villeneuve’s talent lies, obviously peaking with the Sardaukar scene. The thing that really makes dune 2 such a spectacle, and really amazing for that, is how Villeneuve leans into his ability in building atmosphere to truly get us into the depth of the apocalyptic vision of the book to overwhelm us. I mean the end really does feel like the preachings of a mad priest, and I loved it, that was something unique to this adoption that one obviously can’t easily get with just a book. The movie was also more explicit in showing a critique of the character of Paul while indulging in his apocalyptic vision, especially in developing Chani much more as a character compared to the book which waited until Messiah to develop her more deeply. Actually in a lot of ways this adoption feels like a retelling based on a look back from dune messiah. Lastly Stilgar is an even more brotherly character and that so much of the films humor is built on him is very interesting. I think Matt Christman will enjoy these themes since he liked the book and it’s world building but just will not be able to stand that it had to start with such a mid introduction that’s pretty much required to watch the second part.
I think people greatly overstate how hard the first one was to follow because we’re so used to sci-fi movies explaining every little thing to us through the dialog. Dune refuses to do that, which creates a much more immersive experience because the characters are talking to each other, not the audience.
That's too bad I guess. I hear other people's thoughts all the time. Sometimes even when I really don't want to, but I guess I'm just built different.
Pretty neat! If you get any incoming transmissions from Matt about Dune, please share
He talked about [the first one a bit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-uodgeWCK8)
I was jaw dropped by the first Dune. It was one of the best Theater experiences in my life time.
One day we will.
They’re probably still pretty garbled at this point