OP--

Well, you didn't like Dune, and that's okay. But I saw it in the theater yesterday, and thought that Denis Villeneuve did a fine job.

The casting was, on the whole, good. I remember there being some concern, prior to the film's release, when hardcore Dune fans heard the character of Liet Kynes-- a man, in the novel, who is White (Max von Sydow in the 1984 film) --was going to be recast as a Black woman (Sharon Duncan-Brewster) --that all manner of recasting not true to the original book and '84 film* was going to take place.

*(for all the hate David Lynch's film has received-- though I thought it was adequate, especially the four-hour version, if not necessarily great --most folks seemed to be okay with the overall casting, which was an all-star cast for the time it was made)

However, from my viewpoint at least, Duncan-Brewster was an outlier (who I thought did a decent job, by the way)-- the rest of the casting choices I felt remained true to the intent of Frank Herbert's novel. The men remained men, and the women, women. The increased racial diversity of the cast only strengthened Villeneuve's effort, as the 1984 Dune movie suffered from the same weaknesses as the original 1977 Star Wars-- that is, stories that take place largely on a desert world, but where virtually the entire cast, strangely, is White.

Personally, I was also worried that the new Baron Harkonnen in the 2021 version would not quite be evil enough-- say what you will about Lynch's film, but Kenneth McMillan was absolutely evil in that effort. Well, in Villeneuve's effort, Stellan Skarsgard does not disappoint. His version of the Baron is likewise positively despicable, and one must also give credit to the FX department for fattening him up even more and enhancing his repulsiveness (I will give reluctant credit to CGI, here). In some ways, Skarsgard's vocal acting and mannerisms even reminded me of a 1970s Marlon Brando.

Now, Villeneuve's Dune, like Lynch's, like Herbert's novel, moves slowly. The story is a slow-burner, with only occasional action . . . so, Markoff, if you like action epics, then I can see why you wouldn't like this film.

To wrap up, having read all six of Frank Herbert's Dune books, and viewed Lynch's 1984 film (again, I think his four-hour cut was his best), I think Denis Villeneuve delivered a very good cinematic experience and stayed much more true to the source material (Herbert's novel). I'd give Villeneuve's Dune (Part One), an 8 out of 10. I will confess, however, that though I very much enjoyed Herbert's novels, I am not a diehard Dune fan, so perhaps people who grew up with the books will feel differently-- but I feel that Villeneuve has finally succeeded in giving Herbert's original Dune the cinematic treatment it deserved (while realizing that this movie is not yet fully complete).

@Markoff said:

Switched it off after half an hour, it was like watching paint dry, it would probably helped if they tried to make book into one movie instead spreading it to 10 hours nobody is interested to watch besides few fans. I mean I'm not fan of LOTR, but even that seemed like movie for people with ADHD compared to this.

Used to be fan of Villeneuve, but now after Dune and extremely forgettable BR2049 (buy that was at least watchable and finished it) I'm afraid what will comes next from him. 😕

I don't know which Dune you watched but I can assure you the Dune I watched yesterday wasn't boring in any way. Yeah it was miserable and gloomy but it wasn't like watching paint dry. Maybe you were expecting Star Wars.

@mechajutaro said:

Yeah it was miserable and gloomy

This doesn't sound particularly energizing either

No one goes to watch Dune for the kid's balloon parties, but it certainly wasn't boring, it's a story of political espionage in space and I'm sure you'll cope.

@Markoff said:

Switched it off after half an hour, it was like watching paint dry, it would probably helped if they tried to make book into one movie instead spreading it to 10 hours nobody is interested to watch besides few fans. I mean I'm not fan of LOTR, but even that seemed like movie for people with ADHD compared to this.

Used to be fan of Villeneuve, but now after Dune and extremely forgettable BR2049 (buy that was at least watchable and finished it) I'm afraid what will comes next from him. 😕

That's too bad. It seems like they put a lot of exciting scenes into the TV commercials to make folks think the film would be one way, when possibly it's another way. I do have HBO Max, but I strongly feel that watching this on a TV would be a "meh" experience. This deserves to be seen on a huge movie screen.

Lastly, a bunch of y'all need to wake up and see BR2049 for the greatness it is. The flick's better than its predecessor, as far as I'm concerned.

Hi, there, Celluloid--

While I wouldn't call Blade Runner 2049 better than its 1982 precursor (and of all the versions of that film, I feel the 1991 "Director's Cut" is still superior . . . for me, while the "Final Cut" was good, I found it a bit too expositive), I will say it is just a touch behind it, and-- possibly --its equal (I did rate them both a 9 out of 10 on this site).

I don't know of any other sequel made so long after the original-- 35 years! --that was so good. I don't think such a thing has ever happened in the history of cinema, and likely, never will again.

Blade Runner 2049 was just a fantastic piece of work, and testifies to what a master Villeneuve is.

@Markoff said:

Switched it off after half an hour, it was like watching paint dry, it would probably helped if they tried to make book into one movie instead spreading it to 10 hours nobody is interested to watch besides few fans. I mean I'm not fan of LOTR, but even that seemed like movie for people with ADHD compared to this.

Used to be fan of Villeneuve, but now after Dune and extremely forgettable BR2049 (buy that was at least watchable and finished it) I'm afraid what will comes next from him. 😕

considering its one of the best selling books series of all time I think its a little more than a few fans I think the problem lies with you

@northcoast said:

Hi, there, Celluliod--

While I wouldn't call Blade Runner 2049 better than its 1982 precursor (and of all the versions of that film, I feel the 1991 "Director's Cut" is still superior . . . for me, while the "Final Cut" was good, I found it a bit too expositive), I will say it is just a touch behind it, and-- possibly --its equal (I did rate them both a 9 out of 10 on this site).

I don't know of any other sequel made so long after the original-- 35 years! --that was so good. I don't think such a thing has ever happened in the history of cinema, and likely, never will again.

Blade Runner 2049 was just a fantastic piece of work, and testifies to what a master Villeneuve is.

northcoast: I, too, prefer the director's cut of Blade Runner over any other form of it... the thing is, I just don't like to see women being shot in the chest, chased around semi-naked, etc. that much, even if they're Replicants.

Celluloid--

Yours is a totally valid and understandable viewpoint. I thought you might find it interesting to know, that I read an article in Film Comment magazine back in the 1990s, during my college days, addressing this very subject. The article pointed out that every Replicant that Deckard personally kills in Blade Runner was female. As you know, of the males, one was shot by Rachael, and the other dies on his own. If I remember correctly, it was pointed out that there really were no strong female characters in that film. Rachael and Pris were both quite childlike, and though Zora might have been a little more intelligent, she doesn't get much screen time-- and, as you alluded to, Celluloid --it could be argued that of the four Replicant deaths we see onscreen, hers was the most humiliating. So I totally get where you are coming from.

(I don't know if you've ever read the short Philip K. Dick novel the film was loosely based on, but in that book, Rachael comes off even more like a child-- more than any of the other Replicants, who admittedly don't have much time to mature because of their limited lifespans --but it does conjure up some uncomfortable implications when, in the book, Deckard sleeps with her, fully knowing her limited mental capacity).

I've also heard about an interview Villeneuve gave right around the time Blade Runner 2049 came out, where he said he thought our present world was extremely unfair to women, which he thought was very much also portrayed in the world of the 1982 Blade Runner, and while he wanted to stay true to that world out of respect to the original film, he seemed to also imply he wanted to see stronger women in his own Blade Runner project. If so, then it could definitely be said that he succeeded on both fronts: in 2049 we see the childlike Joi, and, briefly, Rachael again (both nods to the original film), while also seeing the stronger female characters of Luv, Lt. Joshi, and Deckard's very intelligent and capable daughter.

So, Celluloid Fan, I understand why you would like Blade Runner 2049 more than the 1982 original. And I totally respect that.

@CelluloidFan said:

@northcoast said:

Hi, there, Celluliod--

While I wouldn't call Blade Runner 2049 better than its 1982 precursor (and of all the versions of that film, I feel the 1991 "Director's Cut" is still superior . . . for me, while the "Final Cut" was good, I found it a bit too expositive), I will say it is just a touch behind it, and-- possibly --its equal (I did rate them both a 9 out of 10 on this site).

I don't know of any other sequel made so long after the original-- 35 years! --that was so good. I don't think such a thing has ever happened in the history of cinema, and likely, never will again.

Blade Runner 2049 was just a fantastic piece of work, and testifies to what a master Villeneuve is.

northcoast: I, too, prefer the director's cut of Blade Runner over any other forms of it... the thing is, I just don't like to see women being shot in the chest, chased around semi-naked , etc., that much, even if they're just replicants.

You do realize her character was an elite assassin right? Had nothing to do with gender or anything like that.

northcoast, to reference a Funkadelic song, you hit the nail on the head. Zora, who represented more of a threat to Deckard than the other female Replicants with her combo of intelligence, sexiness, and strength, was treated to the most humiliating demise by him. While with her, he plays a funny, sort-of-weak male role, too, which is interesting. I think it disturbed me while very young to watch her go out -- being chased down the street and shot while wearing a kind of bikini outfit and a clear raincoat. WTF.

Denis Villeneuve's film does feature stronger women characters, and I applaud that. At the same time, it doesn't seem to showcase a really outright "woke"agenda. Props.

BTW, are you a male or female? I'm just curious. And the name's spelled Celluloid -- just like the film.

Celluloid--

I apologize for misspelling your name. I have gone back and corrected all errors. I meant no disrespect. This website kept putting red lines under your name, and I just couldn't see the misspellings until you pointed it out and I looked again. My mind's eye must have been erroneously switching the letters.

And I am male. You?

I thought everyone here knew I’m a dude.

@Kurtzmansucks said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@northcoast said:

Hi, there, Celluliod--

While I wouldn't call Blade Runner 2049 better than its 1982 precursor (and of all the versions of that film, I feel the 1991 "Director's Cut" is still superior . . . for me, while the "Final Cut" was good, I found it a bit too expositive), I will say it is just a touch behind it, and-- possibly --its equal (I did rate them both a 9 out of 10 on this site).

I don't know of any other sequel made so long after the original-- 35 years! --that was so good. I don't think such a thing has ever happened in the history of cinema, and likely, never will again.

Blade Runner 2049 was just a fantastic piece of work, and testifies to what a master Villeneuve is.

northcoast: I, too, prefer the director's cut of Blade Runner over any other forms of it... the thing is, I just don't like to see women being shot in the chest, chased around semi-naked , etc., that much, even if they're just replicants.

You do realize her character was an elite assassin right? Had nothing to do with gender or anything like that.

What do you mean, it "Had nothing to do with gender?!??!" Zora is a female Replicant, isn't she? Her character, as well as Pris' and Rachel's, were written that way for reasons. Are you high or something? What kind of control do people have over your mind??

@CelluloidFan said:

Are you high or something? What kind of control do people have over your mind??

That's a weird thing to reply to a valid observation by Kurtzmansucks.

In your earlier post, you made it clear you struggle with how this female character was shot and "humiliated" because she's a woman. Deckard had no personal anti-female agenda, he's just following orders to hunt and take down Replicants regardless of their gender. Her being a female Replicant doesn't figure into it, it just reveals your personal views on men and women

@VobIdem said:

@CelluloidFan said:

Are you high or something? What kind of control do people have over your mind??

That's a weird thing to reply to a valid observation by Kurtzmansucks.

In your earlier post, you made it clear you struggle with how this female character was shot and "humiliated" because she's a woman. Deckard had no personal anti-female agenda, he's just following orders to hunt and take down Replicants regardless of their gender. Her being a female Replicant doesn't figure into it, it just reveals your personal views on men and women

Sure, my views on women play a part in it; I'll admit that. But I didn't write the film now, did I? As northcoast wrote earlier, all of the Replicants that Deckard kills are females. Are you trying to tell me that there's no reason for that, Vobldem? It's just a coincidence?

Sure, Deckard most likely had no personal anti-female agenda; he's not even hunting human females. He's hunting Replicants. I seem to recall there even being a bit of voiceover on his part about how he didn't like hurting women in the film, so that's a valid observation.

Still, I don't see much point in what looks like your trying to invalidate my post's content, Vobldem. Are you suggesting that the writers' motive as well as the other filmmakers', should be invisible to critique and questioning? I'd like to interrogate why all of the Replicants killed by Deckard in the movie are females, and it goes beyond simply noticing that they were written that way.

Lastly, I personally find that spirited debate is a good thing on message boards, not a bad thing. So I don't see my enthusiastic reply "weird" in the slightest.

I edited this post a coupla times....