Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 6:06 AM   
 By:   jsmiley108   (Member)

About a month ago I saw the first Dune film again, a few weeks before seeing Dune 2 in 70mm at the Randwick Ritz in Sydney. I haven't listened to the soundtracks seperately. I know most people are saying the 2nd film is even better but I actually felt the first film was stronger. And... it seemed to me that Zimmer (or the director) repeated a lot of the musical material from the first film (again, this is only after 1 viewing of the 2nd film). This added to my lower impression. I am planning to see it again at the new IMAX cinema in Sydney soon.

 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 6:59 AM   
 By:   Ny   (Member)

It's as good as the first film. Two halves of the same story, made to the same standard.

Godfather part 1 and 2 are different in that the second one contains dual plotlines, one in the past, one in the present, which results in a longer film with a different feel to the first. But here, it feels unified to me.

When you consider how much music Zimmer wrote for the first film, a lot of it based on inspiration from the source material, it's natural that he'd continue to make use of it.

I recommend the IMAX viewing, the impact of the sound design during the worm-riding sequence really had all my senses tingling.

 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 7:31 AM   
 By:   richsto   (Member)

Watched the first one last night again in our home theater. Both are good but the second film is a sci fi masterpiece in my opinion. Agree, watch Dune 2 in IMAX if you can….saw it twice, both in good theaters and the IMAX presentation was jaw dropping. Sound was stunning, including the worm scene.

Zimmers score was mixed more appropriately in the second film and while I don’t enjoy listening to the entire soundtrack on its own, there are a couple of really beautiful themes that are just plain moving.

Can’t wait to get my hands on the second 4K disc release. Preordered on day one. Stellar film, highly recommended.

Rich

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 8:36 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

I love the first film, but it's really a a "small" film, despite its epic backdrop, with a more focussed narrative (exposition, attack and escape). The second film is much, much bigger, properly capturing the mythological scope of the story. There's no competition, as far as I'm concerned, DUNE 2 is a far superior film.

Score-wise, it's pretty even. Both needed serious whittling, however. They're great in my playlists.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 9:05 AM   
 By:   John B. Archibald   (Member)

Finally caught DUNE 2.
I didn’t think it was as good as the first film. Dense with various plots, as well as massive Expressionist crowd scenes, not to mention yet another cliffhanger ending, it just seemed too long. And, the passage of time in DUNE 2 seems considerably compressed, seeming to take only months, while the book makes it clear that several years have elapsed.
Also SPOILERS: No mention of the Navigators, who use the Spice to find hidden paths through deep space. Which is why everyone wants it. Without mentioning, let alone showing, the Navigators, the importance of the Spice is considerably muddied.
And, what happened to Paul’s sister, Alia? Much is made of Lady Jessica being pregnant when she is inveigled into drinking the Water of Life, and we even see her communicating with her unborn babe. But, after that, Alia completely disappears! Alia plays a major role in the latter section of tbe book. It’s weird to have the pregnancy with no mention of her birth.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 9:09 AM   
 By:   Spymaster   (Member)

I didn't really like Dune 2 at all. It just felt endlessly "chatty" to me... with lots of plotting and planning and not much doing. With actors who looked pretty but didn't have much charisma. It didn't help that the Odeon where I saw it ramped the volume up to 1000 decibels so there was no detail to anything... just endless NOISE with endless SAND. And after all the talk it just seemed to end with a fight that was... fine... but too little too late. I should probably give it another try, under better conditions, but yeah... I came away feeling very bored to be honest.

Christopher Walken was excellent, as always. Zimmer's score was good.

 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 9:44 AM   
 By:   danbeck   (Member)

I think the first is better. One thing that annoyed me in the second is Feyd, he is shown as an spoiled playboy that without much explanation turns the tide when arriving in Arakis by simply bombing the Freemen headquarters. It seemed rushed and dull.
But it is still impressive and have good scenes. The score is better with the Atreides/Love Theme making it more listenable.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 9:50 AM   
 By:   keky   (Member)

I also prefer the first movie. However Zimmer's score is better in the second one.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 10:30 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Christopher Walken was excellent, as always. .

That's funny. I liked pretty much everything in DUNE 2, except for the casting choice of Walken. Such a small role, they could have used basically anyone. They didn't need that star power. Plus, he's a very "contemporary" actor who feels out-of-place in a historical/fantasy setting.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 11:38 AM   
 By:   Mephariel   (Member)

I prefer the second film and especially the second score. The first film was great too, but the pace of the film made it hard for Zimmer to flesh out his experimentations. The second score is sort of the completion of that.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 13, 2024 - 12:19 PM   
 By:   Spymaster   (Member)

That's funny. I liked pretty much everything in DUNE 2, except for the casting choice of Walken. Such a small role, they could have used basically anyone. They didn't need that star power. Plus, he's a very "contemporary" actor who feels out-of-place in a historical/fantasy setting.

I was just happy to see SOMEBODY in it that gave it some weight.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 14, 2024 - 1:33 AM   
 By:   ghost of 82   (Member)

Both of Villeneuve's Dune films are very good, but I was hoping for perfect, especially having two films to tell the story, but they are probably as flawed as Lynch's film, albeit for different reasons. I guess folks were right describing the book as unfilmable.


Maybe Dune Messiah can save the day- as a trilogy with the warning inherent in Paul's final arc, as a trilogy it may work as whole better than individual films.

 
 Posted:   Apr 14, 2024 - 7:19 AM   
 By:   PollyAnna   (Member)

Both of Villeneuve's Dune films are very good, but I was hoping for perfect, especially having two films to tell the story, but they are probably as flawed as Lynch's film, albeit for different reasons. I guess folks were right describing the book as unfilmable.


Maybe Dune Messiah can save the day- as a trilogy with the warning inherent in Paul's final arc, as a trilogy it may work as whole better than individual films.




I don't think that it is as much unfilmable as more like directors wanting to put their own stamp on the work and moving away from Herbert's vision.. There are vast chunks missing and many changes made, as well as a couple of original scenes created. To film Dune properly I think it needs to be given more time to breathe in maybe a 12 hour limited series, enough to let the characters build more and actions to play out whereas long movies can tax the viewer's brain. I was actually not very happy with the Dune 2 ending and overall both films are good but not great. I feel it is again another missed opportunity.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 14, 2024 - 11:24 AM   
 By:   MarkS   (Member)

I liked the first part, but was disappointed with the changes made to the story in the second part. Especially because they did away with my favorite part of the book (Alia talking shit to Baron Harkonnen , the Emperor, and the old Reverend Mother then killing Harkonnen). It also made me very sad when I realized they made the Baron Harkonnen look like me. Except I have eyebrows and can get up off the couch under my own power.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 14, 2024 - 11:36 AM   
 By:   Clark Wayne   (Member)

I liked the first part, but was disappointed with the changes made to the story in the second part. Especially because they did away with my favorite part of the book (Alia talking shit to Baron Harkonnen , the Emperor, and the old Reverend Mother then killing Harkonnen). It also made me very sad when I realized they made the Baron Harkonnen look like me. Except I have eyebrows and can get up off the couch under my own power.

It was done as an artistic choice so as to have the story from 1 lead directly into 2, without any time jumps, which the film makers felt were distracting.

Given the weird overdubbing of a creepy baby voice on the child in Lynch's Dune, I think it was the correct decision, as that scene was laughable.

It gave a better foreshadowing have her talk, as an adult, to her brother, in a prophecy, IMO.

I felt Christopher Walken was a bit understated if anything, he seemed like an old man confused by his choices, rather than a master manipulator who was foiled by a wild card. He didn't need to be a scenery chewing, turning, Al Pacino, but someone with an inherent sense of danger, like Sir Anthony Hopkins, may have played him better. Again, IMO.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 14, 2024 - 9:38 PM   
 By:   ChuckNoland   (Member)

Like D2 a lot, but was wondering why they left out "the killing word" and the weapons the fremen get and are trained to use. I loved anytime "the voice" was used, so that seemed like it would be a no-brainer. Anyone have any insight?

 
 Posted:   Apr 14, 2024 - 11:47 PM   
 By:   Adventures of Jarre Jarre   (Member)

Both parts are fantastic overall, but I would rather wait for some inevitable supercut to be made available on disc rather than get them separately.

They are, however, lacking in the one thing that makes Lynch's version shine: the phantasmagoria of the setting. Lynch's version really does feel "alien", posing as a true, albeit rushed, account of some future time. And despite being the film's invention, there's simply no beating the shot of Sting getting split in half by the voice of God. I don't hate the guy, but it's just... kewl.

The standouts of Part 2 are the ying-yang chemistry between Bardem's hysterical fanaticism and Brolin's stoic pragmatism. Walken does seem to have wandered his way on set, looking like Supreme Leader Snoke with hair, and not given much to do other than worry and hand over a knife. The one performance I actually pity is Zendaya's. In Part 1, she's given to slo-mo, over the shoulder shots as if posing for the Arrakis version of Vogue, while in Part 2, she gives cinema's greatest impersonation of an ignored Jigglypuff.

If I do have one, unrelated gripe, it's of a certain, recent phrase I've grown tired of hearing: "See this on the biggest screen possible!". I actually did that with Part 1 at an IMAX theater and... I have concerns:

1. I went to the Grand Rapids theater, where the "1.43 special edition" was playing, whereas most other plebian IMAXs got the 1.33 treatment. It was my first experience at an IMAX, and it may be my last. Granted, the screen is big, but like anyone meeting Snake Plissken would say... "I thought it'd be bigger". It only reminded me of an indoor drive-in theater, which made me miss that experience all the more, especially considering that I was faced with the prospect of watching a 4:3 movie. I thought we as a species were done with "full screen" movies. And as I watched the movie, the constant need to shift between "battle scenes" and "everything else" was whiplashingly apparent. Maybe Roger Ebert was right about championing an alternate camera system becoming the standard for this scale (whose name I can't recall... thanks The Internet).

2. The sound system was suitably grand, but it's not anything I hadn't heard equally as mindblowing from a regular theater back in 1984 when Egon turn on Ray's proton pack and the theater actually shook (which only added to the joke), or when I nearly had my eardrums blown out when seeing Die Hard with a Vengeance at a Manhattan theater in 1995. So it's not like it's impossible for regular theaters to acquire the Doc Brown model of jowel-blasting wonderment, they just need to not skimp on the privilege.

3. The seating arrangement was, to put it lightly, vertigo inducing, with the only "railing" available in this cliffside cramfest being the knee-high seat in front of me. It would be preferable to set loose any bowel movements right then and there, during such a lengthy runtime, than to go full "scuse me, pardon me" in the near darkness while keeping one's acrobatic balance in a race to the nearest latrine. Maybe it was just this theater, but as the younglings say, "the math ain't mathing up here". I'm still surprised I haven't heard of someone getting sneezed off to one's plummeted doom with such a setup.

4. I've been made privy that the Grand Rapids theater posed a 90 foot screen, as opposed to the typical 70 foot version, which begs the question: WHY ARE IMAX THEATERS OF DIFFERENT SIZES ALLOWED TO EXIST? I get that some brilliant engineer eventually thought "wait, maybe I can make this one bigger... to hell with the rest of 'em!". It's just a notion that insists the vast majority of normal theaters should die in a fire, promoting the inevitable trajectory of Hollywood's scheme toward "event" movies, with all others consigned to streaming hell.

So I'm in no hurry to repeat the experience, but should Fantasia ever be presented in such a venue, I wouldn't turn down the possibility.

  • I guess folks were right describing the book as unfilmable.

    Translation = anything is filmable, but audiences may not want to watch it.

  •  
     Posted:   Apr 15, 2024 - 1:54 AM   
     By:   Grimsdyke   (Member)

    Dune 2 is a little bit better than 1 but they are both not that good movies.

    Lynch made it clear that it was ALL about the spice. Villeneuve turned it into a family drama/soap opera.

     
     
     Posted:   Apr 15, 2024 - 2:13 AM   
     By:   Hurdy Gurdy   (Member)

    I've thoroughly enjoyed both films, with DUNE 2 being the more enjoyable experience for me.
    DUNE 1 was solid but felt like a lot of 'setting up' the world/story/characters (obvs).
    DUNE 2 was allowed to get straight into things as a result.
    However, like the two AVATAR films, they are experiences I really loved IN THE CINEMA but have no desire to ever watch again in any format (unlike other beloved films I can enjoy again and again).

     
    You must log in or register to post.
      Go to page:    
    © 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
    Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.