3 ms·

A critic so droll, elitist, and contrarian that Charlie Kaufman wrote an entire novel (Antkind) satirizing him by proxy.

hydrok9 3y ago
you left out "Correct!"
- tmottabr 3y ago
  you misspelled incorrect. But honestly, there is so many things wrong in his review that show he does not know anything about Dune, it look like this review is only for him to mention how much he liked the Lynch movie. Only taking a look in the first four paragraphs. Movie take place in year 21,267 not 10,196, it is in-universe year 10,196 AG, that mean after the navigator guild was formed that was when the calendars were reset. The name of the substance is Melange not Spice and it is not a mineral, it is basically sand-worm shit. He miss so much about why Leto was given Arrakis and why the Harkoneens took it back and completely miss the fact that it was the plan all along, i think this probably will be more clear in the next part, although it is mentioned by Leto to Paul that he knew it was a trap. Paul never came to believe he was the messiah since he was not supposed to be, and surely not in the first movie. He will use the Bene Gesserit prophecies in his favor knowing full well the damage it will cause in the universe. But all that will take place in the second part so not sure why he is even mentioning. The Kwisatz Haderach was not meant to be the savior of house Atreides and the Freemen like he say in the forth paragraph. He make fun of Paul vision including Chani, first his dreams are the early signs of his prescience or his ability to see the future, so it is expected he would see her as she will play a important role in his future other then being his concubine and the mother of his children, she is the reason why Paul will rejected the Golden Path, his son will then accept it and became the god-emperor that will rule for 10,000 years. second, he dreaming of her is even in the books that is the source material although he keep forgetting it and things it is the Lynch movie. He keep dismissing things that are in the book because they where not in the Lynch movie like this was a remake of the Lynch movie and not a completely separated and independent adaptation of the same source material. The Lynch movie has a ton of problems as well, it had to cut many things to make the book fit into a 2h movie and it is one of the reasons it was a failure at the time, sure it achieved cult status by now, but it is not a movie without problems. Also why Villenueve movie is so long that it had to be split in two and even with almost 6h they had to cut stuff from the books. It sure has its problems but it is way better then the Lynch movie.. hell, even the John Harrison series is better then the Lynch movie in my opinion.
  - hydrok9 3y ago
    I agreed with his review on the basis of movie making, not it's adherence to the canon or the novel. I'm a huge fan of the books and sci-fi and this movie was obviously a thinly veiled attempt at marvelizing as if it was some kind of ya novel. Plus the ever-present dullness and general non-alieneness of the set and lighting. dull at best and frankly. a little bit insulting.
    - tmottabr 3y ago
      well film making is subjective so.. i personally prefer the film making on Villenueve mostly because he has double the time and 35 years of CGI and effects available to him so there are things he can show now that Lynch could not on the other hand Lynch needed to rely much more on storytelling to give us information while Villenueve can just show things and hope we will get it.. Another thing.. Lynch movie came out in the 80s when scifi was still in its infancy, so everything was new and exciting.. By now everything has being done and re-done a bazillion of times.. In the 80s they were still learning how to do things and remembers Lynch's Dune was a failure at the time.. Sure it achieved cult status now but it had its fair share of bad criticism when it was released.. One example, it was unthinkable making a film split in two parts in the 80s while it is common now.. On the other hand having 5min of face talking doing exposition on the start of the movie like it is done in Lynch movie is unthinkable now when you have the CGI to show stuff but it was often a necessity in the 80s.. They are both products of their time and work with were available to then.. But i think that if he will go on to write an essay about the movie, first he should watch the full movie and not only half. And second he should judge the movie on its own merits and defects and not keep comparing it to the Lynch movie at every corner. He think the movie making is not good tell us why instead of saying it is bad because Lynch made it different and he like Lynch more so Villenueve is automatically bad.. like he say that in Lynch film he use voice over to show characters inner voices, and that this make it "vastly texture-enriching and deftly add a haunting dimension of subjectivity", i on the other hand always found lynch's voice over inner voices to be weird and out of place even if it add to the movie, i dislike then not because they are there but how they were done.. The problem is that how they were done is a product of the time the movie was made and resources available at that time, it would never be done the same way today even if one choose to do inner voices.. Same when he talk about the Gom Jabbar test.. Lynch movie has to show the burning hand in the box melting as if it was actually happening to his hand to show the pain that Paul is facing at that moment and has to use his inner voice for the litany of fear.. While Villenueve show us glimpses of visions of a fully carbonized hand in the desert to make it clear what Paul is felling without actually showing what is happening to his hand so we can grasp the level of pain without really knowing it and then he cut to Jessica outside in despair chanting the litany of fear that also add context to show the severity of the test and he does this just because he the time to do it.. He think the Lynch version show the pain better because it was more explicit while i think the Villenueve does a better job exactly for the opposite reason.. totally a matter of personal taste.. Neither Lynch or Villenueve movie are bad because of it, just diferent ways of portraying things each limited by the resources available.. And to go even further, neither does a good job in portraying the fear the reverend mother felt of Paul for a split second that caused her to end the test because the pain level he was enduring was so high.. So it seen unfair to compare both works to each other like he did.. If he want write about why he prefer the Lynch movie over the Villenueve movie it is totally fine, but do not call it a review for Villenueve movie. Both are good movies and both have their fair share of defects, some will prefer one, some the other and not everyone will agree and again this is fine.. But just because you prefer one over the other first it does not make the other bad and second it is not an excuse to just bash the other because they did not make things the same way.. This is why his review sound dull and elitist to me.

hydrok9 3y ago

you left out "Correct!"

tmottabr 3y ago
you misspelled incorrect. But honestly, there is so many things wrong in his review that show he does not know anything about Dune, it look like this review is only for him to mention how much he liked the Lynch movie. Only taking a look in the first four paragraphs. Movie take place in year 21,267 not 10,196, it is in-universe year 10,196 AG, that mean after the navigator guild was formed that was when the calendars were reset. The name of the substance is Melange not Spice and it is not a mineral, it is basically sand-worm shit. He miss so much about why Leto was given Arrakis and why the Harkoneens took it back and completely miss the fact that it was the plan all along, i think this probably will be more clear in the next part, although it is mentioned by Leto to Paul that he knew it was a trap. Paul never came to believe he was the messiah since he was not supposed to be, and surely not in the first movie. He will use the Bene Gesserit prophecies in his favor knowing full well the damage it will cause in the universe. But all that will take place in the second part so not sure why he is even mentioning. The Kwisatz Haderach was not meant to be the savior of house Atreides and the Freemen like he say in the forth paragraph. He make fun of Paul vision including Chani, first his dreams are the early signs of his prescience or his ability to see the future, so it is expected he would see her as she will play a important role in his future other then being his concubine and the mother of his children, she is the reason why Paul will rejected the Golden Path, his son will then accept it and became the god-emperor that will rule for 10,000 years. second, he dreaming of her is even in the books that is the source material although he keep forgetting it and things it is the Lynch movie. He keep dismissing things that are in the book because they where not in the Lynch movie like this was a remake of the Lynch movie and not a completely separated and independent adaptation of the same source material. The Lynch movie has a ton of problems as well, it had to cut many things to make the book fit into a 2h movie and it is one of the reasons it was a failure at the time, sure it achieved cult status by now, but it is not a movie without problems. Also why Villenueve movie is so long that it had to be split in two and even with almost 6h they had to cut stuff from the books. It sure has its problems but it is way better then the Lynch movie.. hell, even the John Harrison series is better then the Lynch movie in my opinion.
- hydrok9 3y ago
  I agreed with his review on the basis of movie making, not it's adherence to the canon or the novel. I'm a huge fan of the books and sci-fi and this movie was obviously a thinly veiled attempt at marvelizing as if it was some kind of ya novel. Plus the ever-present dullness and general non-alieneness of the set and lighting. dull at best and frankly. a little bit insulting.
  - tmottabr 3y ago
    well film making is subjective so.. i personally prefer the film making on Villenueve mostly because he has double the time and 35 years of CGI and effects available to him so there are things he can show now that Lynch could not on the other hand Lynch needed to rely much more on storytelling to give us information while Villenueve can just show things and hope we will get it.. Another thing.. Lynch movie came out in the 80s when scifi was still in its infancy, so everything was new and exciting.. By now everything has being done and re-done a bazillion of times.. In the 80s they were still learning how to do things and remembers Lynch's Dune was a failure at the time.. Sure it achieved cult status now but it had its fair share of bad criticism when it was released.. One example, it was unthinkable making a film split in two parts in the 80s while it is common now.. On the other hand having 5min of face talking doing exposition on the start of the movie like it is done in Lynch movie is unthinkable now when you have the CGI to show stuff but it was often a necessity in the 80s.. They are both products of their time and work with were available to then.. But i think that if he will go on to write an essay about the movie, first he should watch the full movie and not only half. And second he should judge the movie on its own merits and defects and not keep comparing it to the Lynch movie at every corner. He think the movie making is not good tell us why instead of saying it is bad because Lynch made it different and he like Lynch more so Villenueve is automatically bad.. like he say that in Lynch film he use voice over to show characters inner voices, and that this make it "vastly texture-enriching and deftly add a haunting dimension of subjectivity", i on the other hand always found lynch's voice over inner voices to be weird and out of place even if it add to the movie, i dislike then not because they are there but how they were done.. The problem is that how they were done is a product of the time the movie was made and resources available at that time, it would never be done the same way today even if one choose to do inner voices.. Same when he talk about the Gom Jabbar test.. Lynch movie has to show the burning hand in the box melting as if it was actually happening to his hand to show the pain that Paul is facing at that moment and has to use his inner voice for the litany of fear.. While Villenueve show us glimpses of visions of a fully carbonized hand in the desert to make it clear what Paul is felling without actually showing what is happening to his hand so we can grasp the level of pain without really knowing it and then he cut to Jessica outside in despair chanting the litany of fear that also add context to show the severity of the test and he does this just because he the time to do it.. He think the Lynch version show the pain better because it was more explicit while i think the Villenueve does a better job exactly for the opposite reason.. totally a matter of personal taste.. Neither Lynch or Villenueve movie are bad because of it, just diferent ways of portraying things each limited by the resources available.. And to go even further, neither does a good job in portraying the fear the reverend mother felt of Paul for a split second that caused her to end the test because the pain level he was enduring was so high.. So it seen unfair to compare both works to each other like he did.. If he want write about why he prefer the Lynch movie over the Villenueve movie it is totally fine, but do not call it a review for Villenueve movie. Both are good movies and both have their fair share of defects, some will prefer one, some the other and not everyone will agree and again this is fine.. But just because you prefer one over the other first it does not make the other bad and second it is not an excuse to just bash the other because they did not make things the same way.. This is why his review sound dull and elitist to me.