3 ms·
I agree! I found the new Dune boring, nice looking but generic (a lot like e.g. any recent Ridley Scott movie) and the actors seemed bored too. It failed to com
by nurbl 3y ago
I agree! I found the new Dune boring, nice looking but generic (a lot like e.g. any recent Ridley Scott movie) and the actors seemed bored too. It failed to communicate a sense of wonder at the strange world. I re-watched Lynch's version after the new one, and even though the story is the same, I cared about everything that happened. I can overlook other flaws in a movie if it's at least interesting. So I think you are right, not because Lynch's Dune was a masterpiece (it wasn't), but because the new one will be mostly forgotten in a decade or so.
Perhaps the new Dune was so appreciated because it ignores the recent trend of over-complicated story telling with time jumps and mystification, and instead just tells it straight. But that's a pretty low bar.
- jhbadger 3y agoAlso the cast of Lynch's version is better -- you had first rate actors like Kyle Mclachlan as Paul, Max von Sydow as Kynes, Patrick Stewart as Halleck (and yes, Sting as Feyd-Rautha, although that's maybe not a plus as Sting is a much better singer than he is an actor).
- ekianjo 3y agoSting was hardly seen in the movie though.
- at_a_remove 3y agoJose Ferrer showing us how to de-cloak better than a dozen synchronized Romulan warbirds, Brad Dourif as the explanation of what happens when you twist a mentat, wee Alicia Witt as St. Alia of the Knife, and let's not forget Freddie Jones, a late British actor of a subtle versatility. The money men were really quite skeptical of hiring him on but after being shown some daillies, supposedly they apologized.