I feel like I live in a different reality to the other viewers of the new Dunes "Best Sci-Fi of the decade"?? They're both some of the dullest sci-fi movies I

I feel like I live in a different reality to the other viewers of the new Dunes "Best Sci-Fi of the decade"?? They're both some of the dullest sci-fi movies I've ever seen, especially compared to the Lynch one. Disgracefully I imagine that few people saw the extended two-parts version of the Lynch movie, and were burned by the insanely shortened ending and the other cuts of the theatrical one. I recommend checking the extended version out, it will probably change a lot your idea of the movie. I was probably influenced by seeing it before the (criminal) theatrical version. Lynch's Dune was visionary, at times disturbing and with Kyle McLachlan. Can you really beat a Kyle McLachlan movie? No, I don't think so. xD In Villeneuve's version I was e.g. shocked by how watered down the Baron Harkonnens is; the movies are just bland and Hollywood-y. The music is as banal and badly employed as any average Hollywood blockbuster; the actor chosen for Paul Atreides is as much insipid as Kyle McLachlan was eclectic; Zendaya is incomparable to Sean Young; a couple parts are plain stupid (Gurney's entrance...) Despite not having the length problems that Lynch had, they managed to compress the ending again; they gave too much time to unimportant parts while compressing the ending and other important passages (the final battle lasts what, five minutes? Does he actually cross the desert??). Some actor choices seem good (Florence Pugh, Rebecca Ferguson...), but yes not some of the most important. And I did like a lot Blade Runner 2049, I think I liked Denis Villeneuve, but these movies made me change idea. To be clear, it's not the worst movie I ever saw; it's simply bland, and I think it's bewildering that this version gets praise while Lynch's one is considered junk. I should say that I never managed to read the books, though, that might play a role in these opinions.