Ambitious sci-fi based on the novel by Frank Herbert - with Timothy Chalamet, huge sandworms and Denis Villeneuve in the director's chair.
The influential Atreides family, led by Count Leto (Oscar Isaac), is sent to Arrakis to monitor the production of spice, the most important substance in the universe. Previously, this planet belonged to the warlike Harkonnens, who terrorized the local Fremen people and left behind only barely working equipment. They do not intend to leave Arrakis for the Atreides - the local sand dunes bring too much money - and are preparing a full-scale war under the leadership of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and Gloss "The Beast" Rabban (Dave Batista).
At this time, the heir to the House of Atreides, Paul (Timothy Chalamet), is trying to figure out himself. His mother (Rebecca Ferguson), a Bene Gesserit student, teaches her son the power of the Voice (the ability to command other people) and convinces him that he is Muad'Dib, the local Messiah. In his dreams, Paul sees a strange girl from the Fremen tribe (Zendea) and images from what seems to be a not too cheerful future. And in his free time from hallucinations, he learns to fight under the supervision of the warrior Gurney Halleck (Josh Brolin) and, like everyone else, prepares for the inevitable invasion of the enemy.
"Dune" is about as difficult to criticize as it is to watch - not because it is some particularly complex movie (even for those who are not familiar with Herbert's novel, everything should be more or less clear), but because in his case the result fully corresponds to the task. Villeneuve warned a thousand times that he would go strictly according to the book and even for the first novel he would need two full-length films. The author's style of the Canadian director of "Arrival" and "The Assassin" does not imply special agility - meaningful pauses are always closer to active action. Finally, Frank Herbert's voluminous epic is not a book from which you can make a bright entertaining sci-fi: believe me, Hollywood has already tried.
"Dune" does not work very well as a movie, but it is strange to reproach it for it - after all, the problem is not in individual solutions, but in the fundamental concept. This is a two and a half hour connection to a story that will happen sometime later, in other films that no one has yet started filming and, if the first part fails (like Villeneuve's last blockbuster, Blade Runner 2049), will never be filmed ... And the "plot" in this case is not some beautiful figure of speech. The film is indeed scripted as if it were not an epic 200 million blockbuster, but the pilot of a series. Although no: even those are more independent.
There is a lot going on here: Harkonnens and Atreides, Fremen and Sardaukars, terrible rituals, political strife, Bene Gesserit, Muad'Dib, and finally, huge sandworms. But the elements of the setting are not yet history: Villeneuve just does not have it. The event that triggers the central conflict takes place closer to the third hour of the film (at the same time the first full-fledged action scene happens), and the "quest" of the protagonist is scheduled only for the very end. Prior to that, Paul Atreides wanders without initiative, hallucinates under spice, sees Chani in a dream (Zendaya appears in the film for a very short time, mostly looks at the camera with a slight grin) and has entertaining discussions about whether he is still chosen or not. Some Western critics have compared "Dune" to "The Fellowship of the Ring" - but if these films were really synonymous, then the first part of "The Lord of the Rings" would have ended with Elrond's advice in Rivendell, and Frodo would have learned only under the credits that he will have to deal with courier delivery to Mordor.
Yes, "Brotherhood" is also perceived as the first act of a larger story, but at the same time it has a harmonious inner drama, and the characters have a clear goal, a literal point on the map, where they need to get to at all costs. Villeneuve himself used to reward the characters with a clear task: to find contact with aliens, to find a kidnapped child, to catch a drug lord in Mexico. It was thanks to the strict narrative form that the branded lengths were suitable for his films: he quietly peered into standard genre plots, over and over again finding a new sound for them. In Dune, the plot is blurred, hidden behind an endless series of exposition scenes, preparing us for a story that no one is going to tell.
Perhaps the fact is that Villeneuve's style simply did not coincide with the text being screened - there is too much information and words in it, while Denis usually tries to avoid unnecessary conversations. But this is not a particular mistake of the director: judging by the history of its film adaptations, no one coincides with Dune, in general. In Frank Herbert's novel, complex descriptions of the political, religious and social structure of the future work precisely because this is a book - that is, a work that the reader himself can stretch in time as much as he pleases, gradually becoming involved in the world. A film, even a 155-minute one, is a compact text, laid out for us in a specific time frame. It is strange to seriously explain the difference between cinema and literature (I think everyone already guesses that these mediums are radically different), but Dune shows too well what happens when the structure of a novel is not adapted to the screen, but is left almost intact. The result is an impressive structure, a rich and vivid fantasy world, which is too widespread and does not hold its shape in any way - like the sand of which it is composed. The Atreides fly to Arrakis and try to settle on a new planet, the Harkonnens sit gloomily in gloomy castles and prepare for a bloody massacre, the Fremen are angry that someone continues to climb on their planet. In any other film, all this would have been told in 15 minutes, or even completely shoved the background of the conflict into the opening credits. Here, the outline of the "status quo" takes up most of the timekeeping.
As much as the literary purists are against, sometimes it is worth throwing out a couple of dozen (or even hundreds) pages for a good film adaptation. That said, Dune is not an unambiguously bad movie. This is a technically perfect blockbuster that does not seek to entertain the viewer at all costs, and this is rarely seen. As always with Villeneuve, there is a great sound design, impressive even more than the landscapes of Arrakis and reverently recreated details of the fantastic future (the energy armor of the heroes looks especially amusing). There are several acting discoveries - for example, Jason Momoa in the role of the charismatic warrior Duncan Idaho looks more interesting than his more famous colleagues (they, however, are also good). And the slack structure of the film will probably seem to someone a conceptual success, they say, the bustle of the plot finally does not distract from metaphysics. In the end, fans will never see more faithful to the original adaptation of Dune - it's not clear whether this is good or bad.
This article was sponsored by ALAGANT MANAGEMENT LLC.
Comments