[Movie] Dune movie confirmed

[Lindon]

This movie was incredible. The sheer scope and ambiance the movie portrayed was stellar. The acting was, as is common with high budget movies, also very good.

The only big negative with the movie is the ending since it ends with quite a big cliffhanger. It's fine if there does come a second movie but it does make you somewhat worried that there might not come one.

If there does come a part 2 then this movie falls somewhere between the 8-9/10 mark for me.

[Cynep]

So I went to see what the user ratings are, but there are none yet on RT and Metacritic even week after release. Are they going to allow them only after US release or something like that?

[Trumpcat]

So I went to see what the user ratings are, but there are none yet on RT and Metacritic even week after release. Are they going to allow them only after US release or something like that?

As of right now
8.5/10 IMDb
90% Rotten Tomatoes
75% metacritic
77% Google thumbs up

Don't know where you looked The reviews are generally positive, but it's worth seeing the movie regardless of what anyone thinks about it. There hasn't been anything with that scope in a long while .

[Trumpcat]

User reviews, not critic reviews.

But, you just click on user reviews on imdb and there is hundreds of them: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419...ws?ref_=tt_urv

Lots of youtubers cover it too. Still, after it hits the US theaters it will have lots more English reviews and feedback, obviously.

[Orange Joe]

But, you just click on user reviews on imdb and there is hundreds of them: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419...ws?ref_=tt_urv

Lots of youtubers cover it too. Still, after it hits the US theaters it will have lots more English reviews and feedback, obviously.

So where did you get RT from?




Metacritic?

[Trumpcat]

So where did you get RT from?




Metacritic?

You getting some sort of fulfillment from nagging? What you post was already said, yes the person above was asking for user reviews, mine were critic, obviously misunderstood, but I already also showed imdb user reviews are open. The matter, that so bothers you, was already sorted. Yes, the American sites, as you point out, don't have user reviews as the movie is not available to the American audience yet. Are you searching for a gotcha reward with your sad screenshots?

[Cynep]

the person above was asking for user reviews, mine were critic, obviously misunderstood, but I already also showed imdb user reviews are open. The matter, that so bothers you, was already sorted.

Yes, IMDb and Google reviews are user reviews, thanks for those Good to see that general public liked the movie. Y'all know how it is with critic reviews, just like with video games, their grades are often dictated by factors other than game/movie quality, I trust users more.

[eschatological]

Yes, IMDb and Google reviews are user reviews, thanks for those Good to see that general public liked the movie. Y'all know how it is with critic reviews, just like with video games, their grades are often dictated by factors other than game/movie quality, I trust users more.

Their grades are dictated by knowing film, and not necessarily being a "fan" of a particular movie franchise. The paranoia about critic reviews on this subforum is hilarious. It's like the Oscar thread every year, when movies like the Joker don't win Best Picture because it was the same year Parasite, an even better film, came out, but no one on this subforum had watched it thus it was deemed "rigged."

[Cynep]

Their grades are dictated by knowing film, and not necessarily being a "fan" of a particular movie franchise. The paranoia about critic reviews on this subforum is hilarious. It's like the Oscar thread every year, when movies like the Joker don't win Best Picture because it was the same year Parasite, an even better film, came out, but no one on this subforum had watched it thus it was deemed "rigged."

Parasite the Korean movie? Yeah it was great on many levels, and well, there's only one first place. What I meant is when oftentimes a game or a movie is really 5.5/10 but critics give it shining reviews - or sometimes pan something that's controversial but interesting. People whose paycheck is not on the line are more honest about their real opinion, IMHO.

[Zmagoslav]

I'm no hardcore fan of the franchise, so i can only compare it to the 1st movie.

Overall it was enjoyable, but the trailer has overpromised.
The overall ambient was very different from the 1st one, albeit it does feel more like what one would expect architecture/land to look like on a desert-planet.
The Harkonnens were somewhat boring compared to the 1st one; a rather bland combination of pale skin and black attire just isn't as striking. Also; where was the cocky little dude? Did they go and make both of the nephews into 1 character?

[Unlimited Power]

So I watched Dune in IMAX last night, and it's undoubtedly the best movie I've watched in years - hell, probably since Bladerunner 2049.

Denis Villeneuve is quickly turning out to be one of if not my favourite movie director.

It's very much a world building movie though. It's very clear that this movie is setting up Act 2 as a much more action driven movie. God forbid Warner Brothers/Legendary doesn't greenlight part 2.

I'm going to see it again with colleagues on Monday and I can't help feel like they'll be disappointed as they're mostly a blockbuster action movie crowd (think Marvel, Star Wars, James Bond etc). This isn't really the movie for that with long, drawn out and very scenic cinematography.

[Biomega]

Parasite the Korean movie? Yeah it was great on many levels, and well, there's only one first place. What I meant is when oftentimes a game or a movie is really 5.5/10 but critics give it shining reviews

What do you mean by it "really" being 5.5/10? Are you saying there's some kind of objective metric that provides a "real" score, whereas other metrics are somehow less "real"? How does that work, exactly?

It's entirely to be expected that different demographics have different reactions to certain materials. Professional critics look at films (or books, or art, or food, or whatever) very differently from an "average" person - they have a certain sophistication that colors both their analysis and their expectations. If you make a living critiquing movies, you'll be looking for and seeing very different things than someone who just goes to the movie theater every now and then to have some entertainment. Overlap exists, to be sure; that's why there's films that are a big success with both critics and audiences. But the more sophisticated a film becomes, the more divergent those opinions tend to be - to the point where many HIGHLY acclaimed pictures were commercial failures. Even films that are now classics like e.g. The Shawshank Redemption.

There's a reason they separate out critic and audience scores. They're different metrics, that measure in different ways and against different standards. You have to keep that in mind when looking at the scores and using them to decide on whatever you want to decide on - it's not as simple as weighing them against one another equally. It's entirely understandable how some random action blockbuster might be great fun to watch on a Friday night, but might leave a critic wanting 2 hours of their life back. To treat those two assessments as equal helps nobody.

Unfortunately, people are obsessed with simplification. They want THE score, the one definitive number that'll tell them exactly what THEY think, and so they'll always find whatever matches their own taste perfectly. That's an impossible ideal, and the simpler you try to make things the more problems you tend to create in a diverse audience. That's not to say there isn't value in such data - there is. But it takes some work to try and arrive at a notion of what might describe YOUR PERSONAL TASTE, and it very rarely happens by pretending there's some kind of "real" score out there that you can discover.

[eschatological]

Parasite the Korean movie? Yeah it was great on many levels, and well, there's only one first place. What I meant is when oftentimes a game or a movie is really 5.5/10 but critics give it shining reviews - or sometimes pan something that's controversial but interesting. People whose paycheck is not on the line are more honest about their real opinion, IMHO.

People who get paid to do something over and over because their opinion holds weight and merit are called "professionals" and "experts," usually.

I mean, did people bash Siskel and Ebert like this? You may have disagreed with their opinion, but nobody really decided they were shills for Hollywood - despite "having their paychecks on the line."

[Mihalik]

I'm no hardcore fan of the franchise, so i can only compare it to the 1st movie.

Overall it was enjoyable, but the trailer has overpromised.
The overall ambient was very different from the 1st one, albeit it does feel more like what one would expect architecture/land to look like on a desert-planet.
The Harkonnens were somewhat boring compared to the 1st one; a rather bland combination of pale skin and black attire just isn't as striking. Also; where was the cocky little dude? Did they go and make both of the nephews into 1 character?

As a fan I feel the movie delivered above and beyond my expectations.

It managed to capture the eeriness of alien worlds inhabited by humans who live in a time and a civilization removed from us by tens of thousands of years.

A civilization that is both highly advanced but also technologically and culturally anachronistic.

The issue is that Dune is not action Scifi. It's not even a space opera. It's a political thriller set in a universe that is both grounded and alien.

So if your expectation walking into it was some sort of big Scifi space opera.... Well... Wrong franchise.

Still, there is a bit of that too in there, especially at the latter parts of the book, where the Fremen resistance metamorphoses into a holy crusade.

But at its core, it will always remain a political thriller, one about the dangers of prophecy, of messianic figures, of hero worship.

The Harkonnens don't figure much in the original book either. They are there, and the Baron does more in the latter parts of the book (which will be in the 2nd movie).

The first movie clearly focuses on setting up the Atreides, the Fremen, Dune itself and does just enough for us to understand the political machinations that lead to the downfall of the Atreides.

Feyd Rautha (the little weirdo) doesn't figure much into the book either, not until the end, when it comes to his duel with Paul.

In the book the Baron purposefully keeps him out of the spotlight. He's actually setting him up as his pretty boy successor. He is using Rabban as the stick, and Feyd is meant to be the carrot. The kind ruler who shows up in the end and replaces the vile Rabban.

[mst3kfan]

What do you mean by it "really" being 5.5/10? Are you saying there's some kind of objective metric that provides a "real" score, whereas other metrics are somehow less "real"? How does that work, exactly?

It's entirely to be expected that different demographics have different reactions to certain materials. Professional critics look at films (or books, or art, or food, or whatever) very differently from an "average" person - they have a certain sophistication that colors both their analysis and their expectations. If you make a living critiquing movies, you'll be looking for and seeing very different things than someone who just goes to the movie theater every now and then to have some entertainment. Overlap exists, to be sure; that's why there's films that are a big success with both critics and audiences. But the more sophisticated a film becomes, the more divergent those opinions tend to be - to the point where many HIGHLY acclaimed pictures were commercial failures. Even films that are now classics like e.g. The Shawshank Redemption.

There's a reason they separate out critic and audience scores. They're different metrics, that measure in different ways and against different standards. You have to keep that in mind when looking at the scores and using them to decide on whatever you want to decide on - it's not as simple as weighing them against one another equally. It's entirely understandable how some random action blockbuster might be great fun to watch on a Friday night, but might leave a critic wanting 2 hours of their life back. To treat those two assessments as equal helps nobody.

Unfortunately, people are obsessed with simplification. They want THE score, the one definitive number that'll tell them exactly what THEY think, and so they'll always find whatever matches their own taste perfectly. That's an impossible ideal, and the simpler you try to make things the more problems you tend to create in a diverse audience. That's not to say there isn't value in such data - there is. But it takes some work to try and arrive at a notion of what might describe YOUR PERSONAL TASTE, and it very rarely happens by pretending there's some kind of "real" score out there that you can discover.

We already know the proper answer. It is 42.

[Grimbold21]

Well, the movie was certainly visually fantastic. Oh and the sound and ambience, beautiful. I've already downloaded the soundtrack

[Hollycakes]

So I watched Dune in IMAX last night, and it's undoubtedly the best movie I've watched in years - hell, probably since Bladerunner 2049.

Denis Villeneuve is quickly turning out to be one of if not my favourite movie director.

It's very much a world building movie though. It's very clear that this movie is setting up Act 2 as a much more action driven movie. God forbid Warner Brothers/Legendary doesn't greenlight part 2.

I'm going to see it again with colleagues on Monday and I can't help feel like they'll be disappointed as they're mostly a blockbuster action movie crowd (think Marvel, Star Wars, James Bond etc). This isn't really the movie for that with long, drawn out and very scenic cinematography.

Oh man this is good news!
Can't wait!
Stupid US release date.

The more I watch the trailers and stuff the more I like what Stellan Skarsgard has done with the Baron.

[Berndorf]

As a fan I feel the movie delivered above and beyond my expectations.

It managed to capture the eeriness of alien worlds inhabited by humans who live in a time and a civilization removed from us by tens of thousands of years.

A civilization that is both highly advanced but also technologically and culturally anachronistic.

The issue is that Dune is not action Scifi. It's not even a space opera. It's a political thriller set in a universe that is both grounded and alien.

So if your expectation walking into it was some sort of big Scifi space opera.... Well... Wrong franchise.

Still, there is a bit of that too in there, especially at the latter parts of the book, where the Fremen resistance metamorphoses into a holy crusade.

But at its core, it will always remain a political thriller, one about the dangers of prophecy, of messianic figures, of hero worship.

The Harkonnens don't figure much in the original book either. They are there, and the Baron does more in the latter parts of the book (which will be in the 2nd movie).

Don't take this reply as a personal attack because I can respect that everyone has their own way of seeing things. I just wouldn't consider Dune as much of a political thriller. There are elements of politics but there's also elements of the classic hero's journey that lends itself to things such as space opera. It all sort of builds up around Paul's journey and embracing a prophetic role on the most important planet in the galaxy. It's sci-fi touching on politics, religion, philosophy, conservation, eugenics and unlocking human potential via drugs/mystical experience. That's much more than a political thriller.

[Cynep]

I'm no hardcore fan of the franchise, so i can only compare it to the 1st movie.

Overall it was enjoyable, but the trailer has overpromised.
The overall ambient was very different from the 1st one, albeit it does feel more like what one would expect architecture/land to look like on a desert-planet.
The Harkonnens were somewhat boring compared to the 1st one; a rather bland combination of pale skin and black attire just isn't as striking. Also; where was the cocky little dude? Did they go and make both of the nephews into 1 character?

1st movie probably is the David Lynch's one? It was a super loose adaptation, so its perception would entirely depend on whether or not you like Lynch's style in general. There was also a miniseries, more truthful to the books but overall not very good, completely superseded by this movie now. Villeneuve had to cut a lot but the essence is there. As Mihalik said, the cocky dude must be Feid-Rautha, who doesn't appear much in the first half so Villeneuve wisely decided not to include him at all. Should've given the same treatment to the housekeeper, and probably even Thufir Hawat.

What I'm missing the most personally is the princess Irulan. In the book, every chapter had an epigraph, almost all of them were imaginary quotes from one or another in-universe book written by the princess Irulan; so at some point I was like "man, this Irulan surely wrote a lot of books about Muad'Dib!"... and around the last chapter she appears as a character! And it's all tied up so brilliantly! ...it could not have been captured in a movie, would need a 30-episode series to build that up

[Cynep]

People who get paid to do something over and over because their opinion holds weight and merit are called "professionals" and "experts," usually.

What do you mean by it "really" being 5.5/10? Are you saying there's some kind of objective metric that provides a "real" score, whereas other metrics are somehow less "real"? How does that work, exactly?

5.5/10 is an arbitrary example number for something that won't stand the test of time as an acclaimed work of art, not even as "cult following". Like not long ago someone sold a banana nailed to a wall as art - and someone bought it as art! But what is "the real score" of that? Certainly not high. Compare that to Mona Lisa for example.

Anyway, my point with the user/critic score offtopic is that I wish for this movie to succeed financially, and have the Part Two and hopefully some good sequels/spinoffs; and user score is a far better predictor of that success than the critic score. AFAIK several films underperformed in recent years, all had user score well below critic score. I don't really want to continue this here, but if this user/critic dichotomy is really a hot topic, maybe it's worth to create a separate dedicated thread to discuss it? I don't mind exploring this further but it's irrelevant here - I was just trying to say I care about box office for this movie.

So far it seems to do well, 70+ million in 2 weekends. Can someone from Western Europe say if it will still be in the top theaters for 3rd and 4th week? Or it's being replaced by something else?