This is the absolute best analysis of Villeneuve’s interpretation of Dune I’ve seen. Bravo. It’s so refreshing to watch a critique that fully takes into account the director’s very specific storytelling style.

Phenomenal overview! About the scene in which Chani is compelled to reawaken Paul: the books put significantly more emphasis on the biochemical and metabolical aspect of Bene Gesserit conditioning. Basically, whereas a female is capable of metabolizing the worm poison by herself, Paul's organism needed another individual's biochemical input in other to "recognize" and fully process the antigen. Somewhat like an instant vaccine. In the movie, this aspect of male and female reaction to the water of life is integrated into the myth.

Zendaya's acting is amazing to me for the best part and Chamalet nails its perfect adaptation.

This review is the most succinct and honest analysis I've seen on the film. It perfectly encapsulates the weird conflation of ambivalence and revery I felt after watching Dune 2. Ultimately, it was a triumph, but the stylistic visualization narrowed the emotional impact and created slight dissonance between the eye and the brain. Subscribed.

I think some of the Paul scheming and foresight vs more innocent motivation was meant to represent some of how his foresight comes and goes. He can see sometimes and will use that to his advantage, but it isn’t a sure thing. Also the north vs south thing may have been an attempt to make more clear his decision he’d made earlier to join the Fremen with that spotty vision of shifting futures, which he makes in the book, where he chooses chance at revenge and getting power back over a life as a fugitive or with the guild. He in his hubris believes if he is set against it he can find a loophole out of the jihad, as the future has shifted many times before on him. That wasn’t particularly clear in Part 1. As for him manipulating the people, I think that was meant at first to be survival and especially before Jessica took on position as reverend mother. He thought he could do it just enough to keep them alive (as Stilgar says other option is give them back to desert ). Once Jessica is protected by her position he no longer has to do that, and his commitment to that is shaken when he sees a way out by just being a great Fremen warrior and empathizes with them. I think that decision to pursue revenge using regular Fremen tactics and his own training vs religious fervor is what ring scene is meant to symbolize, as he sees that as a compromise between being an imperial aristocrat and using their tactics as his father discussed, vs leading just as another warrior or just enough to protect planet and kill Harkonnens. When he finds his abilities and that simple insurgency way challanged later, and both revenge and new life (and especially Chani) at risk, that is when he starts to consider the south but also his native cultural way of warfare, politics, and hierarchal control

Gotta echo the other comments. This is the best thought out, most specific analysis of the Dune movies I’ve encountered…almost shot by shot. I’m so happy I found this site.

In addition to the quality of your insights, I really appreciate how you present your criticism as an examination of process, decision-making, and consequence. There's a palpable understanding of, and respect for, how a film like "Dune Part 2" would be written that makes even fairly sweeping criticism land in a way that helps me consider what I also think. Very well-written stuff.

This movie is just a beautiful piece of art. Every scene is like a painting painted by Villeneuve mastery. I started reading dune because of this movie.

We do have an idea of the dismounting from the book actually, but it's very missable, like a lot of details lol Fremen release the hooks and run back towards the worms end, timing it so they can jump off nicely as the worm goes under

You consistently have some of the best movie analysis videos on youtube and you deserve way more subs and views. Loved this video. Keep up the great work!!

Thank you for your analysis, very well laid out. I've just discovered your channel (thanks to Dune), and I can say that you're among the best on YT, subscribed. Now about the film... Not only was Villeneuve able to translate a complex book successfully into a unique cinematic experience, but also to drive Craig Fraser's images, Zimmer's scores, sounds, costumes, actors and everyone involved performing at their best, sucking out the full potential of their Art. Some to another level (e.g. Chalamet with an unexpected Oscar-worthy performance). For example, in several interviews with Zimmer, Fraser, Chalamet etc., they constantly reiterate how Villeneuve was guiding them along the way, calling on their inspired artistry to serve this epic film to the best of their abilities and as envisioned by Villeneuve (as you splendidly analyse it). Along spectacular yet "natural" VFX, all this with a lower budget than most of nowadays "lemon"... Starting with Arrival and up to Dune, IMHO, Villeneuve truly is the prodigal son of the Sci-Fi genre, as much as he should win the 2024 Oscar for best director when considering the above.

i can’t believe your channel is not more recognised. I remember subscribing after watching your video on House of the Dragon and thinking this depth and nuance in critique doesn’t exist anywhere on youtube. I was right!

I agree when you say that we don’t really step into most characters, but this is kind of Villeneuves style imo, and it’s definitely Herbert’s style too imo. It generally feels a bit distant, and I enjoy it.

🎉 amazing essay, also finally someone also is able to pronounce Villeneuve‘s name!

GReat analysis! Thank you for putting this together. I think this is the first video of yours that I watched and will definitely be watching more. Thanks!

After paul takes the elixir his walking from a distance from the camera is peak cinema

dune is better compared to a political thriller rather than a lotr type high fantasy. lotr is not really about politics it’s a fairy tale. don’t get me wrong it’s one of the greatest books ever but its focus is farrrrr more personal than dune. dune is at its best for me when im studying and questioning the motives and moves of its different political players. regardless i love your review alot and it got me to think critically about the movie and i appreciate that 🫶🏾

19:16 Butlarien jihad. Not machines becoming too human-like but human becoming too machine-like and not thinking for themselves! Brilliant! Rulers like Paul do your thinking for you. Great video! Thank you

I subscribed a while ago solely because of the username

Excellent, and refreshing analysis!

Love that you can even see the callouses on Paul's hands. Assuming Chalamet isn't one to have them.

Amazing analysis! As a book reader, though I liked the film, I could not shake the feeling of slight disappointment. Especially as opposed to the first film which I thought was brilliant. I couldn't really pinpoint what my issues where but I think you've laid most of them out here.

Great critique of a great film! You put into words why some parts of the writing felt off to me, how they flattened a lot of the book's nuance around Paul and the prophecy, as well as the use of characters like Chani or Jessica to symbolically represent some of the book's plentiful internal monologue, to mixed effect. My problem with Chani wasn't that she became disillusioned with Paul, but that the way it was done felt inauthentic in the film's own setting. She already knew the prophecy was a scam, and this was apparently a common belief in her region. Yet we don't see serious religious conflict between Fremen on this issue (Chani and Stilgar still happily live in the same tribe), and it seems weird for such an otherwise intense culture to treat such a crucial matter so trivially. It makes Chani seem more like an outsider in her own world than she should be, and as you said, this could've been handled more skillfully while also making her a more dynamic character (e.g. Paul confiding in her about his own inner conflict and the truth of the BG manipulation). I also thought the stark north-south divide made the southern "fundamentalists" seem more like a plot device than people, and an unnecessary extra layer of complexity on an already complex world. The message of being wary of fanaticism and charismatic leaders would also be more effective if it was clearer that the people going on the jihad aren't just some vaguely evil-coded anonymous mass somewhere else, but the people we spent the first half empathizing with; yes, Stilgar does serve that purpose to an extent, but I think there's still a clear distinction between what are effectively the "good" and "bad" Fremen, which works to the detriment of the story's own message.

Excellent analysis 👍

Nice video, I learned a lot of interesting things and it was fun to hear your thoughts, especially about Paul manipulating people. I'm not sure if he can really be trusted and I guess that is the point. At the start of the movie he talks about how he wants revenge and how he needs to turn the non-believers, which is interesting. It suggests that he is 100% on board with being their messiah and the doubt he shows outwards for the world to see is to present himself as the humble and unwilling leader who needs to step into the role...? Kind of like Palpatine in Star Wars. Idk, it feels like he is torn up about what he percieves needs to be done and that he can't do anything that will prevent the jihad, but as you said, the signet ring scene and the fact he says "I would like to be equal to you" - then slips on the ring at the end and declares himself above everyone else with his title as duke indicates to me that he is playing 5D chess haha. (Someone also pointed out that his Father wears the ring in the middle to show balance, while Paul has it on his index finger, pointing the way, focusing on power. Not sure if it is true but sounds cool). Not to mention that his talk with his mother is very brief, feels like he should have spoken more to her. He calls out the prophecy as a lie but does not force her to stop converting people, maybe because he has resigned himself to accept that it will happen anyway? Something that comes back to me a lot is what Duncan tells Paul - "Listen... Dreams make good stories, but everything important happens when we're awake. Because that's when we make things happen." Paul does not seem to live much in the moment but rather in the future, thinking about his revenge and how to get there. I'm reading the book now because I am curious how accurate his visions are, as it feels like maybe if he focused more on the now things could have ended differently. If he did not focus on the future and become trapped by it to the point he resigns to follow along, maybe he would take a more active role and actually find another path for him and the Fremen. I guess this is also the tragedy, just like Anakin losing Qui Gon means that he lacks the mentor he needs, Paul loses Duncan and is surrounded by people who want him to be the messiah, save Chani. His own mother is forced to drink the water of life and becomes his campaign manager lol. His friend Gurney is not much help either as his past as a slave and the more recent attack from the Harkonnens clouds his vision and he ends up using Paul to get his revenge, just like Paul uses the Fremen. Makes me wonder if Duncan being alive would change things or if his loyalty to the house would keep him from doing anything (I have heard about what happens in the sequels so I guess he would object? If that would change things is another matter I suppose). Long rant but I really love Dune, makes you think and from all the discussions Part 2 has caused on the web I'm glad these new movie adaptations of the book were made!

you ate that

I enjoyed my complete mistrust of Paul. I loved the added darkness in Jessica. I feel like these changes are making clear the impact that having all those past Bene Gesserrit in their ears makes almost a split personality situation. Setting it up for Alia of the Knife 😈. That’s how I’m seeing it. I was actually hurt by the idea that we already can’t trust Paul’s motives. He is Leto’s son BUT he also is a puppet for the BG’s as well. I did not feel afraid of the Emperor or the Harrkonens, I fear Jessica and Paul!

Really interesting analysis of the film. Good video 👍

Not to make a political statement here, but there is an interesting observation to be found in how people have completely different experiences watching this film. What has gone unsaid for the most part, is how differently men and women experiences this film(im speaking generally of course). Most women identified with Chani, which is what the director intended for everyone. Identifying with her and understanding the film as a cautionary tale it was meant to be. This went over most men's heads. Look at the dozens of reviews online, from yt to tiktok, most men either want to be Paul Atreides, be like him, or be a soldier in his service. There is a meme that went around recently: girls asking their bfs how often they think about the Roman Empire. "Everyday" the men say, with the women laughing in confusion. This movie, the rise of Paul, taking over the Imperium, this is what we mean when we say we think of the Roman Empire, about Napoleon, this is what we see, what we feel. This film is much more politically relevant than people understand. Chani inadvertently represents the modern mind, and it's inability to understand how and why the ancients did what they did. The switch to her protagonist, the distance that gets bigger between her and Paul. The villain he becomes.... It calls something deep in the blood. Thats why you are seeing this reaction from most men.

Very good work my dear. I appreciate your right to the point factual exploration. Top 5 of all (30) the Dune review videos i have watched.

Great analysis! Is this Donna?? You sound so much like her and have a similarly deep yet efficient way of describing things

Have a great day :D

About Chani; I think all points you brought up are fair, but usually when Hollywood does that thing when the audience has to feel, it ends up being melodramatic and cheesy. (like Nolan type of cheesy) I think Denis approach is far better. the thing about Chani's friend dying, can be rationalized as Fremen die like this all the time, and we just started a fucking war. they were discusing they have to move south fast and Shishakli just got caught on that. I have to vocal about this because I really love how Villeneuve approach feelings. Reminds me a lot of his older stuff

Ouah ... your critique is very good and point exactly how i felt about the movie. I discovered the chanel with this critique. Great nuanced job.keep it up. Subed.

So here's a storytelling ❓️ back to the OG novels. If Worms & Spice exist only on Arrakis, how did the BG's get their hands on a maker to create the bile needed to then create the Water of Life?? Did the Fremen have a black market arrangement with the BGs??

I feel like this particular analysis is built on the foundation of comparing it to the adaptation of LOTR. Of course, that's kinda the thrust of the channel, and it's not a bad way to examine Dune. It and Tolkien have a strange kinship, though they're two very, very different works. But they're both rich, complex stories built on the edifice of a meticulously constructed world, and both comment on the relationship between mythology and civilization, and world conflict. And their vast differences complement one another. But I also think there's a tendency, when one grows up on LOTR, to compare it to Dune in terms of how Dune doesn't match it. And the same could be true of these two adaptations. Jackson's LOTR is strongly character-driven, or at least, character relationship driven. Which means that the audience connects to it primarily by related to its protagonists. This is, of course, a wonderful way to enrich the world-building with a strongly personal dimension. We don't just look at the world of LOTR, we dwell in it, wondering at it as the hobbits do, worry for it as Gandalf, Aragorn and Elrond do. This is because the characters give us direct emotional access. Middle Earth isn't simply portrayed for our admiration, it happens to us as it happens to the characters. While this isn't the case with Dune, because we're not dwelling within its characters. We observe them. One doesn't cry over Paul's suffering, or Chani's betrayal, or the shattering of Jessica. There's an emotional remove. Because the film is meant to explore its themes and ideas rather than take you on an emotional journey. But I'm not sure this is a bad thing, or inferior compared to LOTR's approach. It's just different. It allows for more objectivity. It's definitely Villeneuve's modus operandi. And it allows him to avoid the pitfalls of dramatic indulgence that LOTR sometimes falls into. Dune is never sappy. I feel it's a trade-off. And whether it's for you or not may be entirely subjective. I say "May be" here, as I'm not sure. It may be that emotional connection is just better. It may be that, had Dune let its audience really connect with Paul the way LOTR let us connect with Frodo and Sam, it would have been better, hit its points harder, and connected more deeply. I don't know. To conjecture too much about a different film that might have been is to miss the merits of the film we got. I try, with a work like this I really like, to query to myself why it is the way it is before I judge that it should have been different. I think some of the criticisms here miss the meaning of the movie as it is in favor of the imagined movie it might have been. In the end, a finished film is a set of choices, rather than hits or misses. If we see the choices we don't agree with or understand as mistakes, we may miss the meaning of the choice. I don't think Villeneuve's Dune made mistakes, I think it made choices. And whether we agree with those choices, or whether a different choice might have been "better," is ultimately irrelevant. As much as I like examining movies, and imagining different choices, I think it's also important to honor the artist by respecting their right to make their choice for their art. And part of that is to give them the benefit of the doubt. And instead of wondering why they didn't do something some other way that seems obviously better, taking a moment to ask what that choice is doing. In short, I think we must first appreciate what the art is, before asking why it's not what it's not.

This is all well and good, but my question is, how do they get off the worm🤔

great analysis

Loved the storytelling personally and thought the spectacle enhanced it

Great analysis. Pretty sure it’s “Moo ad dib” not “Mao deeb”. I was disappointed that the awakening of Alia and the nature of Jessica’s transformation was downplayed. I thought it was wrong to compress time and omit Chani’s pregnancy and the real affection between Paul and Chani. But it was a magnificent adaptation. It may prove simultaneously that Dune is unfilmable and Villneuve is a genius. I loved it and was moved by it and was disappointed. Thanks for the insights and thoughts. Liked and subscribed.

Ultimately… film is a different medium. It requires and benefits from different modes of storytelling.

you and @schnee sound exactly the same, great video too

Can't agree about Chani. She's not our "in" - she's just a truly improved character. Paul is going to love the one person with discernment. Because she sees through him, we know her love is true. Book-Chani believes he is the messiah. It's a gross dynamic between them.

We probably don't. I love the movie. But the movie suffers from not have enough connective tissue between plot points. The movie is 2hr 45 min. It could've been 3hr and that 15 minute padding could've told the things you talk about as they jump around. Villenueve mentions he had to cut quite a bit. So we don't actually know what was filmed and what was actually cut out (or for what reasons). It's disappointing.

Watching people critique this movie reminds me of mainstream video game industry critiquing Elden Ring.... This was the best movie I've seen in 20yrs

I appreciated your picking up on some of Paul's deceptions, although I'm not sure some of them aren't being read in. I disagree about the changes to Stilgar's, Chani's and Jessica's characters. Against my usual inclination, I think they were a good choice for adapting to screen the textual explorations of various tensions found in the book.

Very well scripted and thoughts!

I like turtles!

I feel the anti-white narrative undercuts the white savior narrative due to the Harkonnen had been made pale white, akin to Neo-Nazis with no hair, which I do think was intentionally to make put in to the subconscious whiteness=evil (not uncommon in media), and to symbolize the embodiment of Fascism (or more correctly author's view of Fascism) and the Fremen being diverse (when they're originally mean to be a largely Arab population I believe which again I think was intentional) that truly opposes it. So, I find analysis of the white savior analysis portion to be weak, even more so that Paul becomes Fremen/the "other," denouncing hierarchy of being duke and of elite nobility to be taught equality (the noble savage myth) that Chani and the Fremen represent, without taking in some of the wider racial themes going on to fixate on a few things to drive the white savior idea throughout the movie (but I do think it scratches deeper in that the white savior lives on in *certain* white people against other white people they deem bad. and side with the "other" who they see as superior in their egalitarianism. this is the underlying message that moves through the story). But besides that, interesting. I do like the the movie. The story is captivating.

I don’t think her friend’s death goes unmentioned, it’s obviously the centerpiece of her final scene. Did you expect to witness and then linger on her death? To me, it sounds like a nitpick.

Sorry, I don’t agree with your criticisms as far as his storytelling. This film needs to be judged as is, not what Villeneuve left out from the book. And not what it is not. It is like judging a masterpiece painting and saying it is missing “X”. Or like people who knock Dune 2 because they want a stronger anti-colonial, anti-imperialist message. Or more of this or that. Like any artist, he has his take and he has his emphasis. It’s not the book. It is Villeneuve’s own impressionist painting on the canvas of cinema, using the language of the visual and sound. It stands on its own. If what I am not saying does not make sense, another case in point is the great novel The Thin Red Line. The classic Terrence Malick film version from 1998 leaves so much out of the book and is “way different”. Instead, it is visual and aural poetry instead of prose. Using tools from the art of cinema…

Greatest science fiction film of all time. Maybe best film of all time Maybe the story felt hollow to some. It felt full to me but I can fill in some of the gaps myself and Denis trusts us to do that and doesn’t overstuff or overexplain, he keeps it all hyper focused. For example when Gurney talks for two seconds about how Rabban gave him that scar, that’s all the setup you need for their final showdown when Gurney comes up those stairs like an ABSOLUTE badass. The actors sell everything that the script can’t convey

Sinematography jes, story not so much

It's MOO-AH-DEEB

It’s not Chani’s story. It is Paul’s story as he is the main character. I don’t want the story told through her eyes. She had less of a part in the book. I don’t understand why I keep seeing this narrative. She wasn’t a warrior and she was a believer in the book. I cannot get on board with the idea of embracing more of her story or this girl boss narrative. It’s already going to be difficult to explain them resolving the tension that was shown at the end of the film. Again, Chani understood the marriage was necessary.

Mao Deeb

I couldn’t make it all the way through this video, but I was really surprised I didn’t hear about how greatly Herbert’s anti-gay messaging was also diminished and erased in Villeneuve’s film. The movie hardly touched upon the evil incestuous and pedo trope gay coding that the Baron Harkonnen was supposed to embody. Frank Herbert disowned his own son because he believed them so degenerate

Good up until the white savior reference. And for one so critical to call him MOWdeeb?