FriendlyRobot

This is indeed and enjoyable space adventure, it suffers from being the sequel to a masterpiece. It was never going to match the sheer will of artistic creation that Kubrick put on screen, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed on its own.

I think it's very, very important to remember that this film does not explain the previous. This film is based on Arthur C. Clarke's work, not Kubrick's. 2001 has so many levels of depth and meaning, and this film gives them its own explanations. If you are a fan of Clarke, this is fine, as his series of books further expanded the story, but none of them were Kubrick's intention.

Go into this film expecting a traditional space adventure, and you won't be disappointed. I don't enjoy it as much today as I did when I watched it in the 80s, but that is because I've had decades of examining the original, not because this film is any worse.

Take this film as something different, and you will enjoy it. But don't look for answers to the questions its predecessor asked, they are just simply not here.

I don't share the concerns of those complaining about the intricacies of the plot. I haven't read the book, but watched David Lynch's version back in the 80s and understood this just fine. Mind you, I have read Jodorowsky's Dune-influenced Incal, so this was nothing to that level of bizarre and fantastical. My concern was the ridiculous length. It seemed like the countless Netflix movies, where they think that playing two piano chords in a long drawn out way and showing characters blankly pondering emotions, makes it a Scandinavian masterpiece.

Dune Part Two just took too long to do very little. Considering the book is considered unfilmable, I expected there to be too many concepts and plot lines crammed in. But instead watched three hours of drawn out, ponderous scenes, attempting to be a hallucinogenic trip but not having the conviction to commit to it.

It was undeniably magnificently shot, scored and choreographed. The sound design was incredible. I enjoyed looking and listening to it, especially the unique action scenes. But dialogue was often very trite and too on the nose. The vehicles were still good, but lacked the visual impact of Part One. And characters were given disappointingly anti-climactic payoffs.

This was a top end 12 as well. Very graphic and uncomfortable in many places. Beware taking sensitive kids to see this.

I enjoyed Part One (I gave that 7 stars), but was more wowed by the spectacle than the acting or plot. I love Denis Villenuve's work, but Lynch was a closer match to the source material. This instalment lacked the impetus of the first, and therefore flapped pretentiously about as a placeholder between part one and three. It lacks the wonderful weirdness of Frank Herbert's world-especially in the very poorly cast emperor (love the actor, but out place here), Jodorowsky had cast Salvador Dalí, and somehow that tells you all you need to know.

I'm not afraid of a long film, or an arthouse film. I love science fiction, from The Forbidden Planet and Star Wars, to 2001 and Arrival; this perhaps simply suffers from the praise heaped on the original, and ended up working too hard to be even more spectacular.