Dune Part Two

 

On Sunday night I ventured out on my own to see Dune Part Two by my lonesome at the Avalon. 

Those who know me know that I am a big fan of Dune, having first read the novel in fifth grade (the largest book I had read up to that point - I finished it on the sly during a Cub Scout Pack meeting!) I enjoyed the 1984 film and the little of the miniseries that I saw, and I thought part one of this film was excellent. 

So my verdict on part two?

Visually stunning, well-acted, and just plain well-done. 

My beefs echo those of many Dune fans. I do not understand the need to truncate the narrative into a single calendar year, a decision that minimizes the difficulty of Paul's ascension, and forces the script to keep his sister a (as yet) unborn child, despite her role in the original novel. It's a pointless decision.

Nor am I a fan of Chani's pouty opposition to Paul; it completely contradicts the novel. Again, why? To stress the "false Messiah" message for the audience? Do it through your storytelling. Or was it to give a shallow nod to women by "upgrading" a loving and supportive partner into a sometime opponent? If so, it was terribly unneeded, as strong and powerful women abound in Dune. 

Those complaints aside, it was wonderful. I rate it an A-