Dune: Part Two (2024)
A spoiler-free review.
An Epic Anti-Climax
Denis Villeneuve’s Dune is a spectacular cinematic adaptation of Frank Herbert’s sprawling fantasy text. Miraculously, the most essential parts of what makes Dune remarkable have been translated to the screen with meticulous attention to detail and novel sci-fi aesthetics. Its visual scale is awe-inspiring. Its political machinations and palace intrigue ascend to Shakespearean heights. Its thematic and philosophical underpinnings are subversive in substantive ways.
What Villeneuve has accomplished over the course of two films is a remarkable achievement in literary adaptation and big-budget blockbuster filmmaking. The sound design is top-notch, and Villeneuve’s direction is as visionary as ever. Some sequences are more striking than others, but only because Dune: Part One (2021) does such a stellar job establishing Dune’s world design, and Dune: Part Two maintains such a cohesive vision.
Nevertheless, when considered as a standalone film, Dune: Part Two’s flaws begin to show.
Dune’s all-star cast gives serviceable performances across the board, but there are very few standouts. Rebecca Ferguson gives a laudable performance as Lady Jessica and Florance Pugh is a commanding presence as Princess Irulan.
Timothée Chalamet and Zendaya’s performances lack emotional range. They speak softly until they start yelling, which is how you know they are passionate.
Austin Butler swaps his impersonation of Elvis for an impersonation of Stellan Skarsgård’s Baron Harkonnen, and Christopher Walken as Emperor Shaddam feels utterly lost in Dune’s universe.
Dune: Part Two picks up right where Part One ended, but the latter half of Paul Atreides’ character development feels rushed. This is, in part, by necessity. A cinematic adaptation cannot indulge all the rich details of Herbert’s 700-page novel, and I’m not arguing that the film’s 2-hour and 47-minute runtime is too short. Villeneuve’s storytelling is more than adequate.
However, the expedited pacing makes the specter of Paul Atreides' “terrible purpose” feel more like a fait accompli. Perhaps this is unavoidable to some degree as an adaptation. However, the epic culmination of The Battle for Arrakis ends up feeling like an anti-climax because it is.
The truth is that Dune: Part Two is the middle chapter of a trilogy, a fact the film’s marketing does not wear on its sleeve. The film completes adapting Herbert’s 1965 novel. By the conclusion, the epic Battle of Arrakis has occurred, but the ramifications have yet to resound across the galactic empire. Such is the focus of Dune: Messiah, an essential coda published four years after Dune.
Since Dune: Part Two adapts the second half of the first book, the film’s narrative closure is illusory. The thematic dimensions of Herbert’s work are muddled, and his philosophical statements about faith and fanaticism aren’t fully developed.
This doesn’t render Dune: Part Two a bad film, it is a spectacular display of the science-fiction genre functioning at full capacity. Make no mistake, Dune: Part Two is epic but it’s not much of a conclusion. Audiences should temper their expectations accordingly.
I’ve no doubt that Villeneuve’s planned third installment will bring things together, whenever it comes to fruition. That faith works to mitigate the weaknesses of Dune: Part Two, but does it negate them entirely? I’m not so sure.
Nevertheless, Dune: Part Two demands to be seen on the biggest screen possible, and you’d be a fool to ignore that imperative.
If you’re already into Dune, or if high-quality sci-fi appeals to you, rewatch Dune: Part One and then go see Dune: Part Two. You will not regret it.
Let me know your (spoiler-free) thoughts below!
Until next week, film freaks.
Skylar--I completely agree with your review of Dune 2. I was similarly disappointed despite (or because of?) all the bombast. As you note the performances aren't nuanced (aside from Rebecca Ferguson), and I found that I just didn't care that much about the characters despite all of the pounding music and lingering closeups. It all looked great, though, especially in 70mm at the Coolidge. It's a beautifully rendered film, but it lacks a certain poeticism that I found so compelling in the first film.