Jump to content

Chen G.

Members
  • Posts

    7,203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Chen G. last won the day on October 20 2019

Chen G. had the most liked content!

Profile

  • Location
    Ramat Gan, Israel

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I can't attest to that because I purposefully went into Part One not knowing the book or the Lynch film. I get the idea, though: Paul will rise to become the chosen one and - with Chani, mum and his would-be sibiling all at his side - lead an inssurection of the Bene Gesserit and ultimately topple the Harkonnens. Just as a premise, I can see that filling-up a feature-film, sure. But its also true that Part One has more than enough stuff going-on. The tempo of the events may disatisfy some (though not me - that was perhaps what I loved most about it) but its unquestionably enough to justify it being a discrete feature.
  2. Who writes four music-dramas and a chamber-piece off of the Volsung saga? Who writes twelve separate tablets off of the lifestory of Gilgamesh? Six volumes off of a story of a cross-country journey to destroy a piece of jewelry? Two epic poems off a guy coming home from a visit to Turkey? The list goes on... Serialized storytelling had been part of our culture since time immemorial. I don't see why it should be considered any less valid an artform than telling a story in one entry, or why people should have to explain themselves to the 'nth degree as to why they chose to split a clearly-labyrinthine story into parts. I think that's a very reductive approach. Au contraire, I would ask, isn't the justification of a film-series that it should tell a unified, single story that could not be told as well in a single entry, as opposed to just a series of standalone/losely-connected vignettes? Is it not better, if a series is to have the unity of a single piece writ large, for none of its intermediate entries to end on a full-stop? And isn't it all the more artistically meritorious to be able to maintain a thread across multiple entries as compared to a single one? Ultimately, there's more than enough stuff happening in Dune: Part One to justifiably fill a feature-film.
  3. Its very hard to tell where the score ends and the sound design begins, honestly; and yes, its very prominent in the mix. Sometimes it works for the visuals, sometimes its a bit too much. There were a couple of lines mumbled by Rebecca Ferguson there were lost on me. Its still a wonderful movie.
  4. Character updates: Morfydd Clark is Galadriel Amelie Child-Villiers is Young Galadriel Robert Aramayo is probably Elrond Maxim Baldry is Isildur Lloyd Owen is Elendil Cynthia Addai-Robinson is Tar Miriel Trystan Gravelle is Pharazon
  5. It felt fairly comfortable at its length to me. A kind of deliberate "this is important and you will sit there and wait for this beat to happen, and then for that to happen and we're going to let it play out." The slow tempo really fits the nature of the movie, I found. The ending point does strike one as rather arbitrary, but I don't mind. We were going into this as a two-parter from the get-go. The only real letdown is that the action at the 90 minute mark is meh.
  6. Non sequitor. I think the film had more than enough it in to justify the split, so fine by me. Die Walküre is also only a part of a story. Doesn't stop my empathizing with Siegmund, Sieglinde, Wotan and Brünhilde.
  7. Movies don't need to "say" things to be compelling. They need to tell a human story that's engaging in its own right, and that Dune does do.
  8. I don't think its empty. I have a lot of empathy for Paul, for Leto, for Ducan and especially for Jessica. I really, really liked it. Its NOT the second coming that people are attributing to it, but its good stuff.
  9. Venom is the kind of movie that makes more domestically, though... Dune - lets wait and see.
  10. From overseas box-office. Overseas means less money in Warners pockets...
  11. Including the tilt-head-forward-stare-at-own-forehead schtick of his?
  12. Well, Dune doesn't. It excells in other fields (visuals, pace and Rebecca Ferguson), but not in the action.
  13. No, but in Blade Runner 2049 the action was...not quite there, so to speak. Its the same here.
  14. As it turned out, I loved that it made me wait for the action. Problem is, the action itself isn't very good: Villenueve doesn't have a natural knack for action, it seems to me. That's probably the main demerit of the film - it wasn't a huge one for me (in fact, I loved it) but other audience members might mind it more.
  15. There can also be the situation where Part Two gets greenlit and made, but doesn't have as big a budget...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.