Laura Anneli

I really enjoyed it. The cinematography, the scoring, the acting, the screenwriting/ adaptation faithfulness ... nearly everything was spot on. There was one issue that kind of bothered me. I don't understand why Villeneuve opted to essentially cut Alia Atreides, Paul's little sister, from the story. Apparently he did this to increase tension in the storyline. It puts a hard timeline on events: everything seen in the film takes place in less than 9 months -- according to on-screen events -- while Lady Jessica is pregnant with Alia. In other words, Paul's journey into the desert; his induction into the Fedaykin; his sandworm-riding training; the series of battles he participated in before rising to leadership as he accepted the mantle of Mahdi; his romance with Chani; even the fall of House Harkonenn ... according to the film timeline, all of this seems to take place in about 8 1/2 months, because Lady Jessica is still pregnant at the end with no infant in sight, or mention of Alia's birth. Everything indicates Lady Jessica is still pregnant and communing with the unborn baby. In the book, baby Alia is born (iirc) while Lady Jessica is in the south, and Paul is training in the north. Then she's raised as like a tiny freaky little Fremen warrior Reverand Mother, and is a tiny (like 4 yr old) scary vengeful participant in the final attack on House Harkonnen. My husband just reminded me that the Waters of Life artificially sped up Alia's aging, so she was actually like 2 yrs old but looked/ acted older when they attacked the Harkonnens -- so that's less than a year (film) vs. approx 3 years (book). Honestly, 3 yrs is already an unrealistically tight timeline to train a desert warrior, convert a mix of agnostics and believers into a fundamentalist army, and lead a rebellion successful enough that it inspires the enemy to replace their leadership (Rabban to Fayd), so I don't really buy the director's explanations of wanting to increase narrative tension via condensing the timeline to less than a year, or that Lady Jessica was so empowered as a female leader by leading while pregnant that he just wanted to leave her pregnant. In the book, she led while pregnant, recoveriing from childbirth, and as a single mother, which is all pretty empowering. Idk, I think he just didn't want to deal with infant and child actors. That would also explain why he took out the most compelling reason for Paul to embrace his destiny, which was the death of his son in the same seitch attack that his little sister was kidnapped in. He went full Messiah after that, but in the film he just kind of turns full Messiah because ... he does? With the book timeline of years, there's actually a realistic timeframe for a war, a Messiah, a revolution ... you know. The plot. But by simply replacing a child with an endless pregnancy, the movie imposes an unrealistic timeline on events that honestly sours an otherwise pretty amazing film. Really do not understand that particular choice.