Amanda Golub

I am not going to write an essay as many people who have seen Dune Pt2 seem to have done on here, the majority well OTT! Anyhow, to move on. The first point I will make is that it's obvious the book/s need to be read before watching both Dune: Parts 1 & 2 (although Pt1 is a little more standalone). If you don't, you would not be able to understand as there is little clear explanation. Part 2 - The sound quality for the dialogue was often very poor, I had to keep rewinding the recording. The subtitling was tiny, and you can't read subtitles that are on a pale background unless it's in black lettering. Having said all that, and I have read the books, it was an amazing movie, the visuals were quite incredible, dark in their essence and larger than life. The score was brilliant too. The acting was great for the most part, Chalomet was very good in both movies. I thought Bardem was totally miscast, he overacted and looked like a Greek Antony Quinn which was odd, nothing like the Stilgar character portrayed in the book/s. In fact none of them looked like Fremen at all. Other than that, the directorial quality was simply excellent on the movie, keeping the faith with its literary version. It needed to be the length it was and I enjoyed it. It was a feat of magical filmmaking. I won't talk about the ending because it would be a spoiler.

Dire from beginning to end, not well acted, lead is miscast and completely not believable (the thing with the repetitive, very long, distance, fixed, mad gaze)! I was expecting something not in the usual horror/scary mode but it was just an obscure story, not well explained at all. Its saving grace was the beautiful scenery. However, as usual, most of Sarah's trekking about was in the dark, why I don't know. So many american films shot in practically pitch-black and would someone purleeese tell the directors that written, scribbled notes (and mobile phone screens) are impossible to read on the screen!! This drives me nuts.... There are some reviews that have said they've re-watched movie for explanations. Well, there just aren't any and the ending was disappointing.

I wish I had not bothered, that's 90 minutes I won't get back! The main character, Deputy Police Sheriff, Tam, is alone trying to defend the remote police station against some robbers that want the stash of heavy artillery / guns in its evidence vault. Somehow she appears to have an injured lower limb and limps or staggers around whilst loudly grunting throughout, very irritating. In reality, she would never have been able to work in that condition. The movie is filmed in the near dark so it's difficult to see who is who and what's happening. Although she shoots a gun practically all the time, she never seems to hit anyone, nothing like a professional police person, more like an actor pretending to be one. There is an offshoot story of her son who may or may not be a drug dealer, or be involved with other crims, although it's irrelevant to the story which is very simple. I didn't care about any of the characters and therefore didn't like the film. Sorry folks, but even more concerning is the number of people giving rave reviews. Talk about dumbing down.

This film is a disappointment. It starts off very awkwardly and then throws itself into fantasy, which wrecked the premise (or promise) of the movie. It's definitely an 'american' film, as people don't talk like that in the real world! It's not half as clever and smart as it thinks it is. One commenter here actually said the film was "intelligent, thoughtful, philosophical"; it's truly nothing of the kind. This commenter then went on to say that if others didn't agree with them, they don't know what good movies are. How arrogant and rude. My measure is simply if I enjoyed it or if it made me question/think, I didn't and it didn't. It would have been better as a play in a small theatre somewhere, as it definitely felt 'acted' on screen.