Worthy sequel to the first movie. In something more meditative and unhurried, in something more philosophically meaningful than its legendary predecessor. Backstage games and backstage talks replaced the dramatic mood swings of the main characters and the exchange of fire.
The second film continues the story of Michael Carleone in the role of the Godfather, and also complements the family story with scenes of the formation of the young Vito Andolini and his escape to America. The difficult choice of being young Don, his sphere of expansion of influence opens up new heights and horizons, but also acquires new enemies. Big money and power always keep pace with great temptation, and therefore you should always keep your ears open. After all, the knife in the back can insert exactly the one from whom you do not expect ...

This is by far the greatest movie of all time! Even better than the first Godfather!

This is trailblazing stuff - a great action film in the vein of earlier Technicolor swashbucklers. Harrison Ford is engaging and hugely charismatic and his battles with Karen Allen and Paul Freeman make for a considered, slightly dark but funny and memorable piece of cinema. So many great films have a depth in the cast that offers a multi-layered approach to storytelling. Spielberg cast John Rhys-Davies and Denholm Elliott excellently as Ford's stalwarts. John Williams has a golden baton when it comes to action-scores (akin to Korngold) and the story clearly has a tint of George Lucas' imagination to it. Historically, there is plenty of fiction but that spoils nothing. Not the best of the series, but a very good start...

5 stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
My favorite action film of all time due to one of the most iconic death scenes at the end being my personal favorite and being featured in my melt movie lists on many different websites!!!

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
For Spielberg's American Alan Quartermaine, I can certainly understand what the hype is about, but I've never been a big fan myself.
For starters, Nazis are boring. I'm sure they were all the rage once upon a time as a classic villain, but it doesn't do much for me.
Harrison Ford, of course, carries the movie, but Karen Allen plays really well with him throughout the movie and is amazing in her own right.
If nothing else, Spielberg is able to shoot a powerful atmosphere, and the movie is captivating and engaging.
It's not something I can watch over and over, but when I do watch it I know I'm going to get drawn in and have a great time.

I think for a lot of people, Raiders is their favourite (x) movie. Be that their favourite adventure movie, favourite '80s movie, favourite Spielberg movie, whatever. None of those ring true for me, but it is my favourite Indiana Jones movie. I was a mad fiend for Temple of Doom as a kid, and I've managed to make multiple teachers put The Last Crusade on in class, so I'm quite a fan of the franchise, but Raiders is the most enjoyable to me... I've never even seen Crystal Skull... So maybe it's dishonest to say I'm a fan of the franchise... I'm a fan of the trilogy!
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

**Trailblazers of a Lost Art**
Little wonder James Cameron and Joss Whelon movies are the biggest box-office earners. They are masters of cinematic rhetoric. The unfolding dramatic situations and controlled dialogue are meticulously contrived. Cameron could probably have potted more if it wasn't for his earnest, simplistic messages (rich bad; nature good). All three movies (_Titanic_, _Avatar_, _Avengers_) plot along comfortably then suddenly spike spectacularly.
But no one has ever laid on the cinematic charm and cajolery like Stephen Spielberg. He was by far the craftiest manipulator of action and melodrama there ever was. He was the progenitor of summer blockbusters and all-ages, all-nations spectacles. At his best he had a gift for re-living and realizing that ethereal and irresistible childhood awe.
If _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ (NOT the sequels... NO, not even the father- son one) was made today, exactly the same way, okay maybe in 3D with updated CGI, it would surely land at the top of the box-office heap. It is essentially the first comic book movie that wasn't a comic book (bespectacled mild-mannered Archaeology prof by day and globe-trotting whip-wielding action hero on sabbatical). _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ (the first and only) is arguably the greatest adventure movie ever cooked up. And we, the abject audience, servile participants of the artifice, were licking its boots. We wanted Spielberg and his Indy to rope us in, reel us into the action, and completely have their way with us. We overlooked the emotional manipulation and contrived trappings because it was a pure freaking joy to watch, a Lucas produced godsend. Harrison Ford was born to play it just as Steven was born to direct it. It's really too bad they had to brand and knock off inferior sequels that, while making oodles of money, tarnished the shine of the unsurpassed prototype.
Indiana Jones was the perfect reluctant action hero on a selfless mission. A whip-snapping, truck-wrangling, swordster-gunning, Nazi- brawling adventurer who was matched only by his headstrong and sassy love interest, one pistol of a gal who could drink any man under the table. Not enough credit has been given to the great Lawrence Kasdan as the writer of this marvellous adventure. The script is as close to perfect as anybody could scribe. Even a dialogue-heavy expository scene (poisoned dates) was infused with a tense element of suspense. Yes, the story was hyper-fictional, completely contrived, shamelessly far-fetched... and altogether delightful. I wasn't expecting much when I went in to watch it back in 1981, but it had me wanting to do do back-flips on the way out. America's own Fab Four, Larry, Steve, Harrison and George, put on an action-adventure clinic.
Possibly the only weak spot in the movie is the climax which had our hero and heroine tied to a stake while God, the almighty Mcguffin from the Old Testament, magically wrapped things up for them. "Don't look" Indy warns, with his patented crooked grin. Are you kidding? We can't possibly take out eyes off of this. With respect to lost Teddy Bears from space and anti-Nazi machinators, Raiders is Spielbergs greatest achievement. It is one of the finest films ever made, of its or any kind. It is, hands down, my desert island movie.

Guillermo del Toro does “Transformers” meets “Godzilla” - and thanks to a spirited effort from Charlie Hunnam turns out quite a decent adventure. There’s some sort of rift between the surface dwellers and these prehistoric beasts that bide deep within the planet. They have an habit of coming up to visit every now and again and causing havoc, so mankind has developed these great nuclear-powered machines to guard the entrance and send them packing. Under the guidance of the grumpy “Pentecost” (Idris Elba) these “Jaegers” (that’s hunters in case you didn’t know) are our main line of defence, but when they start to become overwhelmed by the sheer size and power of their foes, the world must turn it’s hopes to the veteran “Becket” (Hunnam) and his novice partner “Mako” (Rinko Kikuchi) and hope they can find a way to seal this doorway once and forever. It takes a while to get going, indeed it could probably lose twenty minutes, but once it gets going there’s loads of action set amidst some impressive visual effects and featuring extended combat scenes that don’t just repeat themselves over and over. There’s a bit of testosterone zinging about between “Becket” and the other “Becket” (Diego Klattenhoff) and there’s also plenty of entertainingly geeky science from Bruno Gorman’s “Gottlieb” and Charlie Day’s “Dr. Geiszler” as the adventure hots up. Nobody watches these films for the writing, so little effort has been expended on that front beyond giving them something to do with their mouths whilst doing their own, more sophisticated, impressions of Sigourney Weaver from 1986 and it is all enjoyably easy on the eye for a couple of hours.

**It could be so much better with some logic.**
Guillermo Del Toro is a good director, but he seems to be learning too much from Tim Burton instead of forging his own path. I really liked some of his films, especially “Pan’s Labyrinth”, but this film, despite its merits, has nothing to do with that and doesn’t even seem to be from the same director.
The best thing about this film is the extremely high production values. Visually, the film is amazing and it's really nice to watch. We've got great visuals, stunning cinematography, and an absolutely immersive dose of high-quality CGI. In addition, the film has very well-made sets and costumes, thought out in detail and indisputably expensive. The special effects department, despite all the computer graphics used, also had a series of good opportunities to show its value, and it never failed to do so. The editing is good, the cuts are barely felt and the pace of the film is extremely pleasant. All good reasons to see the film, which was a great blockbuster.
Director Del Toro, I have no doubt, had the courage to take a risk on a film that looks like nothing I've seen of him. However, and as I said, he is good, he is creative, and he is a perfectionist in his work, assuring us of an impeccable job in this film. The cast has great actors, and all of them were at the best level. Idris Elba is, for me, the most notable and the best of them all, but I also appreciated the efforts of Rinko Kikuchi and Charlie Day. The worst performance came from Ron Perlman, but this is largely due to the poor conception of the character, who is a crude caricature of a common drug dealer with no taste. Charlie Hunnam, honestly, was an actor that I completely missed. I felt that not only did he lack the charisma and ability to hold the audience and be the protagonist, but he also lacked the skills for the task.
I deliberately left the script for the end because, for me, this is where all (or almost) of the film's problems lie. The script is based on an alien invasion of Earth: coming from the bottom of the sea, aliens take the form of gigantic monsters, forcing the entire planet to unite and create metal monsters capable of breaking their faces. The first problem is the illogicality of these premises: how and when did aliens arrive in our world, and how could they penetrate the Earth's crust? This is not explained, nor how countries funded the construction and maintenance of such metallic machines, nor how they manage to walk and fight in an ocean as deep as the Pacific. How did they withstand the heat of the planet? How did they withstand the pressures on the ocean floor? The battles against the monsters almost always take place in the coastal area next to the big cities, threatened, in a clear allusion to films like “Godzilla” or “Transformer’s”. The dialogues also lack any kind of authenticity. The movie simply makes up for it all with tons of action.

**Pacific Rim is outrageous and cliche but loads of fun if you embrace it for what it is: insane robot/monster action.**
Pacific Rim is a ridiculous action monster movie that is a lot of fun if you have the right expectations. It’s a film about giant rock em sock em robots fighting giant Godzilla-like monsters, filled with shallow characters, goofy dialogue, great thrills, and exciting action sequences. Charlie Day’s wacky scientist was exceedingly annoying, but then you also have Idris Elba’s inspiring gritty performance of Stacker Pentecost in the same film. Those two performances perfectly define the movie as one of extremes. Extreme robot monster action. Extreme goofiness. All mixed in together for a unique movie worth a watch but not the movie hall of fame.

Watching a CGI heavy movie 5 years following its release doesn't sound like such a hot idea, but in the case of Pacific Rim nothing really drew me out of the experience in terms of aging animation.
However, the film itself was an 'okay' at best. Aside from the spectacle CGI fights of giants robots versus giant alien monsters it doesn't offer anything of value. This is one of those movies you can safely keep on your second monitor and zone out in between the set piece fight scenes.

I have to say that I enjoyed this pure special effects movie quite a lot even though the plot is totally ridiculous. Clumsy giant robots beating at alien beasts with their fists should be better than modern tanks and airplanes with modern explosive and armor penetrating weapons? As I said, a ridiculous story. Well it does not really matter does it because the story gives an excuse for some real cool special effects loaded action. Giant robots and alien Godzillas in the same movie. Cool, simply cool.
Once you have gotten past the silliness of the story it is a very entertaining rollercoaster ride of action. The scenes where the robots and aliens go head to head is visually very enjoyable. Sometimes they make you laugh as well. For instance the scene where Gipsy Danger (one of the robots) drags a cargo ship after it to use as a club.
Unfortunately a somewhat somber mood is set right from the start by the fact that the Jaeger program is discontinued. Not because they are really defenseless as the movie blurb states but because dumbass politicians wants to save money as usual. Instead they build giant walls that are subsequently breached in hours. As I said, dumbass politicians. I guess they wanted to put some realism into the movie!
As much as the robot and alien action is tremendously enjoyable I think some of my favorite scenes are the ones with Ron Perlman as Hannibal Chau. I have always liked Ron Perlman and he is simply outrageously (as in funny) wacky as Hannibal Chau.
The one thing I did not like with the movie is the ludicrous nonsense statements about the dinosaurs being the first attempt at an invasion. Whoever wrote that must be an idiot. Worse, the fact that it made it into the movie means that someone believes that the audience are idiots. When it then was followed by some green-religious crap that the atmosphere was not right for them then but that we have now “terraformed” earth for them by our pollution it was at least a star off just for that. I hate it when they put crap like that in the movies. It is an insult to the audience.
Anyway, despite the dinosaur nonsense I found it a very enjoyable movie. Without that it would have received a near top rating but as I said, it is at least a star off due to that crap.

This movie has almost everything that is expected from it so just relax lay back with the pop corn and your soft drink and enjoy.
Just to make noticeable the remarkable few amount of females featuring in the movie and how bad is that Travis Beacham and Guillermo del Toro just copy Evangelion's idea without giving anything back.

My favorite movie for years!!!I absolutely love this movie!No big story.A lot of action.The only bad thing is all the fights are at night & in the rain.A bright daylight fight would have really made it great!!!

When monstrous, building-sized creatures (dubbed "kaiju") hell-bent on destruction begin pouring out of an extra-dimensional fissure at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, humanity bands together to build titanic mechas called jaegers, each controlled simultaneously by two pilots whose minds are linked through a neural bond called "The Drift." As the kaiju get stronger and the signs point to an all-out flood of the beasts, the fate of humanity looks bleak, and the surviving jaegers are brought together for one last-ditch attempt at saving the world.
After an agonizingly long five-year wait, filled with some heartbreaking starts and stops (like the almost-weres of The Hobbit and At the Mountains of Madness), Guillermo del Toro has finally returned with his biggest budget and story yet. The Mexican master of fantasy returns to the toybox of his youth, drawing from the kaiju films of old (Godzilla, Gamera, Mothra, and the like) and anime to create the modern-day monster movie we didn't even know we wanted.
I am a genre man through and through, and del Toro's films are filled with both the intelligence of the best of science fiction, fantasy, and horror and a flawlessly-rendered vision unique to him. His innate knowledge of what makes those outlandish stories truly matter to us is the backbone of his work as a writer and director, and his visual style is one that invokes true wonder.
It's that wonder, that childlike glee that makes Pacific Rim work so well, and well it does work. This is a brawny, massive film made by a true artist and auteur at the top of his game, but while the technicals of this film could have been mounted by any number of working directors, the magic of Guillermo del Toro is that he infuses every film with himself. His love of the material, whatever it may be, shines brightly through every frame. It is this complete sincerity that makes his films such a joy to experience, and even when there are 250-foot behemoths slugging it out on the screen, there's not a trace of the disastrous irony or cynicism so readily supplied by other blockbusters anywhere to be found.
The cast gamely comes to play, with Idris Elba (TV’s Luther) as Stacker Pentecost (one of my favorite character names of all time) as the stoic leader of the jaeger program, Charlie Hunnam (TV’s Sons of Anarchy) as former pilot Raleigh Becket, who suffered a tragic loss and has to be convinced to return to jaeger service, and Oscar-nominated Rinko Kinkuchi (Babel) as Mako Mori, another life touched by the kaiju and ready to serve up some righteous fury. If these sound like tried-and-true archetypes, it’s because they are. This is a grand, epic war film on a bigger scale than anything ever attempted before in that genre, and one of the strokes of genius from del Toro and original writer Travis Beacham is that we instantly establish and identify with the characters onscreen. There are so many ideas flying around (monsters, mechas, neural bonding, kaiju culture, and many, many more) that the broadly-drawn characters serve as a perfect anchor for the audience, immediately relatable in their inherent humanity.
It seems that the mission statment of this movie was, in a word, “texture.” Del Toro delivered a visual feast unlike any other big spectacle films, with his insistence on it not looking like a “glossy car commercial.” Instead, every frame is filled with rain, snow, scuffs, smoke, debris, and other visual elements that reflect the weight and dimension of these cyclopean combatants. Unlike the ultra-glossy (and emotionally irrelevant) Transformers films, or virtually any other modern big-budget actioner, this universe feels dirty, grungy, and lived-in, like the original Star Wars trilogy.
In fact, dubbing a film “this generation’s Star Wars” has been overused to the point of robbing the phrase of all meaning. But Pacific Rim feels just like that. It invokes those most elusive of emotions in the modern studio film: wonder, awe, and sheer enjoyment. Do you remember the awe you felt upon seeing a Star Destroyer creep onto the screen? Discovering a brachiosaurus on Isla Nublar? Laying eyes on the verdant fields of Middle Earth? This film has that. No one builds worlds like del Toro, and here he is, the master, inviting you to play in his sandbox with him. Grab your favorite action figure and hop in.

First I want to say I liked this movie. I was surprised, I've been hearing bad reviews but I can't see big problem. The only issues was with the story. Apart from that the graphics where very good. The actors where okay (no major actors) and the baddies (no spoilers) where well thought out and graphically impressive (same for the robots).
All in all a good movie.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the eponymous teenager who just doesn't really fit in. Ever since he was a young child, he has struggled and it's only "Gretchen" (Jena Malone) who has anything to do with him. It's maybe on the psychiatrists couch that he seems most able to relax - under hypnosis - and under that influence we embark on quite a curious learning curve that follows "Donnie" from childhood through the turbulence of his adolescence. Now his development might not have been helped by the arrival of an aircraft engine through his roof, so his body's self defence mechanisms seem to be seeking solace from his friend "Frank". No, he's not real - well not unless life-sized bunnies have escaped up the looking glass, and when he is told that the world will end in just short of one month's time, then it's time to find his psychological TARDIS - or as near as he can. Why did he survive the accident? Well that's the question that continues to plague him as his torments mount and his frustrations begin to manifest themselves in petty criminality and a testing of his relationship with his only real friend "Gretchen". Now I don't know about you, but until now I'd never thought of bunny rabbits as being the least menacing. Think "Thumper" from "Bambi" (1942) and that's about it. Here, though, auteur Richard Kelly uses the light - well mostly the dark - to create quite a sense of peril as young "Donnie" seems to lose what little grasp of the plot he ever had. It's also quite darkly comical at times, with the rather potent script treading a line between fact and fiction in an engagingly blurred fashion. Gyllenhaal plays the part well, adding a vulnerability to a role that is quite difficult to define and as we progress, well some of our earlier assumptions become just a little more fluid. The haunting Gary Jules version of the Tears For Fears "Mad World" song tops a strong 1980s soundtrack and the whole film has an ethereal eeriness to it that I did quite enjoy.

**A strange film, with a strong visual impact and a script with wild theories, but which fulfills its objective very well and is enjoyable to watch.**
I saw this film very recently, and I have to agree with all those who label it “strange” or “bizarre”. Directed and written by Richard Kelly, it stars a young Jake Gyllenhaal and offers us a very complex plot where a young teenager commits several crimes under the influence of an imaginary friend who dresses up as a rabbit. Everything indicates that this young man is schizophrenic or psychotic in some way, and has developed several linked obsessions, but the film always leaves us in doubt as to whether he is, in some way, right about the things he thinks.
There are several films that follow similar scripts, where imagination and psychopathy are almost indistinguishable from reality (“Fight Club”, “Machinist”, etc.) and this is perhaps one of the most surreal because it allows us to see, from the beginning, that something is very wrong. That's a bonus for those who like these types of films because it's easy to keep our attention. Of course, those who are less fond of cinematic oddities won't have much reason to be satisfied.
And if it is true that, on a technical level, the film does not present any major innovations or surprises, it is also true that it does everything very correctly and without problems or gross errors. We can even say that, considering the budget, it is one of those films that seems more expensive than it is. In addition, we must also mention the beautiful performance of the cast, where each one seems to do what needs to be done with correctness and restraint. Gyllenhaal has the right strength and charisma for his role and does an excellent job, and Jena Malone proves to be an intelligent and well-considered addition.

A complete mind-bender of a movie that put Jake Gyllenhall on the map, introduced the creepiest rabbit costume of all time, and may make you surprisingly tear up to a remake of Tears for Fears "Mad World."

***Cult flick with sophisticated themes, great cast, but meh story***
Released in 2001 and written/directed by Richard Kelly, "Donnie Darko" is a drama/fantasy starring Jake Gyllenhaal as a troubled California teen dogged by apparitions of a man in an evil rabbit suit who manipulates him to commit several crimes, after he narrowly escapes a peculiar accident concerning a jet engine falling from the sky. Maggie Gyllenhaal plays his sister, Holmes Osborne & Mary McDonnell his parents, Drew Barrymore his teacher, Katharine Ross his therapist, Jena Malone his girlfriend, Noah Wyle his science teacher and Patrick Swayze a self-help guru. Patience Cleveland is on hand as Grandma Death.
While the movie flopped at the box office, it has since become a serious cult hit. I saw it recently for the first time and went into it cold without knowing anything about the intricacies behind the plot. The only thing I knew was that the kid was harassed by an ee-vil bunny apparition. The film mildly works as a high school drama with a satirical smirk. But the story's just not engaging enough on that level. While the movie has some quality women, it fails to capitalize on their presence (Barrymore, for instance, is barely in it). But Jake is a solid protagonist, even somewhat sympathetic despite the curious things he does.
By the middle of the second act I found myself getting bored with the story and trying to figure out what was going on, but the film perks up in the last act, particularly when it reveals the truth about the scary bunny guy. After viewing, my overall impression was that the story never really took off and was burdened by perplexing ambiguities even while possessing some fascinating elements. I came up with a theory to explain the events (explained below) but, upon reflection, I realized that all the pieces didn't fit. And the movie simply wasn't entertaining enough to bang my head further trying to figure it out. I would've given the movie a mediocre 5/10 rating, but after investigating the official meaning and the alternative explanations I had to admit that the film is genius in this respect. It just needed to be attached to a more interesting story with more stimulating characters.
The film runs 113 minutes, which is the version I saw; the Director's Cut runs 20 minutes longer. It was shot in Los Angeles and surrounding areas (Angeles National Forest, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Santa Clarita, Burbank & Calabasas).
GRADE: B-
ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY (***SPOILER ALERT*** Don't read unless you've seen the movie):
My casual interpretation turned out to be one of the alternative explanations of the movie, the so-called "Donnie Is Shown the Future" explanation, which suggests that Donne is shown the future via the future ghost of Frank and so he sacrifices himself at the end to save everyone. But, as noted above, there are too many holes in this interpretation.
A couple of other popular explanations are the banal Schizophrenia Theory, where the film shows the protagonist going through an episode of his illness, and the Dream Theory, where it was "all just a dream," which is too clichéd and idiotic to even consider.
The 'official' interpretation I would've never pieced together because it's just too sci-fi-oriented and complex: It's the Tangent Universe Theory, which suggests that time in the Primary Universe (i.e. reality) is occasionally corrupted and an unstable alternative universe is created, but it will only last a few weeks. Nevertheless, it threatens to destroy the universe. The events you see happening in the bulk of the film are this alternative reality where the universe (or God) is correcting the error to get back to the Primary Universe using an Artifact (the jet engine), The Living Receiver (Jake Gyllenhaal), a Manipulated Dead person (the bunny guy), and so on. Google it and you'll see that the Tangent Universe explanation ties up all the loose ends.

Interesting movie with several readings.
As with 2001: A Space Odissey, it is needed a reading of the actual explanation for the events to fully understand the original idea ... if you are interested in such explanation ...

My thoughts on the latest Dune movie are a bit mixed. I walked into the theater without much knowledge of the story, which left me a bit confused at the start. However, as the movie progressed, it felt like a mix of Star Wars and Tremors, which was intriguing.
Timothée Chalamet is one of my top three favorite actors, and he didn't disappoint in this film. Alongside him, Rebecca Ferguson delivered a stellar performance, portraying a queen-like character with grace. The movie boasted an impressive cast from various backgrounds, adding depth to the story.
Visually, the film was stunning, with planes resembling dragonflies and captivating scenes. Yet, I found it challenging to follow the plot entirely, leaving me with many unanswered questions. While enjoyable to watch, it lacked a clear setup for a potential sequel, which was a bit disappointing.
Zendaya's role, heavily promoted, turned out to be minimal, which may disappoint fans. On the other hand, seeing Jason Momoa and Dave Bautista in different roles was refreshing, showcasing their versatility as actors. The portrayal of Chalamet as a Jesus-like figure felt a bit forced but didn't overshadow the overall experience.
Despite its flaws, I believe Dune has the potential to evolve into a successful franchise if given the chance. While it may not have matched the wow factor of some other first films in franchises, it's worth a watch for its cinematic experience. I'd rate it a six out of ten, with Chalamet and Ferguson stealing the show with their stellar performances.
In conclusion, Dune is a movie worth watching, especially on the big screen. It has the elements to become a long-lasting franchise, but its success ultimately depends on audience reception. Give it a chance and see for yourself the potential this film holds.

Good

**Overall : Dune creates a universe and characters at an epic scale similar to Star Wars. For sci-fi fans, cinema fans, and fans of incredible special effects, Dune is a must-see.**
Probably the most visually stunning movie of the year. I watched it first at home on HBO Max but had to see and hear it again in theaters when I realized this movie required a complete theatrical experience! The cast was top-notch, and the scale that Denis Villeneuve evoked in every scene was breathtaking. From the moment, Dune starts, it demands a sequel through its world-building, acting, and storylines leaving the audience wanting answers (the fact that it literally begins with the words "Part One" helps too). I can't wait to see what comes next!

_Dune_ was a massive undertaking due to the sheer amount of lore and political backstory director Villeneuve had to fit in a two-and-a-half-hour run-time, but I am happy to say it was executed brilliantly.
The story of _Dune_ is incredibly deep, there are so many layers of political factions and relationships that it can get quite confusing at times. I had to constantly be looking up specific individuals and their ties to each other to understand the minor nuances of the story. Despite that fact, Villeneuve is still able to deliver a coherent narrative that will allow the majority of the audience to understand the overarching plot. After the buildup of the first act, the story gets cooking, and I was utterly invested.
There is an incredible atmosphere present in this film. It begins as a Sci-Fi epic, following a house starting anew on a fresh planet and a new industry to conquer. You can feel the optimism and the sense of discovery in the shots due to the interesting angles, lighting, and a brilliant soundtrack composed by Hans Zimmer. But as the narrative evolves so does the tone, as a thick fog of helplessness bleeds on to the screen and you can feel the dread form. This tone was quite refreshing in today’s blockbuster cinema, as each movie needs to incorporate a vast amount of unnecessary comedy to appeal to the broader audience. Dune is unapologetic about what the story is trying to deliver and gives you exactly what it wants without any concessions.
The visuals are stunning throughout the entire runtime. One of my favorite scenes was during the spice extraction visit. I loved the blend of realism that was used in this Science Fiction setting. The ships and equipment look like they could exist in our own world with a few technological advancements. The fight choreography is really well done, especially the hand-to-hand combat. The final scene was epic, each fist and punch were so sharp and calculated, it was really impressive to watch in the age of jump cut action.
The acting is perfect throughout the film, I really cannot point to any one character that felt off or out of place. Timothee Chalamet did an incredible job as the lead man. He delivered a heartfelt performance and evolved throughout the entire film into the confident leader the story crashendos on. Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, and Josh Brolin all did great jobs as well. I really brought the somewhat complex nature of Lady Jessic and Duke Leto, they had really great chemistry with themselves and with their son. Stellan Skarsgard had my favorite performance of the entire film. I felt entirely disgusted everytime he was on the screen, and he made the hairs on the back of my neck stand tall. He is truly a man poisoned by greed and will not stop at anything on his path to fortune. Jason Momoa does a fantastic job here too. I felt he really fit his role and his lines were delivered effortlessly, much better than his performance in the DCEU.
_Dune_ delivers a fantastic Sci-Fi epic that gave me everything I was looking for and I will be eagerly awaiting the sequel's release.
**Score:** _88%_
**Verdict:** _Excellent_

‘Dune’s massive scope tends to overshadow its storyline and characters, but in return we get a great cast and stunning visuals, leaving us hoping the second chapter will be able to live up to the expectations.
8/10

I was really eager to watch this movie and at the same time a wee bit concerned because I knew that I would be hugely disappointed if it turned out to be another movie massacring a classic source material.
I have to admit that it was a very long time since I read the Dune books but I have to say that the movie was mostly true to the books, as I remember them, and also reasonably free of agenda driven rubbish apart from the odd replacement of some characters with “gender correct” ones for no real good reason.
There is really not much point in me saying much about the story. It should be well known for any science fiction fan and it is a great story and really good material for a big screen movie despite some “critics” at Rotten Tomatoes moaning about it and calling it unwieldly etc. Probably too big a book with too many words for the small, agenda driven, brains of Rotten Tomatoes “critics”. No surprise there.
The movie as a whole is wonderful to watch, the scenery is oftentimes very beautiful and the décor, the buildings, the machinery is very well done. I was surprised that the world of Caladan was portrayed as a rather austere Scottish looking landscape but after getting over the initial surprise it worked very well actually.
I also like that the Harkonnen, especially the Baron, are not turned into some exaggerated comical figures but, although disgusting and despicable, they are actual humans.
Overall the casting was quite good and everyone played their roles well. At the beginning I felt that Paul was a bit too wimpy, from what I remember of the book he was quite well trained and skilled already from the start, but he picked up as the movie went along.
It is a science fiction, borderline fantasy, movie so there should be some special effects, right? This is a difficult movie to make special effects for since this universe is a weird mix between futuristic science fiction, fantasy elements and old-fashioned traditions.
I have to say that they succeeded quite well though. The atmosphere felt just right, ships, spice harvesters, buildings looked cool and fitting the story. The way they implemented the personal shields was very nice. They didn’t go overboard on special effects and weird designs. The ornithopter was of course totally ridiculous from a scientific point of view but at least it looked pretty cool.
If I should complain about something, although that is not the fault of the movie but of the source material, I have never understood how, in a universe which is obviously driven by hidden agendas, machinations and assassinations, the Atreides could just pick up everything, leave their home and put all their important eggs in one basket at Arrakis.
One more small thing that I could complain about would of course be that we now have to wait two years, from what I have read, until we get to watch the next movie to get to the part were the really cool stuff happens.
Bottom line, this was movie is definitely in there vying for the title “best movie that I have watched this year”.

This newest adaptation of the classic Frank Herbert novel (which I've never read) has the usual amazing visuals director Denis Villeneuve is known for alongside great cinematography from Greig Fraser (Rogue One, upcoming The Batman) plus the incredible and bombastic score by Hans Zimmer has the technical aspects but void of any real emotion behind the story and, especially, characters.
I couldn't find much wrong with the performances but nobody really wowed me despite having talents like Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Jason Momoa and Rebecca Ferguson, I didn't think anybody stood out, and that includes Timothée Chalamet in the lead role. I can't say this was at all bad and have some mild interest in part two, but, and this says a lot about Villeneuve's great career, this is one of his lesser films. I'll probably at some point give this another watch, especially when/if part two comes out (who knows when that will be). **3.75/5** (rounding it, I was debating 3.5 or 4, went with the latter)
On the plus side, it is much better than the 1984 adaptation.

I read Frank Herbert's book, Dune, when I was in high school and really don't remember it much except that it was great and a little scary. At that age, I probably didn't get the subtext message.
I never saw any movies of it so I decided to watch both the 1984 Dune by David Lynch and the 2021 Denis Villeneuve version sequentially. I'm going to talk about both of them here.
This may not be a popular opinion: Lynch's version is **brilliant** and the Villeneuve Dune is absolute **shit**. Here's why:
First, is the Villeneuve Dune slick? Yes, absolutely. I should hope so considering it's nearly 40 years after Lynch did his, for crissake.
Are the character's in David Lynch's version kitschy and over the top? Yes! That's one reason it's so much better! It's Sci Fi, duh! You watch Marvel movies and suspend disbelief for incredible, imaginary super powers? All of Lynch's characters are downright gritty and believable within this particular surreal fantasy.
By the end of the Lynch Dune, I had sympathy for nearly every character in the film. Even the villains caught my emotions. Paul Atreides character development was realistic and attractive.
Villeneuve's characters? I felt like my neighbor came over and asked, "Hey, can you come to watch my kid's junior high school play?" "Sure, Denis, just let me fill my 1-liter flask with tequila first."
Villeneuve's characters were so damned flat and lifeless that they evoked NO emotional response whatsoever. Although I occasionally sit through a bad flick, I can't remember recently watching a movie as awful character-wise, as the 2021 Dune. If I were an actor on that set, I would be silently screaming. How does a director even do this?
Oh, and where's the creativity? It's 46 years since George Lucas founded Industrial Light & Magic, and Denis can't create one single, new, goddamn space machine 46 years later? (One could argue the hummingbird copter is new, but it's not so creative when you realize that we didn't even know how hummingbird wings actually worked until this millennia.)
But here's the real clincher: the screenplay. David Lynch gave us a complete story. Sadly, he didn't have the final cut and disowned his film when the critics panned it. Despite the fact that Lynch is a true artist and genius, the studio took 45 minutes out of the film. 45 minutes! Even ruined by the studio, even 40 years later, Lynch's film has a clear vision and carries the timeless message that Frank Herbert intended. I would LOVE to see the original cut!
Villeneuve, on the other hand, stopped abruptly in the middle of the book. I now realize that Denis is not about the story. Denis is all about the franchise money, and that sucks. As a result of the bad screenplay, this 2021 version doesn't even carry the socio-political statement it was supposed to have. I want my 155 minutes back.
I don't watch Part 2s, especially when it comes to void-of-creativity and void-of-character-development Hollywood movies. You can take your bad franchise and shove it up your sci fi black hole.
Admittedly, I loved Blade Runner 2049, but this is so disappointing, I may never watch another Villeneuve film again. Do yourself a favor and see David Lynch's version of Dune.

I enjoyed parts of this movie. But I seem to recall that I enjoyed reading the book this is based on (it was decades ago after all). And since I don’t remember the details of the source novel, I don’t know if it is the screenplay that dragged down my overall opinion or the original book.
I can sum up pretty quickly the pieces that disappointed me, and be advised they are probably spoilers.
I didn’t like how long it took to get our first glimpse of the spice worms, and even then they were represented as holes in the sand. Not exactly awesome. I didn’t like how they quickly killed off all the good guys except for Paul and his mom (okay, yeah that is definitely a spoiler). Plus I thought it weird that during the big battle scene we have awesome bombs and complex tracer missiles flying about, but on the ground we have merely well-choreographed hand-to-hand fighting with knives and swords. Couldn’t the folks who invented the missile come up with a pistol? Or am I being picky?