← Back to Reviews
in
Dune, 1984
In this sci-fi/fantasy epic, an intergalactic conflict leads to a young heir named Paul (Kyle MacLachlan) and his powerful mother, Lady Jessica (Francesca Annis) trying to survive the evil machinations of the wicked Baron Harkonnen (Kenneth McMillan). At stake is control of a much-coveted material called Spice, produced only on a planet dominated by giant sandworms.
Full of visual interest, an overstuffed story and underdeveloped characters hamper the enjoyment to be had.
It’s hard to write a review of a film when one’s feelings are so conflicted. Like, in my mind I don’t have a tone for how I felt about this movie. What I do know is that there was a fundamental disconnect between the visual imagination on display and the underwhelming character arcs.
On the positive side, I really loved a lot of the visual elements. There are simple touches, such as people who have been on the planet for long enough having eyes that have turned blue. There are also larger pieces, like the sandworms and the overall landscape of the planet. And though it sometimes had a corny vibe to it, I did enjoy the touch of the Baron being able to levitate above the ground, something that adds a cartoonish element to his despicable character that I didn’t mind. I liked the way that a power, The Voice, was shown, as a slow-motion echo of the words spoken by the person. It’s a simple but effective effect.
There are also a lot of actors here who I enjoy, so that even if their characters were not well-developed, it was fun to see them in their roles. Patrick Stewart, Virginia Madsen, Max von Sydow, etc. I’m also a big fan of Kyle MacLachlan and the mellow energy that he has, so I didn’t mind having him as the centerpiece of the film.
I think that part of my struggle with a film like this is that I have a total lack of familiarity with the source material. I don’t know what has been added, changed, or omitted, and I don’t have the ability to fill in the gaps or interpret the significance of any differences between the novel and the film.
So that said . . . huh. Is the original text this superficial when it comes to the story and the character development? A prime example of this, though there are many, is the story of Paul eventually falling in love. This is conveyed entirely with superimposed shots of Paul and his lover kissing. Then later we see them kissing some more. The characters are drawn in the thinnest of terms, which means that various deaths, betrayals, alliances, etc just don’t hit. Oh, so-and-so is the traitor . . . alright, I guess.
I also simply did not understand some contradictions in the world-building. There are these constant references to women being the more powerful ones. Many of the women in the film belong to a line of some sort of sisterhood that includes having intense physical and psychic abilities. As Paul goes through tests of his abilities, the mother superior remarks that he’s endured much more than any woman ever has. And yet, the universe of the film has so many patriarchal tropes. Despite their supposed power, the women are content to be concubines, not rulers proper. Late in the film, a powerful female character emerges, and her main job seems to be telling everyone how great Paul is. There are frequent threats of sexual assault against the female characters, and always just as a way to goad Paul to action, never in the sense of considering the impact on the woman being threatened. It’s also drowning in hetero-normativity, right down to the toxic trope that the bad guy is queer-coded (and in an incestuous context, as he drools over the sight of his barely-clothed nephew). Maybe someone more familiar with the source material can help me here, because it all felt incredibly lazy.
I can say that I was always entertained, but I can also say that I was a bit underwhelmed.
Dune, 1984
In this sci-fi/fantasy epic, an intergalactic conflict leads to a young heir named Paul (Kyle MacLachlan) and his powerful mother, Lady Jessica (Francesca Annis) trying to survive the evil machinations of the wicked Baron Harkonnen (Kenneth McMillan). At stake is control of a much-coveted material called Spice, produced only on a planet dominated by giant sandworms.
Full of visual interest, an overstuffed story and underdeveloped characters hamper the enjoyment to be had.
It’s hard to write a review of a film when one’s feelings are so conflicted. Like, in my mind I don’t have a tone for how I felt about this movie. What I do know is that there was a fundamental disconnect between the visual imagination on display and the underwhelming character arcs.
On the positive side, I really loved a lot of the visual elements. There are simple touches, such as people who have been on the planet for long enough having eyes that have turned blue. There are also larger pieces, like the sandworms and the overall landscape of the planet. And though it sometimes had a corny vibe to it, I did enjoy the touch of the Baron being able to levitate above the ground, something that adds a cartoonish element to his despicable character that I didn’t mind. I liked the way that a power, The Voice, was shown, as a slow-motion echo of the words spoken by the person. It’s a simple but effective effect.
There are also a lot of actors here who I enjoy, so that even if their characters were not well-developed, it was fun to see them in their roles. Patrick Stewart, Virginia Madsen, Max von Sydow, etc. I’m also a big fan of Kyle MacLachlan and the mellow energy that he has, so I didn’t mind having him as the centerpiece of the film.
I think that part of my struggle with a film like this is that I have a total lack of familiarity with the source material. I don’t know what has been added, changed, or omitted, and I don’t have the ability to fill in the gaps or interpret the significance of any differences between the novel and the film.
So that said . . . huh. Is the original text this superficial when it comes to the story and the character development? A prime example of this, though there are many, is the story of Paul eventually falling in love. This is conveyed entirely with superimposed shots of Paul and his lover kissing. Then later we see them kissing some more. The characters are drawn in the thinnest of terms, which means that various deaths, betrayals, alliances, etc just don’t hit. Oh, so-and-so is the traitor . . . alright, I guess.
I also simply did not understand some contradictions in the world-building. There are these constant references to women being the more powerful ones. Many of the women in the film belong to a line of some sort of sisterhood that includes having intense physical and psychic abilities. As Paul goes through tests of his abilities, the mother superior remarks that he’s endured much more than any woman ever has. And yet, the universe of the film has so many patriarchal tropes. Despite their supposed power, the women are content to be concubines, not rulers proper. Late in the film, a powerful female character emerges, and her main job seems to be telling everyone how great Paul is. There are frequent threats of sexual assault against the female characters, and always just as a way to goad Paul to action, never in the sense of considering the impact on the woman being threatened. It’s also drowning in hetero-normativity, right down to the toxic trope that the bad guy is queer-coded (and in an incestuous context, as he drools over the sight of his barely-clothed nephew). Maybe someone more familiar with the source material can help me here, because it all felt incredibly lazy.
I can say that I was always entertained, but I can also say that I was a bit underwhelmed.