“Dune: Part Two” was co-written and directed by mastermind filmmaker Denis Villeneuve, and is the continuation of the epic sci-fi story based on Frank Herbert’s groundbreaking novel. This film takes place almost immediately after the first, and it follows Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) as he becomes Muad’Dib, the leader of the Fremen, and seeks vengeance against the Harkonnens and the Emperor for murdering his father. Despite his best and noble intentions, Paul is destined to ignite a holy war from this path as the Fremen’s messiah, and he must find a way to prevent a blood-soaked future while still enacting justice for himself and the people of Arrakis.
2021’s “Dune” was my favorite film of that year and one of my favorite films of the past decade. It was visually mesmerizing and innovative, with complex yet easily understandable worldbuilding, an epic scope, and compelling characters. Best of all, it was science fiction for adults that trusted the audience’s intelligence. Plus, Denis Villeneuve is, in my opinion, the best director working today with the most significant filmography of the 2010s and now the 2020s. Thus, “Dune: Part Two” has been my most anticipated film for several years now… and it lived up to the hype. Thank God.
Like the first film, “Dune: Part Two” is a delicious visual feast. Cinematographer Greig Fraser returns with even more gorgeous imagery, especially in some glorious wide shots where he displays so much content on the screen simultaneously and seamlessly. Arrakis feels so tangible due to his wonderful photography. I can feel the sand beneath my feet and the dust blowing into my eyes along with the characters. Fraser is the next Roger Deakins. He’s that talented.
Unlike the first film, which was sparse in its action sequences, “Dune: Part Two” is packed full of them. While it isn’t fight scene after fight scene like many big-budget blockbusters today, the level of spectacle is just as grand as anything we’ve ever seen before. The battles are visceral and brutal. The key to a great battle sequence is the smaller moments among the grand chaotic backdrop. For instance, in “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” the most memorable part of the first Gondor battle is when the Orc leader calmly takes one step back to avoid a giant boulder smashing him. It’s utterly badass, and “Dune: Part Two” has several such moments in each battle sequence that will surely be remembered throughout film history. None of this is to say “Dune: Part Two” just does more of the same things we’ve seen before; there are plenty of groundbreaking unprecedented visuals in the film, especially with a certain flying piece of weaponry (no spoilers) that’s simultaneously awesome and horrifying.
Whereas 2021’s “Dune” was about an adolescent forced to quickly become a matured adult after his family is torn apart, “Dune: Part Two” is a far less archetypal story. Instead, the heart of this film is its deconstruction of the messiah figure. Paul is consistently faced with the dangers of his role and how the universe seems to be forcing him into great power that leads to great calamity. The entire film we, alongside his love interest Chani (Zendaya, who we’ll talk more about later), are rooting for him to balance the demands of leadership without becoming a source of bloodshed, and his roller coaster of a path is absolutely invigorating and surprisingly frightening. Paul is less of a Luke Skywalker hero and far more of an Anakin Skywalker antihero, and this film is all the more emotional, fascinating, and thought-provoking for that. It is a wonderful commentary on faith, politics, propaganda, and how we subjectively decide who is fit to rule us. This is not your typical science-fiction sequel, and while this subverts expectations (especially in its ending), I promise it is not at all in a Rian Johnson The Last Jedi manner.
The performances across the board are absolutely fantastic. This is Timothée Chalamet’s strongest work yet, as he subtly balances the heroism with the terrifying would-be-tyrannical nature of his character. Zendaya’s Chani acts as the audience’s point of view character, through whom we watch Paul’s journey. The shift in emphasis from the mother-son relationship in the first film to the romance in this film not only alters the narrative thrust, but how we interpret the increasingly complicated and flawed Paul. Speaking of the mother-son dynamic at the heart of the first film, Rebecca Fergusson’s performance as Lady Jessica is shockingly different this time around. Whereas Jessica was previously the loving protective mother who lamented the burden of power she put on her son, in this film she is forced to become a colder figure who loses her maternal nature and instead is a far more intimidating character, much like the Reverend Mother. Fergusson’s range is astounding.
Of course, the standout performance everyone is raving about is Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen, a new character introduced as Paul’s rival for rule over Arrakis. The praise is well-deserved, as Butler is unrecognizable in this role. Feyd is essentially the polar opposite of Elvis. This is a sadistic, cunning, Joker-like character who revels in the violence and chaos Paul desperately tries to avoid, making for a brilliant contrast between the two foes. Feyd is consistently unpredictable; whenever he walks into a room you never know what will happen. Sometimes he’ll kill people for sport and other times over apathetic reasons like testing out a new blade. Sometimes he won’t kill but rather intimidates those around him. The best part about Feyd, however, is that he isn’t an overly boisterous character. Not that Butler is at all quiet in his performance (he has a satanic war-cry), but he is still relatively understated for most of his scenes, savoring his sparse lines with an (I’m using this word again and for good reason) unrecognizable voice that sounds like he’s gargling knives. The man is a true chameleon and easily one of the best actors of his generation. It is almost a shame just how good he is because he outacts most of his scene partners, occasionally to the detriment of the film.
To answer the question on everyone’s mind: is “Dune: Part Two” better than the first? Honestly, no. Although the sequel is even more gorgeous, exciting, and grandiose than the first, it is a little rushed, and that’s where it stumbles in comparison to its predecessor. The first film has a cleaner, streamlined narrative and a more well-suited runtime. In order to attain the fast pacing he wanted for “Dune: Part Two,” Villeneuve went too far and the film feels like it has scenes missing. To me, “Dune: Part Two” is a 3-hour movie with 15 minutes of the third act mysteriously absent. The movie races to get to the final battle, and as a result, certain details leading up to the climax are extremely underdeveloped or feel contrived and convenient. I know Villeneuve is passionate about never releasing deleted scenes, but I strongly feel that “Dune: Part Two” needed some of that extra breathing room. I’m sure plenty of viewers will feel differently from me, namely those who didn’t appreciate the methodical pacing of the first and prefer the more conventional pacing of this film. I just think that with a story as complex as this, there needs to be sufficient time dedicated to each element of the plot. It is extraordinarily rare for me to actually want a film to be even longer, however, so in a way this is all a backhanded compliment.
After watching “Dune: Part Two,” I finally got to release that deep breath I had been holding for years. Like Matt Reeves’ two “Planet of the Apes” films, Villeneuve’s sci-fi epics are truly special blockbuster films that breakout from the corporate conveyor belt genre. Villeneuve trusts the audience to be dedicated viewers looking for more than mere spectacle, and he utilizes the best of modern technology to elicit thought and emotion from us just as well as any arthouse film does. Needless to say, I cannot wait for the third “Dune” film. If it’s as phenomenal as the first two, Villeneuve’s “Dune” trilogy will go down in cinema history as not just one of the greatest trilogies, but one of the greatest filmmaking achievements.
A