Dune Part Deux

 After my views on the recent Napoleon movie, I did consider that modern movies might not be for me…until Dune Part 2 came along.

I read the Frank Herbert books many times as a kid, saw the 1980s David Lynch version (one of the 4 people that liked it) , and though Part 1 of this current Denis Villeneuve iteration was visually stunning, I found it a little dry toward the end.

I was however, absolutely delighted with how enjoyable and (still) absolutely visually stunning, with added appeal of great performances for the most part, Part 2 was.

Thoroughly recommended if a Dune fan, and even if not. Really good parallels with the message, if not the ethos of the book, with very few changes made for dramatic effect – and those that have been made, seem very effective (unlike Lord of the Rings Franchise…Battle of Pelannor Fields, ah’m lookin’ at you!).

Though of course the narrative is canted to appeal a little more to modern audiences, but whether Denis Villeneuve meant it or not, he has kept the core message of the novels re. ideology, true/false Messiah narratives (be they spiritual, corporate or philosophical), and the inevitable corruption attributable to both. 

Look for:

• Ornithopters
• Paul's speech to the southern Fremen (wow - and no powerpoint)
• A wee bit of Krav Maga ;)
• Geidi Prime effectively Black & White - stunningly done 
• Great performances from the younger actors - and the old hands were being shown up I thought...
• Raban's unique set of leadership skills...
• Rebecca Ferguson :)
• Stunning shots and close ups - the look of this film resonates

It is therefore admirable that Villeneuve managed to stick to the Dune narrative, without trying to be  contextual with the modern world (the politics of Dune are very much not ours - no matter how some reviewers would like to think they are); of course, indirectly there are always parallels, but too many modern directors, or their production companies try to push an ideological narrative in order to make money – not so here. If anything, much of the 1960s era spiritual details have been blurred vs the context and meaning of the original book, as to dwell on same would have strangled the narrative.

Of course that said, there was a scene where the Fremen are heard to retort ‘of course he is not going to admit to being the Messiah; only the Messiah would deny being the Messiah!’

…which reminded me of…

In fact...wait a minute...

Brian lives with his Mum...Paul Atreides lives with his Mum ...case proven !

Another classic, with strangely, a similar narrative ...no ...really!

Get back in the house Brian!...I mean Paul!

that movie rant...

 

'Overact mes Amis! Like you have never over-acted beforrrrre!'

Ok, so I didn’t want to do this; I honestly tried not to do this, but it’s embarrassing ffs!

Am I talking about rumours of a new edition of Black Powder? Nope!  

Am I alluding to the latest news that Warhammer is to hit the big screen, promoted by your favourite multinational? Nope!

Phew...

I’m talking about that Napoleon movie.

I really wanted to like it; I really tried to like it.

The highlights for me were as follows:

• It looked really nice – there is a lovely 3 second scene of Cuirassiers charging squares as they form at Waterloo. The re-enactors did a brilliant job, as far as I could see
• ·         Vanessa Kirby was beautiful as ever

·         …then I ran out of ideas.

'So, I may be stunning dahling...but unless I get this f**king Napoleon neck tattoo taken off, my career is f**ked.'

Ok – there were a few things which concerned me, on a more minor level at first, but as a whole they allowed the fast moving train to not only leave the potentially well constructed rails, but ultimately vanish into a hole in the ground, leading directly to hell… 

• ·         Toulon – I tried to convince myself that it looked good even though Napoleon in his 20s looked like an old man…I mean could they not have used a younger actor, at least for this part
• ·         The revolutionary scenes ‘looked’ superb, but for all of the concentration on getting dates correct, everything else seems rushed or bluffed
• ·         Austerlitz – surely CGI, even thought people hate it, could have been used to give an impression of the wider massive battle?
• ·         Austerlitz (again) – I wanted to hear him say to a messenger “take these orders to General ‘X’ on the right flank – ensure that he does not move until ‘X’pm…now GO!”.  Never, in my wildest dreams, did I expect Napoleon in 1805 to say “SEND IN THE INFANTRY!”. You can suspend all the disbelief you want, but this is bullshit
• ·         Napoleon acting like a dying fish when he wants a shag is weird enough, without using it to make the film even more ridiculous. I’m sure Vanessa wasn’t actually acting in response to some of these antics, she was just wondering when she got paid
• ·         Bits of Russia looked nice, but he led a charge at Borodino (on a budget). Now I get that Napoleon once (or twice) surged forward and added to morale…buuut he makes contact with Russian lines etc. By this stage I was beginning to wonder just how bad Waterloo would be
• ·         …and the Waterloo ‘scene’. To summarise…’over the top boys’; charging Wellington’s lines. Little tents, and holes through hats…I had actually starting laughing at the comedic value by this stage

'Charge! ...dudes...'

Now, were I to jump to major issues, we could have a field day, but let’s talk up conspiracy theory first…

Do I believe that viruses escape labs via accident or by design? I’ve worked in industry long enough to know that people can be stupid, and accidents happen; so accident, not design.

So thereby, if I am asked whether the Napoleon movie is some sort of deliberate attempt to dumb down history and make people more pliable to stupid ideas? …nope, because producers aren’t that smart – they just want your money – like any good corporation; but was it just a shit movie because too many cooks were spoiling the broth, and control/management was abrogated because no one gave a shit, or lower ranks were terrified? Absolutely yes.

Clickbait...clickbait...clickbaaaait...

…and for the director to answer critics with a cry of ‘were you there?’ when historians criticise, just succinctly proves, that he is less than engaged. Believe me; I know that history can be bunk; I am aware that much of what we consider sacrosanct in terms of primary sources, can actually be disproven from a modern standpoint - ignoring the fact that history has been manipulated when it suits, but ffs... wise up! I mean I get that the older generation loves to stick two fingers up at the world…but screwing with a historical figure’s story? Naaah!

I watched this Waterloo movie twice after I’d seen Napoleon. I always thought it was a great film. Now? It’s a stunning classic.

Do yourself a favour...