Less so, but if you thought the first one was boring you may not enjoy part 2 as much as others.You guys think if I thought the first one was boring, I would think the same about this one?
Dude, some of haven't even seen it once and you went back for seconds? Not cool, man.Watched it again today. Its even better the second go round. I cant help but giggle every time Stilgar gets so hyped haha
You should go before I go again Thursday lolDude, some of haven't even seen it once and you went back for seconds? Not cool, man.
It's one of those fake sequels though. It's "no one will let us make a 5 hour movie so we'll make two 2.5 hour movies."Best Sequel in a LONG time. Better than number one, was an incredible film. I dont have imax in my area but I can imagine it would be a treat to watch it.
The music, Acting, and the scenes were excellent. As echoed before me...they did rush a bit towards the end but a very beautiful film.
You just described lord of the ring but make it 3 movies instead.It's one of those fake sequels though. It's "no one will let us make a 5 hour movie so we'll make two 2.5 hour movies."
1. This doesn't bother me too much. If anything I think it would rob the movie of something. Watching Paul's ascendancy unfold, you can be left wondering how much of his plan, as far as eradicating the Harkkonens, is driven by his hunger for revenge and how much of it is just a collateral necessity for the future he envisions? And a third element can certainly be, how much of Paul's actions are guided by his own possible desire for power. Give him a son that gets killed in the fighting and you scale all that back and leave it unquestionable that he'd be heavily fueled by revenge.Just got back. A few things I didn’t like.
1. Where was Paul’s son Leto? He was supposed to be born and then later killed.
2. Wasn’t Alia supposed to kill Baron Harkkonen? The movie had Paul killing him.
Yeah same. I read the first three books after watching the first movie, and then I rewatched it. I didn’t have any issues with that one on the rewatch.1. This doesn't bother me too much. If anything I think it would rob the movie of something. Watching Paul's ascendancy unfold, you can be left wondering how much of his plan, as far as eradicating the Harkkonens, is driven by his hunger for revenge and how much of it is just a collateral necessity for the future he envisions? And a third element can certainly be, how much of Paul's actions are guided by his own possible desire for power. Give him a son that gets killed in the fighting and you scale all that back and leave it unquestionable that he'd be heavily fueled by revenge.
I know it's a change from the book but I think it's a good one and the death of his first son really isn't necessary for this version of the story.
2. Again, I don't really think this translates to Denis' vision of this story, which is a commendable depiction rooted in Sci-fi realism. Having a four year old killing such a behemoth of a man would just be too goofy and out of place. Personally, I'm happy with the change but then again, I only read Dune once and recently so I don't have this deep rooted dedication to the accuracy of the source material.
I just can't imagine how that can be done without being goofy and undercutting the dramatic impact of the end of the movie. I mean I hear what you're saying, I just think it would be better left for something like an animated project.Yeah same. I read the first three books after watching the first movie, and then I rewatched it. I didn’t have any issues with that one on the rewatch.
But seeing Alia, the abomination, was maybe the #1 thing I was most excited to see, especially since my brother didn’t read the books so I wanted to see his reaction to her existence. And that she’s the one to kill the Baron because I didn’t see that shit coming at all.