I'm a bit surprised at a lot of the criticisms for the movies here, and I say this as a huge fan of the Dune novels too.

Villeneuve has a particular film style like blade runner 2049, and Arrival.

If you don't like his style you won't like the 2nd movie.

But on the other hand part 1 sets the stage for everything that happens in part 2, and overall I think it is an excellent adaption. Dune is not an easy book to adapt to film, and some changes had to be made, but they're aren't any glaring changes that make me go "why the hell did you change it that way?"

It's extremely faithful to the book, and in cases where it's not, I can see the reasoning for the change.

As an avid Dune books reader (all of them), I think Villeneuve did the best adaptation possible. As a character, Chani is much more fleshed out in the films and Rebecca Ferguson CRUSHED it as Jessica. Oscar Isaac also was a very good Leto.

My big gripe is with Stilgar and Paul. Stilgar in the second movie was almost relegated to comic relief. Yes, he is also portrayed as a believer in the books, but it felt like a caricature in Dune Part 2.

As for Paul, I had hoped for more focus on why he actually went to drink the water of life. In the books he wanted to avoid it. But events he couldn't foresee and put people he loved in danger pushed him over the edge. In the film I didn't get any of that.

Still, loved both parts. Definitely worth a watch.

It's impossible to adapt, see all previous adaptations. I think you've pretty accurately summed up the shortcomings of the medium for that story. Watch the movie to marvel at the setting brought to life with a nice soundscape, ideally see it on a big screen. If you read the book you'll have some attachment to the characters and universe anyway so pacing and skipped detail shouldn't be too much of a problem for you. Just don't expect it to be perfect. IMO the second part is a bit stronger, maybe because the scope is tighter.

The second is watchable but is worse as an adaption.

The events in the first book are concluded in it. It's not a trilogy adaption of Dune the book. Many of the characters have their actions and motivations swapped onto other characters. The ending changes some significant points. Feels like the third movie might end up being a freestyle attempt to start a "Dune Universe" IP rather than caring about the source material.

It's kind of a mess but still fun in some bits. Not sure if I'll bother to watch the third when it comes out.

Since you are a fan of the books and you have already seen the first one, you should watch it, even you were disappointed with part one. You may find you like or you might be just as disappointed. Either way, it's about a 3 hour commitment. If you don't like it, don't watch it again. If you do, you've found a movie you enjoy.

Watching dune 2 in the IMAX theatre with my buds was perhaps one of the greatest movie experiences in my life

If you didn't care for the first movie I don't think the second will solve any of your complaints. I say this as someone who really liked both movies. I have criticisms, and I don't think they're close to being Villeneuve's best work, but the worst Villeneuve movie is still better than most directors on their best day. But two is very definitely more of one, and if anything it amplifies the first movie's flaws rather than diminishing them, so it's very unlikely to address anything you didn't like. That said, I will throw it out there that it may be worth watching anyway just to experience Austin Butler's incredible take on Feyd Rautha, which is easily the best thing about the movie.

I say it's worth a watch. Also when it comes to movies/tv and books it's best not to compare them too much and just take them for what they are individually.

It is, even just for the spectacle alone. It’s impossible to adapt everything in the book to a 2 or 3 movie series, so there will always be changes and things that will be left out when translated to the big screen. Having said that, Villenueve was the best person for the job and he delivered what he intended: a film that reflects the spirit of the book as much as possible while at the same time making it mainstream enough for general audiences to appreciate.

If you’re just going by sticking to the source material as your barometer, then the SyFy series is the “best”.

The pacing was better in part 2, too fast even IMO; since they crammed all the events into less than 9 months since Alia wasn’t born in this version.

I think if you dislike the first movie you will also dislike the second.

I, personally, really liked both (outside of some pacing, as you say and some character changes).

I think any story that has so much inner dialogue, thinking, tripping, and goes on for 6 volumes is impossible to communicate in the medium of film, but I loved these movies just because they were visually stunning, and the story kept my interest. I don't think you will feel like your time was wasted, just accept the film is its own thing, and be entertained.

One of the best movies of this year. Almost as good as Godzilla minus one.

Yes

The 2nd movie is very rushed story wise but was better than the first. I hate the choice of Timothee and I hate some unnecessary stroy decisions they took but it's hollywood.

The mini series from 2000 did a better job, apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.

I've not read the books and after watching part 1 I was left confused why everyone loved them. I didn't dislike the film, it was just fine, but it didn't get me excited for part 2. Sure I'd watch it, but if it were delayed or cancelled I wouldn't have minded.

For me part 2 is everything I wanted in a film. I would nearly go so far to tell someone unsure about the films to skip part 1 and just watch part 2. In reality I think doing that would be a bad idea, but part 2 is better than part 1 in nearly every way.

I never read the source material, so I can't speak to the quality of adaptation. But I could not get past the casting and felt like the number of extremely famous faces detracted from the plot. The first movie I was somewhat able to be emersed in the world despite the main characters being the two most popular young stars of the year. But the second movie, I felt actors were cast in small parts they hardly got a chance to act in. Not that Christpher Walken can't absolutely nail a small part. It just didn't feel like some exotic Sci-fi world when every character was famous from 100 other movies.

Well ... The ending is a little bit less cliffhangery than the first film. The worm scenes were super cool tho.

I will go against most opinions and I would say give it a try.

My friends who are into the book quoted much more from the second and style-wise I can tell you this: I LOVED the first one. I HATED the second one.

So, since the book seems really to be about deception, war and religion (the last 2 I despise to see in movies because I find them boring as hell), I could suggest you watch it.

It's much like part 1... not horrible, but not great, either.

I liked it well enough. I will definitely watch more movies in this version of the story and characters, year after year, or every few years. That was true of all previous versions as well though.

Either you have a few hours to watch a movie or not. Why do people need to post to the internet to ask stuff like this? You do realize you can stop a movie if you’re not into it right?

I found part 2 much more boring then part one. They spent so much time wandering the desert in the center part of the movie I almost fell asleep.

Part 2 is done in the same spirit as 1. The characters and plot don't get any better, if anything they become outright one-dimensional. Everything (facts, characters) are over-simplified caricatures of themselves — they like to take one thing that's technically true and run it down into the ground.

The two things that bothered me the most is how Paul is completely robbed of any agency, and becomes this listless puppet with a sad smile, and how the plot revolves around religious fanaticism with only token mentions about prescience. Hell, I don't remember if they even mentioned why spice is so important.

To be honest it's killed any interest in me about seeing more movies. I mean I'll watch them, I liked the image and music, but in a detached way like I'd watch an Avengers movie. I can imagine exactly how they're going to be, shallow as fuck. Which is going to be completely stupid and pointless because the amount of political and sociological intrigue increases exponentially as you advance in the series.

I tried to watch part 1 again tonight and I'm putting it down with about an hour left. 4k on a theatre screen with headphones and popcorn and I laughed out loud when Jessica and Paul were whispering to each other 20' away in the mist, when the gang strode off the ship accompanied by bagpipes ("shields up!") and that one time the Sardukar shouted "Sardukar" during the invasion. I'm done trying to understand what some people see in these movies. Absolute garbage as far as I can tell.

Liked it, think it’s worth it. Haven’t read the books & I’m not very invested in the story, & I’m a fan of the director’s work. Was cool to see lots of Fremen culture