By Cole Finkelstein
Photo by Charles Christiansen
The highest-grossing movie of the year so far is Dune: Part Two, the sequel to the 2021 movie, Dune: Part One. Both of these movies have over 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, but is the original 1984 film, Dune, which has a 37%, better? Is Rotten Tomatoes right or rotten?
David Lynch’s Dune, released in December of 1984, was made on a budget of around $40,000,000. The film’s initial release was considered a box-office disappointment, only grossing around $35,000,000. It was also a critical flop, receiving mostly negative reviews. Back in 1984, film critic Janit Maslin wrote for The New York Times that it was extremely difficult to understand and “perilously overloaded.” As audiences look back on this film, however, it isn’t considered that bad. Many critics say it is a pivotal film in the sci-fi genre.
The film being confusing and unnecessarily complicated was a major critique at the time, and I do understand this statement. Throughout my viewing experience, I found myself asking, “Wait, what just happened?” This also made me lose engagement with the film, and I almost dozed off at one point during the film. However, I don’t think David Lynch is really at fault here. The movie is attempting to adapt Frank Herbert’s novel of the same name, which is almost 900 pages long, into a two-hour movie.
Another recurring critique of the film is that the effects are terrible, but I think for the time it was made, they really aren’t that bad. There are a couple scenes, specifically any scene with force field-like shields many characters use in combat, that are very outdated, but it seems as though the VFX team used the technology they had as best as they could. There were far more scenes that had really impressive visuals than not. In fact, the cinematography was one of my favorite parts of the film. The desert landscape of Arrakis was beautiful on screen, and the scope of the desert worms were epic.
Both of these critiques, despite one of them almost making me fall asleep, were not my biggest issues with the film. This would be the performances from the cast. Kyle MacLachlan as the notorious protagonist Paul Atreides was bland and completely uncompelling. Throughout the film, he rarely showed any emotion. This was an issue for the majority of the leading cast, even with the legendary actors like Patrick Stewart. Personally, I thought the best part of the main cast was the only one who was not a professional actor. Singer/songwriter for the band The Police, Sting, played a minor antagonist, Feyd Rautha Harkonnen. His performance as the rockstar-like psychopathic villain was super-entertaining, and Sting stole the show in every scene he was in.
Along with Sting’s performance and the cinematography, I loved the soundtrack. It was composed by the rock band Toto, otherwise known for their hit song, “Africa.” This was Toto’s first and only attempt at a movie soundtrack, and I consider it a huge success. The soundtrack features the Vienna Symphony Orchestra and the Vienna Volksoper Choir. The choir shines throughout the album, but my favorite part was Toto’s Steve Lukather on guitar. His recurring electric guitar riff makes the movie feel like it came out sometime this century and adds a lot of tension to every scene it’s used in.
Overall, I did enjoy the movie, no matter how convoluted the plot may have been. This is especially true because I had already seen Denis Villenueve’s Dune: Part One, which was released October 22, 2021. This film, albeit an epic work of art, was far more fatiguing than Lynch’s. If audiences thought the original Dune was confusing and boring, I can’t imagine what they thought of this one. Except I don’t have to imagine. It has an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes – 43% higher than David Lynch’s Dune.
The most apt description of Dune: Part One that I’ve seen comes from journalist Steve Pond, who said, “often spectacular and often slow.” I first watched this film when it came out, and I completely agreed with this sentiment. I recognized that Villeneuve’s masterful cinematography is displayed throughout the film. The grand scale of the Arrakis desert (filmed in Saudi Arabia) is truly awesome. However, I didn’t think it made up for the lack of a real plot throughout the film. And in my rewatch for this article, I still believe this. It seems as though Villeneuve focused almost too much on the visuals.
I do think the film has an excuse, similar to Lynch’s Dune, this being that it is adapting Frank Herbert’s extremely long novel. Another excuse, this one unique to Villenueve’s, is that this is only Part One. The film was meant to introduce this story and its characters. It does this well, showcasing Herbert’s world and building upon it.
The thing that this film does better than Lynch’s Dune is the performances. This might not be saying much, considering the performances in Lynch’s were my least favorite part of the movie, but the cast did a great job in Villenueve’s. The film features an incredibly star-studded cast, featuring the likes of Timothee Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Josh Brolin, Stellan Scarsgard, and Oscar Isaac. This is just the beginning of the list of high-list actors in the film. Timothee Chalamet portrays Paul Atreides much better than Kyle MacLachlan. Unlike MacLachlan, he has emotion and adds a lot to the character.
My critique of the film (that it was a total snooze-fest), was the most common critique of the film. I think this is why Villeneuve’s Dune: Part Two is so incredible. As I said, Dune: Part One lacked any plot, but its sequel almost makes up for this entirely. Not only is the plot incredible, bringing in my personal favorite character, Feyd Rautha, but the visuals are even better than Part One. Characters like Austin Butler’s Feyd Rautha and Javier Bardem’s Stilgar bring something to the film that Part One desperately needed. This missing piece, for me at least, was spirit. This is to say that Part One was just generally bland, and Part Two is completely the opposite. It is epic.
This being said, the charm that David Lynch brings to the original film is unbeatable in my opinion. The best part of the new films are the visuals, but Lynch was able to have visuals that I (not most) would say are just as good as Villeneuve’s, if not better if one considers the time period in which they were made, and Lynch made them in 1984! If you decide to have a Dune marathon, keep in mind Lynch’s film came out around 40 years before the new ones and had a budget about $140,000,000 less than the new ones. And don’t forget to turn up the sound, especially if you like 80’s music.
