Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Wtf you didn't like the acting?
I would agree the pacing is a little bit too fast at the end of part 2, but especially the first and the beginning of the second are perfectly paced...
The shots are great. And it looks very good. And that's not only because of the production value... Also the camera and scenery is top notch. Don't know when I saw such a good looking movie the last time.
The replacement of the dune theme is a dumb argument. You could say that about any movie. And also it's not true. You get topics about ecology, economics, choice, power structures, religious fanatism in a very interesting way.
Personally I liked the first one better than the second one, mostly because of the pacing issues at the end... I would have been ok with having another hour of runtime :) also some political and economic stuff was cut, which I would have liked to see... Instead they go all in on the fundamentalism... But ok
I'm not a huge fan of the setting btw... I don't really like this feudal-sci-fi mix, because it leads to ridiculous situations (comes with a spaceship to the planet and is immediately taken hostage by sword fighters?). Still the movie can compensate with all the other stuff it does and make it somewhat believable. Also I can see over some plot holes if the rest is good. I'm not someone who complaines that the eagles could have flown frodo to mount doom either.
I really don't know what you have against the acting, though... They have to transport some ridiculous stuff and they do a great job.
Have no particular opinion on the characters... I would have liked to see some more screen time from some of them... But I guess that comes down to the additional hour, I would have loved. Think they were what they needed to be. Nothing more nothing less.
Yes, sorry about the acting, but IMHO Chalamet's acting is quite wooden.
I totally agree that the movie looks very good, that's part of the high production values I mentioned.
Concerning the characters, we seem also to be in agreement: I would have loved to see more of the non Femen factions, their motivations and pressures.
Anyway, thank you very much for your input, as mentioned somewhere else, I'll have to watch the first Dune again, perhaps I'll find a liking for it in the second try.
Except that I thought it was an amazing movie :)