Your ChatGPT comment is a perfect description of Villeneuve’s movies and I’ve thought similar things for a long time. There’s just something missing that prevents them from being great.

It’s a real shame, because he is technically brilliant. Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most beautifully shot/edited movies I’ve ever seen, but it just cannot reach me beyond the surface.

If you’re interested in seeing him put his skills to tell an actual impactful story, watch Incendies. By far his best movie.

Also Prisoners and Enemy were impactful imo (and Sicario of course). I feel like where Villeneuve fails in that respect, filmmakers such as Nicholas Winding Refn succeed— I just watched Drive for the first time (I know I know), and it was one of the best cinematic experiences I’ve had in probably 5 years. Even though the film had a bit of a distant, hands-off quality, one connected with the film and characters completely (a lot of that maybe had to do with Gosling’s impeccable performance, but I’m sure the director had something to do with it).

I agree that Enemy, Sicario, and Prisoner are very good movies, not among my favorites but certainly much better than his newer stuff.

About Gosling I’ll refrain from commenting as it can get ugly. :)

> About Gosling I’ll refrain from commenting as it can get ugly. :)

I think it's fair to say that any particular performance of Gosling may be good/er or bad/er, but his broad range is impressive: The Notebook, Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines, Only God Forgives, The Big Short, The Nice Guys, La La Land, Barbie.

Also: Crazy, Stupid, Love and Drive came out in the same year.

He was outstanding in The Big Short, I'll give him that. And his casting in BR2049 was the perfect choice; all he had to do to act like a robot was to act as usual...

Whenever I feel like something is more fan service than contributing something original, I use a couple of mental models: pilgrim vs tourist

But also canon vs fan fiction

Do you think villaneuve's dune is more fan service / tourism? Is it adding anything new to the world of dune?

(As much as I enjoyed it and want the answer to be "yes it's adding something," I'm worried the answer is no)

For me it's fan service, but there must be more to it that I'm missing. Apparently it made nearly half a billion dollars over a budget of 165 million, so it cannot be just hardcore sci-fi fans. Chances are it's simply not my cup of tea, or not the cup of tea of a few people who value other kinds of experience on movies. I have a cousin who loves the movie and he says that the cinema experience is amazing, the images and sounds and the whole thing kinda pulls you in. Maybe that's just it: technical quality.

While I agree, I'd say the merit to the new Dune film is as an excellent example of ambient film - think of it less as a film in which things must happen and more of the waves at the beach - calming and tranquil, mostly, an occasional freak wave to keep you on your toes.

(Yes, I think it was solidly average otherwise and arguably the most boring of Villeneuve's work if watched conventionally).

But Dune is very much a story where many things do happen, intricate things that have a lot of text and subtext.

The tone you describe is at odds with the story it presents (and its run time).

But dune is also a world that I grew up imagining, and the movie does an effective job of letting me visit for a few hours

I agree that the story is lacking! But the world feels real

Oh the world and the characters in my head from when I read it are much more interesting. I will keep this in mind for when (if) I watch the 2nd one tho.

I agree, I don't think it's a particularly interesting Dune film. One could say my perspective is a 'cope'.

Maybe, but in that case wouldn’t you be more interested in another, more intimate/human movie?