As opposed to Arrakis, a place so dry where shedding tears because someone died is considered as incredibly unusual and highly esteemed, if wasteful.
I actually thought it was quite good, FAR better than I anticipated. Whereas Dune 1 was fine (not amazing), and could have used some of 2049's balance of brutal inhumanity with a little... verve I guess you could say.
Idk it just was pretty and had good plotting, but left me with nothing after it ended.
because Villeneuve was basically one of the front runners of the "intangible sludge"[1] aesthetic as someone dubbed it. Everything he makes has the same cold, color-drained feel to it (looking at the trailer for the next part, literally), and it's a style that a majority of film and TV makers has bought into now. What stood out about Lynch's version was just how psychedelic it was, which the book was too, and it's completely lost in the new adaption. I'd even go farther than 'sterile', Villeneuve's movies are straight up inhuman. With the exception of Arrival, which I think owes most of its core to Ted Chiang's story, none of the movies Villeneuve has made evoke any kind of connection, between characters or to the audience.
[1]https://x.com/_katiestebbins_/status/1461348307901378561?s=2...
Sterile and devoid of life would be probably where I'd start like you do but I'm waiting for someone with a better understanding of the art form to really dig into why these films don't really work despite having insane production values and great mise en scene.