MovieChat Forums > peterkneter > Replies
peterkneter's Replies
I saw it yesterday in Germany. I had bigger expectations i must say. It was a 3D screening and I must say: Don't watch it as 3D-Screening version. There are no scenes where 3D is nessecary or even noticable.
After watching the villeneuve dune I have to say that I prefer the 1984 Version - as you said - with all its flaws.
The 1984 Version had great costumes, Set Design, a great Cast, "interesting" storytelling (usage of the Off-dialogue) and a solid interesting soundtrack.
I really normally like Villeneuve Movies but this one was nothing special.
The Problem with the cast. Yes, as you said it seems to be very hardly puzzled together to have every ethnical group being cast. You just see it that way. Paul (Chalamet) looked absolutly like kylo ren with the hair cut and the emo face all the time. The Baron was ok but could have been far more impressive. The Baron in the 1984 version is disgusting but fascinating. The cast was in general somehow not convincing. I dont know why but I felt not that involved in their conflicts.
Also - I had just watched Dune (1984) again on Netflix before and the story and storystructure was like 1:1 the same - ok it was made upon the same book but you can interprete something differently, cant you?
The soundtrack: Ok, Hans Zimmer - where should I begin... Heavy drumms, and deep brass and everytime the desert is in the screen you hear arabian sounds (vocals, etc.) I mean, come on. Desert = Arabian sounds???
Here and there he added some e-guitar but the soundtrack from 1984 had far more character. Wasnt perfect either but this was Hans Zimmer on Auto Pilot.
The desins were really minimalistic. It worked for other Villeneuve Films but in this one he should have tried somthing different. The Harvesters, the Space Ships , the costumes not interesting. I couldnt figure out are this Saraukar or Harkonnen or Atreides fighters, they all looked basically the same.
All in all I am not very interested in a second part.
good point. Also the timing is still quite good for a Movie from 1942!
Of course. But To be or not to be is much superiour to the other ones. Look at the age of the movie. It is from 1942 - from the time in the middle of the war and such a great parody on the Hitler Regime also much better than "the great dictator" from chaplin in my eyes.
Yeah. May be they where not sure about the concept and left it to 6 episodes and waited for the viewer count...They could have made 10 episodes out of the material easily though... hope for another season!
Yeah, absolutley. A bit sad to realize this. looking at my ten year old son laughing at all thoses comedies and jokes makes me smile too...
Yeah, it had a charlie Kaufmann vibe somehow. I liked it too. Would like to see another season...
I liked it a lot. Hope there will be a second season. Great actors and good writing. As a professor myself I could easy relate to the issues!
If you liked this one, give "As Far As My Feet Will Carry Me" (2001) a try. It is very similar...
actually it is kind of a rip of the movie "As Far As My Feet Will Carry Me" (2001) It is very similar as you will see...
yes. I also wondered why it was set in 2009. It is only that it works with the age of the actors (and that is a bit weak...)
the whole thing turned out to be very constructed. He author should have come up with some other idea instead.
too sad for the rest of the cast / crew who made a good job...
I enjoyed the movie but totally agree with your points. the 2. Absolutely. You cant understand and that is a weakness of the script. the whole revenge-thing was a bit constructed but never the less the movie was neat. Good actors, nice locations, good camera work, good soundtrack. 6/10
In the beginning it says "London, 2009"
absolutely. When they both eat in the beginning and he tells her that he was in the war and was in the military service but did not say on which side he totally spoiled that. At this time I thought, ok he was a Nazi and she is some jewish lady who wants revenge - in parts it was right so...
Right in the beginning it says "London 2009"
You already got your answer basically. I was just wondering: The first half of the movie we see the movie more or less
from the perspective of her and in the End the movie is the perspective of a dying old man. Isnt that against all writing rules. (May be thats the point: "I am Charlie Kaufman there are no rules for me")
May be he tried to hard not to let this movie end with an deus ex machina but finally it still is. And as al writers know: Deus ex machina is the worst possible ending you can write...
They could work with a stuntman and create the deep fake Indy-face onto him...I hope the don't
it'S a shame. why are they doing this movie? Everyone already has enough money! The third film was a good end for the Indy-Series. The 4th had not the charme of the earlier ones and became just redicolous. I sense that the 5th one will be even worse...
There will be. Netflix bought anotehr season.
Actually I like the fugitive but on the other hand the only part I don't like so much in this movie is that the character of Richard Kimble does not develope anyhow. He is still the same guy in the end that he was in the beginning. Other than the Tommy lee Jones Character...