-Paul is completely put off by his mom after she drinks the poison, disagree with her constantly, but then he still does exactly what she wants. The mom abruptly changed into a tattoo'd freak and the talking fetus thing was wtf

-Paul is watching Stilgar ride a worm and being told by everyone he will never ride one. Smash cut to Paul riding the biggest worm anyone ever saw and it's easy as shit

-Paul is supposed to do this insane life or death vision quest alone in the desert to prove his worth. Chani inexplicably shows up like 5 mins later to help him

-Paul and Chani have some argument the whole movie about whether he should fulfill the prophecy. Fulfilling the prophecy would be a means to her end of freeing the planet. This conflict makes no sense at all

-They're out in the desert fighting Harkonnens and Josh Brolin suddenly shows up. Where did he come from? Why did they almost kill him? I burst out laughing at this scene. Also what happened to Brolin's entire crew?

-The Baron is built up as this superpowered villain in Dune 1 and then gets ragdolled at the end by regular dudes. Wasn't he planning to kill the emperor or some shit? Why did he just lay down and take a beating?

Timothy Chalamet was great and carried the entire movie. Unfortunately he was held back by the writing, and sword fight scenes that have worse choreography than the Netflix show about ninja family.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5551284&forum_id=2Reputation#47815140)

There will be some disjointedness in 120 minutes, or whatever. And characters who "break bad" may seem a little abrupt.

But it's aesthetically wonderful. It builds a world and holds suspense and tells an interesting story. It also created a world-class villain - even if it had to kill him off.

And the most hated part, using Chani as a stand-in for normie morality, was likely a necessary feature for a blockbuster. A more faithful retelling of the book(s) may appeal to 130+IQmos and take 19 movies, but Villeneueve also has to ensure the movie makes $800 million or he loses the stage on which he creates his art in the first place.

There are hard limits to hollywood blockbusters and expecting something entirely different is sometimes the problem of the moviegoer, not the movie maker

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5551284&forum_id=2Reputation#47815178)

They could've spent 10-20 secs of exposition to explain why Paul knowingly drank poison and how he survived, rather than portray him as making reckless choices that improbably work out for him over and over

This evidences a lack of competence and conscientiousness at the script development stage

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5551284&forum_id=2Reputation#47815271)

I'll give credit to the faggy director for offering an explanation as to why he actually wanted that. But that's as far my respect extends: he attempted to justify it. Did not succeed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5551284&forum_id=2Reputation#47815186)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5551284&forum_id=2Reputation#47815205)

I RARELY think my streaming setup isn't good enough.

So I saw part 2 in imax.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5551284&forum_id=2Reputation#47815235)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5551284&forum_id=2Reputation#47815275)