A fair comment, the problem for me as a book fan isn't that the film wasn't fantastic it's just that it is thin compared to the source material. So much is missing, and I don't mean in fan service kind of way, that you're only getting a superficial telling of the story. It is unquestionably a beautifully realised film but the motivations for everything are largely missing.
This is my main quibble with part 1 (thus far). Considering Lynch crammed so much into 140mins and Villeneuve has only told half of the story in 150mins, when indeed you do consider the source material, the first film was definitely light on exposition.
I agree and knowing the books I do enjoy a lot of Villeneuve's subduedly in delivering the story; I just wished we saw more of it in the first film considering the source material.
as a "war film" i expect pt2 to be awesome.Agreed - DV is more of a quiet story teller and let's people fill in the gaps, a common theme across most of his movies. That said, with something as deep as Dune, it may not have been the right tact, once we see both parts as a larger picture, we'll be able to judge a little better.
He's moving onto an adaption of 'Rendezvous With Rama' next.
