Posted 27 сентября 2021, 12:20
Published 27 сентября 2021, 12:20
Modified 24 декабря 2022, 22:36
Updated 24 декабря 2022, 22:36
The coronavirus pandemic, although not inferior, and on the contrary, is accelerating its deadly harvest in Russia, and the cinemas are full again. In addition, the Russians have finally returned to the cities from their summer cottages. To a large extent, this was facilitated by the premiere of the fantastic film "Dune" by the famous Canadian director Denis Villeneuve based on the novel by the American writer Frank Herbert. The film has already broken a post-show record on the premiere weekend, grossing more than 560 million rubles. So we can say with confidence that Dune has met the expectations of film distributors. True, many of the viewers who came to the cinema did not know that they were shown only half of the film, and the sequel, as they say, follows.
As is often the case, opinions about this picture on the network are divided. One part, and these were mostly inexperienced in the intricacies of cinema, the so-called ordinary viewers, “liked "Dune" very much", others - usually film critics - scolded it.
For example, network analyst Dmitry Milin is "absolutely delighted" about the film:
“Unlike Lynch's film, there are no plot failures, it was filmed in a grand manner, the landscapes are fantastic, as is the casting. In this film (155 minutes), about half of Frank Herbert's first book ... "
Blogger Kirill Thaler considered the appearance of "Dune" a landmark event:
“This is how modern society has matured that every second is a photographer, and every first is a film critic. But I have been reading Herbert for so long that I can’t remember anything, and I don’t know the history of cinema at all. Therefore, keep the notes of an amateur who went to "Dune", I have no others for you.
Villeneuve found his gold mine in "Dune". Here is "Blade Runner", in principle, an action-packed work and the unhurried style of Villeneuve in this film adaptation did not go to me at all. But Herbert's "Dune" is in itself philosophical, viscous and unsteady, like sand dunes. And then everything turned out - the director found his own writer. And you said Dune cannot be filmed.
As a result, Villeneuve shot a picture, the significance of which for modern cinema is difficult to underestimate. I have already said that I do not know the history of cinema, but it seems that before Star Wars, science fiction was a class B niche product, and only with the advent of the Lucas saga it turned out that films about the future are capable of being blockbusters. But the development stopped there. Science fiction has become high-budget, but generally primitive pop: here boo-boo, there is a chase, here is a love line. The main thing is that everything is as simple and chewed as possible, for babies.
It seems to me that with the advent of "Dune" a new era will begin - now science fiction can be an author's cinema, moreover an author's one, but for a wide audience: a leisurely plot, flashbacks, allusions, long plans. This is usually enjoyed at festivals, but not in big cinemas. Well, "Dune", judging by the excitement, has broken this fourth wall between high art and a mass audience, which I am only happy about ... "
But journalist Gleb Gusev treated the premiere as a purely aesthetic spectacle:
“On the one hand, scolding" Dune "will be strange - just as strange as scolding the pyramids in Giza: here's a monumental artifact for you, once such a thing appears for a thousand years, what more do you want, you ungrateful creature?
On the other hand, it is completely unclear how to praise Dune.
- Well, how do you like the pyramids?
- Liked it.
- What did you like?
- Well ... Nice.
"Dune" by Villeneuve is an unbearably viscous, unbearably beautiful, unbearably pretentious, like an ancient Greek epic poem. Each hero is weighed down by the awareness of his destiny, each actor desperately depicts the seal of fate on his face. The only living character that you believe is filled with blood and not a hexameter is Duncan Idaho played by Jason Momoa. In "Dune" there are only two scenes, where Villeneuve finally decides to ventilate the room and inserts a couple of jokes - Momoa flaunts in both. It’s the only one and it’s a pity when the family of the future messiah begins to be slaughtered.
On the third hand, I myself listen to my whining that the “Dune” is somehow not of the right kind to me, but something like that - and I want to tell myself to "eff off".
Because, excuse me, it doesn't often happen that such a director will film such a fantastic novel with such taste, such skill, such attention to detail - let's say thank you. For the costume of the imperial herald. For the carvings on the headstones of the Atreides. For flying on an ornithopter.
Pure aesthetic thrill..."
The famous Russian film critic Natalya Nusinova was rather skeptical about the film:
“The special effects are amazing. What a life-giving computer is capable of! Wow. Music, in my opinion, is overload (in my, non-musical ear). But it seems to me that they always do this when the drama falls short. An additional method of emotional impact. Because the story doesn't touch at all. The characters are absolutely predictable, an anthology of banal tricks. You can say more politely - the mythology of a science fiction film. And I don't particularly like science fiction in sound films. Although Spielberg and Lucas had everything livelier and more touching. But no one reached the heights of "Nosferatu" or "Alraune". Probably, silent cinema expresses the world of the mysterious and scary more naturally. And here is some kind of pragmatic fairy tale, not at all magical. The struggle of space drug mafia in interplanetary space. At first, it’s just boring, it becomes especially sad because of the promising meaningfulness in the views and replicas of the characters - everything promises and promises... Further, the action is livelier, and the final scene catches - the initiation of the hero through bloodshed. Recognition of his leadership is expressed by the replica "Now you are ours", literally coinciding with the last title of Svetozarov's film "Tanya the Innkeeper" (1929) - there, acceptance into the collective was paid for by the betrayal of the girl's father, here - by murder. But in both cases - the heroization of the crime. And it seems like a happy ending. Not for me..."
Journalist Dmitry Scriabin turned out to be much sharper:
“The new film“ Dune ”is surprisingly reminiscent of an old anecdote about Lieutenant Rzhevsky.
Rzhevsky runs into the room and shouts:
- Gentlemen, gentlemen, what story I will tell you! I mean, I am driving through the desert - all around, to the very horizon, sand. All sand and sand, sand and sand. All of a sudden! There's a big pile of shit in the middle of the desert!
Rzhevsky fell silent, looked at his comrades, and they were perplexed, is that all?
One of the hussars could not stand it and asked:
- And what is the salt, lieutenant?
- But there is no salt. One sand ...and shit!"
And, finally, the journalist and culturologist Yulia Pyatetskaya, instead of “scribbling about this senseless burden for 165 million,” preferred to quote the “luxurious text” of film critic Vasily Stepanov, published in the professional edition of the Seance:
“Medium television plans, dull dialogues, tasteless action (it's unbearable to see the sardukars walk along the Odessa stairs), tiresomely sluggish adventures in the desert, and most importantly, the main character's dreams, which have been turned from a plot element into an element of the sequel's promo campaign (let's all the same teasers upload to YouTube, not IMAX) - all this makes the film for me personally a sad sight. It's funny, but "Dune" in the cinema, albeit with a normal screen and sound, makes a specific impression. By and large, you could watch it at home. At the very least, there would be an opportunity to tone down the southern suffocating soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, which is always visible a little more than what is happening on the screen.
I, of course, understand, now is the moment of hype, Timothy Chalamet and other beauties, but the dust of this strange sandstorm, largely provoked by too long waiting, will soon settle, and we will just have one more unsuccessful illustration - a film that neither to review nor to children show".