Autumn Blockbusters: “Dune” and “No Time to Die”

It would be naive to think I wouldn’t be excited by both of these. Despite my cautiously optimistic temperament, I also know that a strong desire often results in a greater degree of disappointment. When it comes to movies, though I can still be enthusiastic, I really don’t have high expectations of any given film. 

Consequently, for these two, I might be personally satisfied but I doubt I’d be surprised if either or both were disappointments. Are they? Let’s start with Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation of Frank  Herbert’s epic novel.

To be sure, I’ve tried to read “Dune” repeatedly and usually found myself sidetracked by other things. This is not a knock on Herbert’s writing or the story; I’ve gotten far enough into the book to appreciate its world-building and artistry, but I bring this up to ensure that this isn’t one of those “in the book they did this” type of reviews. 

Villeneuve said he wanted to create a “Star Wars for adults” and I believe he has largely succeeded. The film is immersive, visually and aurally stunning and the performances are all on point. It would be easy to settle for the eye-candy and the whizbang and truss up the Herbertian mythos as a response to Lucas’s Force, but the film has other things on its mind and here’s where the problems lie.

“Dune” is a relatively straightforward tale that steers away from what could be a convoluted mythology. That there has been ample and expert narrative streamlining is obvious and that much helps expedite the story. At little over two and a half hours, it does perk along. 

What’s missing is a sense of urgency and even - as a viewer - a connection with the characters. Aside from Jason Momoa’s Duncan Idaho (a name evocative of visions of a donut shop in a potato field), it’s hard to get a read on anything in any of the characters to connect with. It’s not the fault of the actors, either. It is just that these are types more than flesh and blood characters to relate to. The House Atreides with Oscar Isaacs as the head of the clan and Rebecca Ferguson as his consort have brought Paul into the world who may or may not be the messiah of Arrakis. As played by Timothée  Chalamet, he’s a low-key, not-quite-Hamletesque scion. I say that as a compliment. Chalamet takes a minimalist figure and breathes as much into him as he can; Ferguson and Isaacs likewise do the most they can to give life to their roles, but I think at issue here is that the Big Ideas and the epic sweep drown out the emotional resonance one expects at the heart of this or any epic.

Homer works because the character’s struggles are so real and relatable. We may not be in battle and watching for and praying to gods over our shoulders, but we relate to their doubts, their struggles and their intrigues because Homer’s tale is rooted in our common humanity. The grand arcs and themes of the Iliad and the Odyssey reveal themselves in the telling; in longer works that are not so artfully constructed, the thematic grandiosity announces itself so loudly that the spectacle often drowns those human elements and emotive beats.

Still, this is a well-crafted movie and as with much of Villeneuve’s work, I can’t help but be enchanted by the world he’s constructed. If I feel that the humans suffer from being engulfed by larger narrative forces, it might be that it is by design; perhaps in the second part, which I understand has now been green lit, the protagonists will have stronger, more audible voice.

The script is co-written by Villeneuve, Eric Roth (whose CV is too impressive to recount here, but do check his writing credits out, and Jon Spaihts (I wasn’t crazy about “Passengers”*, but “Doctor Strange” is solid, and well, “Prometheus” is meh). In any case, the writing is assured, but the dialog is minimalist and it colors the performances. I singled out Momoa’s work because he’s the only character that seems to have a life or independence free of the larger tapestry. If Chalamet is the Luke Skywalker figure, Duncan Idaho is Han Solo. As such, he he’s more dynamic than anyone else in the movie.

And that might be the issue; as beautiful as so many of the set-pieces are, there is an inertia to the film that they belie. Greig Fraser’s cinematographer is as fine as any I’ve seen (“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” and “Zero Dark Thirty” would make the demo reel for anyone) and he’s expert at demonstrating scale and scope. The intimate moments are shot like portraits and there is no moment in the film when you’re visually bored, nor is it busy or fussy. 

Hans Zimmer’s score is pervasive but not manipulative or bombastic. It’s an altogether beautiful suite.

So what’s “wrong” here? Maybe nothing. It might all be by design, as I mentioned earlier. And that might be the issue: it’s a sterling work of just the right amount of this, the right amount of that, and near-perfect proportions and ratios. It’s missing - I don’t want to say “heart”, not for something that has been a passion project for an artist. But it’s missing the animate; the themes of betrayal, the true/false nature of prophecy, the greed of empire and power and so on are all very compelling, but without compelling connections to the human, these are static and bring to the composition, however beautiful and striking, a stolidity difficult to embrace.

“Arrival” and “Blade Runner 2049” were likewise replete with provocative themes and intrigue, but the films were anchored by and in central human relationships. As I mentioned above, here the reverse seems to be the case and while it doesn’t derail the film for me, it does create a distance between the experience of the film as a plastic work of visual art and how it plays as a dramatic structure. As a the former, it’s exemplary; for the latter, it needs work.

Bond, James Bond. “No Time to Die” is better than it has any right to be. There are some pretty powerful, emotional beats in the story and they’re all earned. I don’t get/relate to the critics who gripe about this being too referential to other entries in the Bond canon; unfortunately, I also can’t geek out the way I really want to without blowing a number of plot points.

That said, I have no major gripes with the film. It’s a fitting, and satisfying conclusion to the Craig era and if I’ve wished for more reinvention of the franchise in the past, I realize that you can only do so much before you lose or dilute the character. That Craig’s tenure is full of references to the Connery era particularly, irked me from time to time and “Spectre” really dialed up the irritation, but retroactively, “No Time to Die” makes that film somewhat more bearable. 

The script is everything for this film and I’m pleased that they let the characters breathe. Purvis, Wade, and Waller-Bridge (and Fukunaga - I didn’t realize he also worked on it) deserve accolades for what they accomplished here. Additionally, it is - as is to be expected - another beautifully shot film. Linus Sandgren knows his panoramas. He brought a finely honed visual sensibility to the film from works as diverse as “La La Land”, “Joy”, and “American Hustle.” 

Rounding out the experience is a score by Hans Zimmer (again! He’s everywhere!); not as pervasive as in “Dune”, but with figures drawn from other Bond films that connect both with Craig’s tenure and further back to Connery’s. Even the music would be a spoiler, so you’ll hear nothing more from me on this.

Of the two films reviewed here, it might seem that I favor the latter over the former, and as far as the movie-going experience is concerned, I do. However, “Dune” is ambitious in ways that a Bond film is not. A series like Bond, particularly this iteration, can certainly have ambition, but it’s unlikely to be of an order that changes the way we approach or look at a genre or innovate ways we view a filmic narrative. Craig’s Bond is the first to have a beginning, middle, and end and in that way, may have its closest correlates in Nolan’s Batman series or the MCU’s Avengers films. However, Bond is almost an archetype at this point, one whose tale can be told and retold in perpetuity. 

Thematically, the two films aren’t so far apart; both deal with questions of betrayal, the tragic dimension of life, extremely high dramatic stakes, and families and legacies. How they play out is, of course, markedly different. Nevertheless, the intimate moments in the Bond film land with more import and more impact. The human moments are richer and actually, more richly acted (Craig, Fiennes, Malik, Seydoux, et al, acquit themselves perfectly to the material). Of course, where Bond - regardless of how the character is interpreted - is concerned, owing to sixty years of pop cultural history, one has a broad idea at the very least of what to expect and with those expectations comes a certain set of parameters and narrative tropes. Limits, even.

Conversely, a film like “Dune” has its eyes set on a grander scale with a greater complex, if not complexity, of narrative weaving. That said, “Dune” leaves me with me a belly half full and “No Time to Die” is a hearty, filling meal. The science fiction epic is not a trifle and I’m not by any stretch dismissing it, but the Bond movie takes a known quantity and does something emotionally resonant with it in a way that “Dune” does not within its genre conventions. Again, though, different films with different aims. Still, I do like that full, satisfied feeling after a meal. Or movie.