Yeah the only reason it could be considered “bad” is because they ran out of money and the entire 2nd half is just a montage of shots to end the movie because the producers took over.
“Wooden performances” is the only way to describe the acting in Lynch’s. That movie is a confuding mess and painful to watch if you don’t know the story. A movie can’t simply assume you’ve read the book to understand it. People can only truly prefer Lynch to Villeneuve ironically. You can’t honestly think it’s better film.
I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue this stuff. This is a thread about movies you can’t be convinced are good. I’m not trying to convince you, I’m stating that I liked the David Lynch Dune considerably more than the new ones. Feel free to take that or leave it, art’s not really objective, dude.
Yeah, I’d rather watch the Lynch version anytime, the new ones are like 6 hours of bland, boring choices and wooden performances.
Even the three part TV movies from around 2000 are better.
lol, true. At least Lynch‘s version is a entertaining fever dream.
Yeah the only reason it could be considered “bad” is because they ran out of money and the entire 2nd half is just a montage of shots to end the movie because the producers took over.
“Wooden performances” is the only way to describe the acting in Lynch’s. That movie is a confuding mess and painful to watch if you don’t know the story. A movie can’t simply assume you’ve read the book to understand it. People can only truly prefer Lynch to Villeneuve ironically. You can’t honestly think it’s better film.
I thought watching the new ones was like watching paint dry. At least Lynch’s version had some personality.
Not all personalities are likeable.
I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue this stuff. This is a thread about movies you can’t be convinced are good. I’m not trying to convince you, I’m stating that I liked the David Lynch Dune considerably more than the new ones. Feel free to take that or leave it, art’s not really objective, dude.