If 2021’s Dune feels more like a commercial for a sequel than its own complete story, it’s because it was just Denis Villenueve’s proof-of-concept, a cinematic argument that the sequel was actually possible. It was only because of Dune‘s undeniable commercial, critical, and Oscar success that Warner Bros agreed to give Villenueve the money needed for Part Two. This serialization of cinema is one of the worst trends of the Twenty-first Century, a carrot-and-stick philosophy that only sells promise and never payoff. So, it’s a pleasant surprise that Dune: Part Two is one of the more satisfying payoffs within recent studio movies. The second half of Frank Herbert’s classic 1965 sci-fi novel, the film delivers on the promise of awesome action set pieces, fulfilling world building, and a collection of brilliant young Hollywood stars. Talk about proof of concept.

I think its telling that Villenueve very recently railed against the advent of dialogue in movies. He’s correct that movies are about imagery, and that dialogue is more of an asset to theater and television, but Villenueve is also swearing against dialogue because he’s never really known how to direct it. When you can’t direct dialogue – a very difficult task, by the way – there’s nowhere to hide, and Villenueve often overcompensates with stunning, architectural visual work. He excels at making a big, hulking ship floating in the sky, and recording human reactions to it. His greatest films – Enemy, Arrival – contain his most inventive, virtuoso style, but also stars actors (Jake Gyllenhaal, Amy Adams) who can prevail despite lack of attention. It’s obvious that Villenueve likes actors, but I’m not sure he knows how to direct them.

So it helps that he’s working here with Timothée Chalamet, the 28-year-old movie star who already feels like a Hollywood institution in less than eight years of stardom. After the first Dune, I wasn’t convinced that the playful Chalamet was the right choice for the brooding role of Paul Atreides – an opinion that only strengthened for me after seeing how enthusiastically he took to his leading role in the whimsical musical Wonka. Dune: Part Two is an all-around better film than both Dune and Wonka (and it’s not close), in no small part because Chalamet grows further into the character, into its physicality and its larger psychological components. One of the exciting parts about watching the career of a young actor is watching him get better in real time, and the arc of Chalamet’s short career tells the story not only of a great talent, but of a presence that completely holds the audience and commands the screen.

Part Two picks up directly where Dune left off, with Arrakis in the hands of Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgaard), after his army of pale-faced, bloodthirsty warriors killed off the House of Atreides. In the the film’s opening moments, we finally meet the emperor, Shaddam IV (Christopher Walken), and his daughter, Irulan (Florence Pugh). What is hinted in the first film is confirmed in the second: the Emperor set up House Atreides on Arrakis in a plan to consolidate power for when his daughter becomes empress. The biggest snag in their plan is that Paul and his mother, Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), are still alive, living with the native Fremen in the dunes. Jessica is still pushing forward with her plan, to have Paul enact the prophecy of Lisan al Gaib, the true savior of the people.

Paul interests lie in revenge, and killing the Harkonnen for murdering his father. The best way for him to do that is to join the Fremen, learn their ways, and participate in their perpetual war against the colonialist forces that make up the spice trade on their planet. Stilgar (Javier Bardem), is already convinced that Paul is the prophecy come to life, something even Paul refuses to acknowledge. Originally skeptical, Chani (Zendaya), takes Paul under her wing, teaches him the ways of the Fremen, and promptly falls in love with him. As he becomes further indebted into the tribe, Paul becomes less motivated by his own quest for vengeance, and more inspired by their righteous cause. He fears that Jessica’s fundamentalist propaganda will only spoil his standing among the people, but she continues her push, to help him realize what she sees as his true destiny.

The newest element of Part Two is the inclusion of Feyd-Rautha, Harkonnen’s young, psychotic nephew whose skills with a knife is matched only by his insatiable hunger for blood. Fearing the power that Paul can acquire, Gaius Helen Mohaim (Charlotte Rampling), and the Bene Gesserit decide to back Feyd-Rautha and the Harkonnen, a hedging of bets that has more to do with emotional control than choosing the best leader. In a long sequence in the middle of the film, we see the extent of Feyd-Rautha’s cruelty, but we also see his vulnerabilities. Enabled by his vicious uncle and manipulated by Lady Margot Fenring (Léa Sedoux) – a Bene Gesserit sent to him in a honey pot scheme – Feyd-Rautha’s violent spiral is headed toward Arrakis to find Paul and Jessica Atreides and kill off the family’s bloodline for good.

I rewatched Dune before seeing this new film to refresh myself on the facts of this world, and while I don’t think an in-depth knowledge of lore is required to enjoy Part Two, I must say I was happy with my decision. I’ve never read Herbert’s book series, but it’s notorious for its density and its complexity, and Villeneuve (who wrote the script with Jon Spaihts), seems to really be excavating as much from the books as he can. Dune felt to me like a movie that could only be appreciated by its book’s readers, so steeped in the narrative’s idiosyncrasies that I find large chunks of it confusing and dull. The number of characters alone is daunting, and the scale of the place-setting is such that there is little room left for compelling story. It’s obvious now that all of that was left for Part Two, a choice that does make me appreciate this second film a lot more, but only reinforces my reservations about the first film.

Dune: Part Two is an undeniable blockbuster success. Its battle sequences and worm-riding scenes are thrilling in their construction but also in how they impart story. The depiction of Paul’s ascendancy is equal parts emotionally stirring and disturbing. The degree to which his power begins to corrupt is, at times, directly stated, even if we are still meant to treat him as our protagonist. I perhaps will never think Villenueve is the masterful director that some people do. His greatness as a craftsman only partially makes up for his impotence as a purveyor of narrative; characters often feel like a burden to his truer interests. This film in many ways represents the best he can offer: a display of magisterial filmmaking with a preternatural understanding of the ways images can tell stories. That he doesn’t shy away from the book’s more complicated political elements proves that he doesn’t miss the point, but one wonders how he will handle any additional narrative depth.

 

Directed by Denis Villeneuve