A few weeks back I did another rewatch of Excalibur, the movie I compared Dune: Part Two with in an unofficial (read: not a review) take, and then yesterday I did a rewatch of Dune: Part Two itself.
Let's start with Excalibur. I'm still not writing reviews of either. They're complicated, in much the same way Peter Jackson's second and third Lord of the Rings films are for me, or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some critics would list, say, Heaven's Gate in this kind of category, a production they could only ever hate for the kind of arrogance artwork on display.
I've been trying to watch Excalibur more some twenty-five years. I find it very easy to fall asleep watching anything (in fact I can't offer a review of Dune: Part Two since that's exactly what I did for a large chunk of it yesterday, missing among other scenes Austin Butler's gladiatorial debut, which was a highlight the first time around). For me it's not an indictment, it's just a fact of life. In past attempts I slept through much of Excalibur's excess, its inability to tell the difference between art and artifice. This time I found myself suitably amused by Nicol Williamson's irreverent Merlin, likely a response to Empire Strikes Back's Yoda, while everyone else struts to the pomp, even wasting the young Liam Neeson, not to mention Patrick Stewart, allowing Nigel Terry to ineffectually carry the load as King Arthur (surely one of the worst casting jobs in the history of film). Yet the grandeur is there. It justifies the Lady of the Lake as the truly indelible visual of the film, the only element to truly rise to the occasion.
Dune: Part Two is almost a complete visual affair. It struts its actors as they chew the scenery in amusing ways (although this is probably Javier Bardem's second best Hollywood role, the Alec Guinness who relishes the old believer role previously occupied by Laurence Fishburne, having the chance to nail the exact act in a second film entry as few enough viewers have credited Fishburne; Josh Brolin is the only other member of the ensemble allowed complete dignity, but then he's been a pro at that since before he was taken seriously).
But this is still Villeneuve, one of the best directors working today, and there are echoes of Arrival, here, which I imagine is what drew him to the project in the first place, that and the prospect of reviving another 1980s sci-fi relic looking for redemption, and he comes closer to the mark in making a statement this time than in the first act. My disappointment is mostly that he dithers on a desert world rather than plunges into something more meaningful, but that's why I'll continue giving the results further chances, more than I ever will Peter Jackson, or Excalibur, why I'll more happily recommend Villeneuve's work to those looking for something meaningful in Hollywood's yearning for greatness in genre material than its nearest competitors.
Anyway, it's a long game.
