I think I was able to forgive a lot of the mistakes of the first film because of the promise of the second. A few plot grievances and pacing issues don't matter if it's building to something magnificent. Dune: Part Two has retroactively altered my opinion of the first part. I don't see that film as a problem child of a grander vision, I see both of these films as a huge missed opportunity.

The beginning sets the same expectations as the first only heightened tenfold. The beauty and scale of the world is thrown at you like a whirlwind. Not only are the visuals that much more breathtaking than the first film, but the story delivery is far more streamlined. Each layer of the plot stacks up fairly quickly until you are wholly captivated by the time any worms start appearing. Almost all aspects of the presentation are a huge improvement from the first, allowing you to soak in all the potential that Frank Herbert's story has to offer. For me, this is why it hurts that much more when it gets wasted.

In the beginning, a lot of inticing questions arise. Will Paul be accepted by the fremen? How will Jessica's turn as reverend mother affect their journey or their relationship? Will this fake prophecy become a reality? How will the Harkonnens turn the tables in their favour? How involved is the emperor and why? These ideas are lightly explored but ultimately never answered in a satisfying way.

At first I thought the characters were being treated with a lot more care. Stilgar, for example, feels more fleshed out early on: a trusted man of his people, religious, and looking with hope at the prospect that this outsider will be the answer to his people's Harkonnen problem. From the halfway point he becomes a fanatic and that's all he is for the rest of the film. This trend is reflected across almost every character, each one losing dimensions as the movie progresses or some not being used at all. Jessica is forgotten about, only dragged out to use the voice occasionally. As soon as she becomes reverend mother she has the same characteristics and motivations for the whole film. Feud Rutha is set up as a huge antagonist to Paul but he barely shows his face. Again, no arc. Margot fenring? Blink and you'll miss her (although her scenes are fantastic). Did Glossy Rabban even do anything? Gurney Halleck is just Gurney Halleck, again, one dimensional. What's wrong with these characters is that their differences are never used for drama.

Possibly the worst offender is Paul himself. Am I going crazy or did they completely underplay the fact that Paul's dad and entire family had just been wiped out. They mention it once but it's like that aspect of his character is missing. This is a vengeance story at the end of the day and a conflict lies between Paul's need to get back at the Harkonnens and his devotion to Channi and the Fremen. But we don't see that side of him for a lot of the film so that motivation is lacking. When he slides the knife into the baron it doesn't ring true.

There's a lot of rushing through things that seem pretty important and none more so than Paul and Channi's relationship. It happens and it feels like we missed a few scenes, then in the mess of a third act she breaks off from him and it again feels the same way. Maybe it's something about Denis' style but he somehow makes sure that the audience is always at a distance from the core of the story. The plot is more action focused and less character driven which seems like a big mistake.

By the third act he is just moving characters around and not giving them anything to live by. Atreides is a Harkonnen. Why does that matter to the audience that just watched that film. People didn't react well to that in my cinema. To someone who doesn't know anything about the books there isn't any reason for that to be important from the context they have just been given. I've read the books and that didn't really do anything for me during the movie.

The cherry on top is the finale which is an absolute joke. This grand battle to take Arrakis is what the films have been leading to and it's treated like a non-event. There's no suspense, it's just another raid on Harkonnan property, over and done with in no time at all. A duel, a bit of shouting, and it's all over with.

"The holy war begins"

What are you talking about? You are told this is happening but you don't feel it. The fact that Paul is rising as a fascist leader is the single most important theme of the film and it is completely mishandled. Watching that ending I don't feel as if Paul is about to ruin the galaxy, I feel as if he just won the day and the "holy war" is another great mission for the cause. This isn't the right reaction, It's not Starship Troopers, the message doesn't come across at all. Again, it's not that we haven't been told of this destruction, it's that we don't feel the weight behind it. The music probably plays a big part in this, for most of the film it comes across tired and lackluster. When it's time for Paul to settle into his fated role in the universe this should be a massive and horrifying revelation but it just happens and the film wraps.

The ending few shots to me are baffling. Of course it sets up Messiah which Denis has hinted at making and is probably writing right now. But two out of three films with an unsatisfying conclusion? I find that bizarre more than anything. That's not true actually, I find it very disappointing.

I'm not an "adaption purist" who thinks that you need to copy everything to the letter. If you make a good film it doesn't matter how you change the source material. What makes these Dune films a disappointment is that they excel in so many different ways that when the story doesn't match that same bar it crushes in a way that a shitty film wouldn't have. I wanted a clarity in the themes that just wasn't there and an ending that properly placed the actions of the two films in context. There's a fine line between leaving them wanting more and leaving them wanting, and Denis' Dune doesn't tread this line at all.