• @kandykarter@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Yeah, I’d rather watch the Lynch version anytime, the new ones are like 6 hours of bland, boring choices and wooden performances.

      • @buliarous@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 month ago

        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.

    • @JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 month ago

      “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.

      • @kandykarter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 month ago

        I thought watching the new ones was like watching paint dry. At least Lynch’s version had some personality.

          • @kandykarter@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 month ago

            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.