So....I disagree with the review, but probably for different reasons than what you may think.
1. I liked the Hobbit Trilogy of movies. Why? See Below.
2. If you are a True Lord of the Rings novel fan, you cannot like the movie trilogy by Jackson as something that represents the books. It tries to make it far too much of a horror movie which has very little redeeming value and forgets most of the true themes found in the book. It forgets the nobility of Faramir, the loyalty of Sam and Frodo's loyalty in return (who in the heck decided Frodo would force Sam to leave and that Sam would do so??? THAT was an absolute travesty of the movie adaptation). The faults of it are so far and insulting to the novels it amazes me how many try to claim it has any true relevance to the trilogy other than the basic resemblance to the books.
Anyone who was a True Lord of the Rings Fan could tell you that Jackson and others would deviate from the novels eagerly and easily if they made the Hobbit movies. If I wanted a movie trilogy based on the books and that followed their themes and ideas...and that was all I was basing my enjoyment of them on, I would absolutely hate and abhor the LotR trilogy by Jackson. I think Tolkien would have hated the movies and said that they did NOT represent his work, his ideals, or anything that dealt with him. I think Christopher Tolkien felt very similar and tried to block what he could while he was alive (Rings of Power would probably have killed him if he wasn't dead already if he saw it).
3. I love the LotR trilogy by Jackson. Why? Because it is NOT the Lord of the Rings by Tolkien. It is it's OWN thing. It's made to be it's OWN thing. As far as the cinematography and how it's made, it's an absolute masterpiece.
4. I liked the Hobbit Trilogy for the same reason. Any reasonable person who saw Jackson's LotR should have realized that it was in no way representative of the novels and that Jackson took MASSIVE liberties with the movies which deviated greatly from the books. Characters were absolutely OUT of Character and were not the same people (movies) they were in the books. Thus, it should be no surprise that he did it all over again with the Hobbit movies. The only difference is that people were older and more fondly remembered the Hobbit than they did the LotR. (granted, the Hobbit is a shorter novel and easier to read than the LotR is. By Page 100 in the Hobbit they've left the shire, been captured and defeated the trolls, visited Elrond's house, Gone into the Mountains, been caught and escaped the goblins, Bilbo's met gollum and found the ring, and they are then being chased out of the mountains into the countryside by angry goblins and worgs. In the Fellowship of the Ring at around page 100....they've just left the shire).
5. With that in mind, let's visit Dune. The First movie of the series that came out recently actually did quite well of capturing the feel of the movie...up until they decide they have to make Duncan a one man army who heriocally defeats half the Harkonnen pursuit force ( I mean...WTH is up with that!!!). Then they forget what Harkonnens even look like and make them a bald ghostlike race. At this point, it should have been clear that Villenueve had no desire to recreate the books. Once that was clear, I had no problem enjoying his masterpiece, following it whereever he chose to take it.
6. If you want a movie that is closest to the spirit of the books, I'd say watch the original 1984 movie. It also deviates, but it keeps the spirit of the originals closer to the books IMO. If you want a movie (or in this case, miniseries) that actually follows the storyline of the books the closests, you would be best to get the sci-fi series that showed up on Sci-Fi. Even better, it also has a sequel that takes us up to Children of Dune (and a shame it never got to show us God Emperor of Dune).
7. With it's sequel, the new Dune movies are probably the furthest from the storyline of any of the movies and series made based on Dune, and the feel of the novels is missing from it. However, the movies in and of themselves are masterpieces, far more than anything about Dune that came before. It deviated from the Novels FAR too greatly during the first film. It was obvious at that point that Villenueve was doing his own thing. You then had a choice. You could either choose to enjoy it like many did with Jackson's LotR (which many choose to ignore how it absolutely destroys the characters portrayal by how it deviates from how they are represented in the books, amongst other changes), or hate it like many did with Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy (which, in reality, just does the same thing that his LotR trilogy did, just people suddenly noticed a lot more...perhaps because it was made into a trilogy when, as the novel was shorter, should have probably been a single film instead).
8. Still here? I'll finally conclude. I enjoyed the Dune movies by Villenueve. If I expected them to follow the books, I'd have been disgusted by the end of the first movie and never looked back, throwing it into the junkpile of films that have no clue what the book they are based on are even about. Instead, I viewed it as cinema, and as cinema, as it's own thing on it's own merits and found I loved it and it's sequel. I hope they make a third movie, because at this point, I have no idea what to expect will be in that movie except perhaps an answer to what happens to those dumb Fremen crusaders who left on their holy war (who knows, at this rate, they may all be slaughtered on their first planet...I have no idea where this thing is going), and maybe what happens to Paul. I'm along for the ride and I hope it keeps on going.
