“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.
Comment on What’s a movie nobody can convince you is good?
kandykarter@lemmy.ca 12 hours agoYeah, I’d rather watch the Lynch version anytime, the new ones are like 6 hours of bland, *boring *choices and wooden performances.
JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
kandykarter@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
I thought watching the new ones was like watching paint dry. At least Lynch’s version had some personality.
JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Not all personalities are likeable.
kandykarter@lemmy.ca 7 hours 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.
dumblederp@aussie.zone 10 hours ago
Even the three part TV movies from around 2000 are better.
FreeRangeMustard@lemm.ee 12 hours ago
lol, true. At least Lynch‘s version is a entertaining fever dream.
buliarous@lemm.ee 5 hours 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.