Quentin Tarantino just said the stupidest thing about the Dune movies, and I’m angry

Warner Bros. Pictures

Quentin Tarantino has made immoderate of nan astir influential movies of nan past 30 years. From nan bloody weapon duels of Reservoir Dogs to nan post-modern fantasia of Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, Tarantino is 1 of cinema’s unique voices. He’s besides a very bully movie critic, and he’s usually beautiful bully astatine sparkling a ray connected an actor, writer, aliases head who has been misunderstood aliases conscionable simply forgotten about.

He’s not perfect, though, and sometimes, he tin opportunity thing that’s conscionable plain, well, stupid. For instance, past year, he shared his less-than-favorable views connected Alfred Hitchcock, whose awesome filmography ne'er impressed Tarantino. In particular, he didn’t for illustration nan 3rd acts of nan Master of Suspense’s films, going connected to knock circumstantial films for illustration Suspicion and Rear Window.

A communicative doubly told isn’t worthy reference (or watching, successful this case)

Universal Pictures

Whatever, Quentin. Recently, nan head put his ft successful his rima again successful an question and reply pinch American Psycho writer Brett Easton Ellis’ self-titled podcast, wherever he was asked if he had seen Denis Villeneuve’s deed 2024 movie Dune: Part Two. His consequence was surprising:

“I saw [David Lynch’s] Dune a mates of times. I don’t request to spot that communicative again. I don’t request to spot herb worms. I don’t request to spot a movie that says nan connection ‘spice’ truthful dramatically.”

It’s good to beryllium not a instrumentality of thing — I deliberation Dune: Part Two is overrated myself — but to not moreover watch it because different filmmaker tackled nan communicative before? That’s conscionable wrong. And for those who person seen some versions, they cognize that Lynch’s and Villeneuve’s are wholly different. They show nan aforesaid story, but nan movies themselves are different experiences. Lynch’s bloated movie is crazy and incoherent pinch its acid-trip visuals and zig-zaggy communicative while Villeneuve’s 2 movies person an intimate, epic attack that emphasizes writer Frank Herbert’s original themes astir nan dangers of colonialism and deification of one’s leaders.

Ban each remakes? No way!

Paramount/Miramax

Tarantino didn’t extremity there, though. His bias extends beyond nan Dune movies and to remakes successful general. According to QT, if a communicative has been filmed before, it’s not worthy watching.

“It’s 1 aft different of this remake, and that remake. People inquire ‘Have you seen Ripley? Have you seen Shōgun?’ And I’m for illustration ‘no, no, no, no.’ There’s six aliases 7 Ripley books, if you do 1 again, why are you doing nan aforesaid 1 that they’ve done doubly already? I’ve seen that communicative doubly before, and I didn’t really for illustration it successful either version, truthful I’m not really willing successful seeing it a 3rd time. If you did different story, that would beryllium absorbing capable to springiness it a changeable anyway.”

Universal

Ooof. I don’t cognize really a self-professed cinephile tin person a position for illustration that, particularly successful this era. I get Tarantino’s wide constituent that location are excessively galore remakes, but to combat that by not watching immoderate of them is nan incorrect approach. After all, Hollywood has been churning retired remakes ever since it first began.

The 1939 classical The Wizard of Oz is simply a remake. So is nan 1941 detective enigma The Maltese Falcon. (In fact, that’s nan 2nd remake of nan aforesaid story!) There’s more, of course, for illustration nan 1954 type of A Star is Born starring Judy Garland, nan 1978 type of Invasion of nan Body Snatchers, John Carpenter’s superb return connected The Thing (which Tarantino is simply a instrumentality of!), nan 2007 redo of nan Western 3:10 to Yuma pinch Christian Bale and Russell Crowe — nan database goes connected and on.

United Artists

Some remakes are amended than others, of course. I wouldn’t urge nan Keanu Reeves type of The Day The Earth Stood Still complete nan superb 1951 original. But that’s existent for each movies: immoderate work, others don’t. And remakes person worth beyond telling nan aforesaid story. They tin showcase nan differences betwixt nan board who made them aliases really each of them bespeak nan civilization and values that produced them. All 4 Invasion of nan Body Snatchers movies — yes, moreover nan atrocious 2007 Nicole Kidman 1 — person thing absorbing to opportunity and should’ve perfectly been made moreover though they show nan aforesaid communicative of alien pod group softly invading America.

There’s thing astir Ripley

CCFC

And he’s missing retired connected Ripley. As a instrumentality of Patricia Highsmith’s novel, each 3 versions — 1960’s Purple Noon, 1999’s The Talented Mr. Ripley, and nan 2024 Netflix miniseries — connection wildly different interpretations of nan aforesaid story, which results successful each movie and show having a chopped look and consciousness from nan others.

René Clément’s Purple Noon employed a leisurely pace, and Alain Delon’s stone-faced bully looks, to showcase really nan lifestyles of nan saturated and rich | are conscionable retired of scope for nan hopeless and poor. Anthony Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley showcases sun-drenched Italian vistas arsenic a measurement to seduce nan spectator and make nan character’s hidden cheery subtext a awesome defining characteristic trait (and thing he ultimately, and tragically, denied). In contrast, Steve Zaillian’s Ripley drained each nan colour from nan character’s world — literally, done Robert Elswit’s crisp black-and-white cinematography — to expose nan character’s existent nature: He’s a rat, an imposter, whose each thrust pinch nary existent purpose.

Netflix

By making and remaking nan aforesaid story, these board recovered caller ways to research Highsmith’s characters and recovered unsocial conclusions that said thing different than what came before. Can you ideate if we conscionable sewage Purple Noon aliases nan silent 1910 type of The Wizard of Oz that didn’t person Garland’s voice, nan Technicolor glory of nan Yellow Brick Road, aliases Over nan Rainbow? If that’s nan cinematic world QT wants to unrecorded in, he tin person it. As for me, I whitethorn conscionable watch Carpenter’s The Thing again and bask successful its wondrous ice-cold nihilism.