pwoodring

I am a fan of David Lynch in general. I did enjoy his Dune from 1984 very much. I first saw it in Austria, in a German-language version with English subtitles. I was floored by it. I still adore that movie. But I recognized at the time I first saw it, that Lynch had concentrated mostly on the odd and eccentric details. Many of his details were invented, such as the heartplugs, and the deaf-blind servants. Architecturally, Lynch really let himself go, and some results were quite spectacular, such as the throne-room scene on Kaitain, and his ocean-swept Caladan. His sandworms were astonishing as well -- I'm not sure that Villeneuve's creatures have much on them. But Lynch gets mired in the detail, the odd things that intrigue him, the corruptions and kinks that seem to call to him, and the sweep of the movie is left to fend for itself. Villeneuve's version takes the opposite approach, and feels more like an epic narrative with fascinating detail along the way. I feel like they are complimentary takes on the story, and can be profitably watched next to each other. And who knows if Part II will be a brilliant conclusion or not. I'm excited to see it!

House of Fear has been one of my favorite Rathbone/Bruce movies of the series for many years. Some of the best humor is present here: "Cut down in the flower of his manhood!" And some of the very best atmosphere spreads over the entire movie. There are many eccentric and interesting characters: the dour housekeeper, the beatific dupe, the dashing doctor; as well as the dependable bumblers Watson and Lestrade. The gothic lighting and nods to expressionism raise it from the ordinary. At the same time, the plot is especially inane, and Homes seems singularly obtuse. A mixed bag indeed, but good fun.