Review of Jodorowsky's Dune (2013) by Kevin G — 30 Mar 2014

I seem to be only the second person to post a review/opinion who hasn't imbibed deeply at the kool-aid fountain. 98%. Really? The documentary has no objectivity, and the Dune would have been awful. Terry Gilliam on steroids, without the good parts. Judging from El Topo and the other one, it would have consisted of actors engaging in nonsensical wacky acts. People with strange expressions staring at the camera. A nude women entering stage left and produces a rose from a body cavity.

Without even seeing the film, you get a fair idea from just two things: (i), his desire and expectation that the running time would be 12-20 hr, presumably with the rights to the final cut. Scorcese's indulgence pales in comparison. And, (ii) his casting choices, qpart from David Carradine, who was an excellent choice. His son? Mick jagger. Dali? Dali's girlfriend - on a whim! - who was not, and had no aspirations to be, an actor. Following on from her, his son? Orson I-don't-give-a-flying-*ck-about-acting Welles? Did it even occur to him to ask that chef if he was interested in being Orson's slave cook before he offered up his services? Jodoworsky's Dune would undoubtedly have become a cult movie, but would have been a product of its time, aging badly, without the timelessness of the classics that followed (Blade Runner, Alien, Terminator, Star Wars). Even parts of 2001 suffer from that, detracting considerably from the whole.

I love Dune (the book). I love movies, all kinds, except most of the "so-bad-it's-good" that typify (in my opinion) many cult movies and midnight shows. Lynch's Dune is a so-bad-it's-bad kind. I have not seen El Topo - does it even have a narrative thread? - or his other one, and I have no interest in doing so, but not because I am easily offended. I love documentaries, which I define as a film dissecting real events with at least a modicum of objectivity. Sadly, this one doesn't fit the later category. The director indulged every ounce of Jodorowsky's considerably grandiose and - let's be honest here - separated-from-reality character. (See slave chef comment above). Enthusiasm, even the inexhaustible kind, only gets you so far. The influences on later works was the high point, and more of that would have saved the film for me.

All this talk of "the greatest film never made" is hokum. And I don't for one minute buy in to the Hollywood was scared of this/shut out by The Man conspiracy theory. Those bean counters, if that's what they were, could see in plain sight how this would end up.There is a yawning chasm separating the good, even great, idea and realizing its potential, which I think is what Gary Kurtz when he ever so politely pointed that there were good, and fairly obvious, reasons why he didn't, you know, actually make it. All the wonderful stuff that ended up in other movies - which we are able to judge because they did actually get made - were the products of the other artists. Yes, we owe him a big "Thank You" for enabling their visions, but they only got them out there through other directors. Come to think of it, the graphics on the posters for this movie probably played a big role in me seeing this.

I am not religious but I Thank God that this movie was never made.