The Paw Print

By Kieran Blake, Sports Editors

The word “overrated” has been tossed around a lot lately. “This athlete is overrated.” “This band is overrated.” “This food is overrated.” The usage of the word “overrated” has become commonplace in today’s society, especially on social media. And while there may be many instances in which people feel the word is falsely attributed to something or someone, there is one thing that is “overrated” in the truest sense of the word: Denis Villeneuve’s 2021 “masterpiece” “Dune.” The film, starring Timothée Chalamet and adapted from a famous science fiction novel, dominated both the box office and the awards season. Yet I cannot seem, for the life of me, to comprehend how it did so. “Dune” is extremely overrated by audiences and critics alike for three main reasons: (1) it is far too long and moves far too slowly to be intriguing, (2) the story it tells is incoherent and bland, with no superb acting performances that make up for this abhorrent mess, and (3) it garnered far too much critical and awards praise for what it has to offer.

The first main reason that 2021’s “Dune” is the epitome of the word “overrated” is because of its slow pacing combined with the long run time. “Dune” moves at a pace that makes a snail look like Usain Bolt. It is far too drawn out to be interesting at all, and the fact that it is nearly three hours long simply compounds this problem. While some may argue that “Dune” makes up for what it lacks in action by telling a grand and sprawling epic tale, that is simply not true. Coming from a man who paid 20 dollars to see the four-hour-long 1962 epic of a man walking through the desert known as “Lawrence of Arabia” in theaters, this was not a well-made sprawling epic. Now, granted, “Lawrence of Arabia” is often hailed as one of the greatest films of all time (it was the movie that made a young Steven Spielberg want to direct movies), but “Dune” doesn’t even come close to achieving anything that “Lawrence” does. “Lawrence of Arabia” had well-directed, acted, and written scenes and moments of action that kept me engaged and enthralled throughout, while “Dune” was so boring that I opened up my computer while watching it and started to try and guess which NFL players led the league in passing yards in 1972. Despite “Dune”‘s drawn-out run time and slower-than-a-snail pacing, critics and audiences alike lauded it because of its epic visuals and the belief that it was telling an interesting, deep, cinematic story. The film got rave reviews and still holds an IMDb rating of around 8.1 (at least last I checked). It is still hailed by many as a cinematic “masterpiece” because it is supposed to feel like a “Lawrence of Arabia”-style epic. Well, having seen both, I can tell you that without a doubt, this is blatantly false, and this pile of garbage doesn’t deserve to even be mentioned in the same sentence as “Lawrence.” Yet people across the world still hail it as an amazing movie, giving it a level of hype and prestige that it is completely and utterly undeserving of. It is because of this praise despite its long run time and slow pacing that I can say with certainty that there is no film I have seen that is more overrated by critics and audiences alike than “Dune.”

The second reason that “Dune” is a prime example of the word “overrated” is because not only is its story bland and incoherent, but the acting also fails to make up for these disparities in storytelling. A good movie has to have a story that draws the viewer in. This film’s story was so bland and hard to follow that I was repelled like we both came from the same pole of a magnet. The film opened off fine, but after about ten minutes, everything just sort of fell apart. There were moments where things seemed to come together, but then the plot just immediately went back to making less sense than Donald Trump’s cabinet picks. Perhaps I would have appreciated the movie more if I had read the book, but for what the movie is as a piece of cinema, it told a lackluster story. Not only that, but none of the acting performances made up for the lack of a good plot. Take 2019’s “Joker,” for example. I also feel that “Joker” is overrated by critics and audiences, but I was able to enjoy “Joker” because its star, Joaquin Phoenix, gave an absolutely brilliant performance in it. Whereas “Dune,” despite its all-star cast, offered me no such performance. Chalamet was okay, Oscar Isaac was solid, and none of the performances were necessarily “bad,” but they were nowhere near good enough to capture my interest. You have an Oscar-winner like Javier Bardem giving a passable performance, but delivering all of his dialogue in one of the most monotone voices I have ever heard. Still, critics and audiences alike praised the acting and the storytelling, and the film dominated the box office, clearly demonstrating that people kept coming back to the movie. But why did they keep coming back? Were good technical aspects enough? Was nerd culture really that strong? Did word of mouth bring more and more people to theaters? Many critics praised the film, fans praised the film, and many people considered it to be the best of 2021. Still, I found nothing of substance in the incoherent jumbled mess that is “Dune.” Maybe it was a good adaptation of the novel, but that doesn’t mean it was a good movie. So it baffles me how critics still call it one of the best in recent years. The film cleaned up in the technical categories at the Oscars, and perhaps rightfully so, but it did not deserve to get nominated in as many places as it did. The Academy, critics, and audiences around the globe overrated “Dune” because of how many awards it won, how many critics gave the film great reviews, and how many people went to see it and still to this day sing its praises. “Dune” did not deserve to make as much money as it did. Audiences should have walked out like the Dixiecrats at the 1948 DNC. “Dune”‘s jumbled story and mediocre acting do not deserve anywhere close to the level of praise that they have received, and it is because of this that “Dune” should be placed in the dictionary next to the word “overrated.”

Finally, and perhaps most importantly when considering how critically overrated “Dune” is, it did far too little to justify how many awards it won and how much it was lauded by critics. “Dune,” as I have previously expressed, was only great on a technical level; it was not well-written, the acting was simply average, the story was bland and lackluster, and the film itself was about as intriguing as a trip to North Korea. Despite this, the film won awards all over the place. It got into Best Picture at the Oscars, it holds an IMDb rating that is far too high for a film of its caliber (it does not deserve to even sniff the ratings of films like “All the President’s Men” and “Citizen Kane”), and it was frequently praised in critic reviews. This film had nothing to offer that was deserving of these accolades and praises from critics. It was technically great, yes, and the visuals were stunning, but that was about it. I walked away disappointed. Despite its subpar storytelling and simply mediocre acting and writing, critics continue to overrate and praise it constantly. To this day, I cannot comprehend how it did as well as it did at the Oscars. There were much better films released that year, and the uproar around Denis Villeneuve’s Best Director “snub” should have been minor when compared to other snubs in previous years. Overall, “Dune” was the epitome of the word “overrated,” especially by critics and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.