Finally got round to seeing Dune tonight. The short summary is that I thought it was very impressive, far superior to the 1984 movie, and also (in different ways) to the Sci-Fi channel mini series.
Denis Villeneuve clearly knows what he's doing, and I can't wait to see Part 2 (which was recently greenlighted). A few more specific thoughts (with minor spoilers of the plot):
The actors, CGI, and pacing all do a great job of capturing the plot and atmosphere of the book.
I think it also gets across a good deal of the political message, as well: The manipulative nature of political authority, the dangers of charismatic leadership (though this theme is a bit less prominent than in the book), and lure of power.
While Part I goes for over 2.5 hours, and therefore conveys more of the plot than the 1984 David Lynch movie, some things did end up getting cut. The Harkonnens (the Baron, and especially Piter de Vries), Thufir Hawat, Dr. Yueh and (to a lesser extent) Gurney Halleck, all get the short end of the stick. Much of this is unavoidable. But people who read the book will feel some of these losses keenly.
On the other hand, the actors playing Paul, Jessica, the Duke, and Kynes all capture those characters well, as do the Fremen characters (though the latter only come on near the end). I am somewhat ambivalent about this depiction of Duncan Idaho, but most other viewers I talked to liked it.
Villeneuve is a master of economical exposition, as a result of which he gets across the politics and society of the Imperium and Arrakis very well, using minimal screen time to do so. Nonetheless, a few elements got shortchanged: most notably the mentats (barely mentioned), and the role of "imperial conditioning" (which makes Dr. Yueh's betrayal especially shocking).
People who haven't read the book may be confused about why this far-future/high-tech society has so little in the way of computers and AI, and why they use blades so much more than missile weapons.
In this depiction, Paul is less conflicted about his destiny than in the book, and seems more ready to embrace the role of leading the Fremen and (eventually) becoming Emperor. This seems a conscious effort on Villeneuve's part to avoid creating the (false) impression that Paul is the hero/savior of the story. The "white savior" interpretation of Paul is grossly unfair to the book, and this version repudiates the idea even more clearly, I think.
However, this version - unlike the Lynch and Sci Fi channel versions - does depict the Atreides as almost entirely white, even as almost all the Fremen are either black or Middle Eastern. There may be some PC/"Woke" blowback over this choice (though it doesn't bother me). And it might lead to more deployment of the "White Savior" Trope.
Dr. Kynes is gender-flipped to being a woman (which doesn't by itself bother me). But the screenwriters didn't consider that a female Kynes would have had far greater difficulty in being accepted as a Fremen leader. This is one of a number of subtle ways in which Villeneuve downplays the profound sexism of Fremen society (which is more fortrightly depicted in the book). The Imperials are also sexist (this the movie does note), but not quite to the same degree.
I have read the book numerous times, so I can't easily figure out how the film might appear to those who never read it. But I think they should at least be able to follow the general gist, in a way that wasn't possible with the 1984 movie. FWIW, my friend came away with a comparably favorable impression, and he is reading the book for the first time the same week as seeing the movie.
I don't agree with the criticism that Part 1 ends too abruptly. It actually ends at a perfectly logical stopping point in the story.
We saw the movie at an IMax theater, and this is one of the rare instances where that genuinely made a positive difference.
I have a few other, relatively subtle, reservations about Part 1. But, overall, it's an impressive achievement! If you love the book and/or SF in general, you should definitely go see it.
