The Guardian gave Dune: Part Two 5 stars and forgot to review the movie

First of all, let's establish the mission of a film review. The mission — stay with me here — is to help a person decide whether to watch the movie. Revolutionary concept. Peter Bradshaw received this assignment in February 2024 and returned with four thousand words about Timothée Chalamet's cheekbones doing 'thematic work' and Denis Villeneuve's 'interrogation of messianic power structures.' Five stars. Not one practical sentence.

The review makes seventeen references to the geopolitical allegory. It compares the film to Lawrence of Arabia twice and Apocalypse Now once. It contains a full paragraph about the relationship between wide-angle cinematography and imperial mythology. What it does not contain: whether you need to have seen Part One (you do — desperately), whether the 2-hour-46-minute runtime is justified, or whether the ending lands if you haven't read the books. These are the three things every person Googles after reading a review. Bradshaw answers zero of them. He was busy.

Here's what the Guardian review is actually designed to do: communicate to other Guardian readers that the reviewer is the kind of person who experiences Dune as political theory rather than cinema. This is a social function, not a critical one. The five stars exist as a permission slip — a slip that says you may enjoy this film, it has been approved by someone who once called a Star Wars film 'a piece of corporate mythology' and meant it as a negative. The score is not a recommendation. The score is a handshake.

Dune: Part Two probably deserves five stars — films that crack 93% on Rotten Tomatoes are usually doing something right. But a five-star essay about semiotics and colonial allegory is not a review. It is a Guardian think-piece wearing a star rating as a Halloween costume. The movie might be a masterpiece. This review is a masterpiece of uselessness. But does it actually WORK?