‘Dune: Prophecy’ reviews call it a sci-fi ‘Game of Thrones,’ for better or worse
The universe of “Dune” expands on HBO on Sunday, Nov. 17, with the premiere of “Dune: Prophecy,” a prequel series set 10,000 years before the events of Frank Herbert‘s first novel. Based on Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson‘s “Sisterhood of Dune” novel, “Prophecy” is the origin story of the Bene Gesserit, a powerful sect that seeks to control the path of humanity. It was developed for television by Diane Ademu-John and Alison Schapker and stars Emily Watson as Valya Harkonnen, the ruthless leader of the sisterhood. But does it live up to the Oscar-winning spectacle of Denis Villeneuve‘s recent “Dune” adaptations?
SIGN UPfor Gold Derby’s free newsletter with latest predictions
On MetaCritic the series has a score of 64 based on the 19 reviews counted as of this writing. Nine of those reviews are positive, nine are somewhat mixed, and one is outright negative. Over on Rotten Tomatoes, where reviews are classified simply as positive or negative, the series is rated 73% fresh based on 37 reviews. The RT critics’ consensus says, “Grounded by reliably terrific performances from Emily Watson and Olivia Williams, ‘Dune: Prophecy’ lacks the spice of Denis Villeneuve’s films but compensates with addictively perilous palace intrigue.”
More from GoldDerby
To compare, Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part One” had a MetaCritic score of 74 and a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 83%, while “Dune: Part Two” scored 79 on MetaCritic and 92% freshness on Rotten Tomatoes. So the series falls a little bit short of those metrics, but Keith Phipps (TV Guide) writes, “‘Dune: Prophecy’ establishes itself as an exciting, spectacle-heavy series driven by dramatic developments and intriguing secrets … It also allows room for a uniformly excellent cast, Watson and Williams particularly, to develop intriguing, conflicted characters.” Emlyn Travis (Entertainment Weekly) calls it “thrilling” and says it’s “anchored by masterful performances.” Mary Siroky (Consequence) thinks the series “is remarkably visually engaging, with the warring houses delivering an energy reminiscent of a show like ‘Game of Thrones,'” and after the exposition is out of the way, “the series quickly hits its stride.”
More critical is Daniel Fienberg (Hollywood Reporter), who says that “the show fails to live up to most of what is so technically astonishing about the Villeneuve films,” but “it offers moments of handsomely produced, morally murky scheming and backstabbing.” Ben Travers (IndieWire) adds that the series is “another attempt to replicate ‘Game of Thrones,'” which “can’t find a way to effortlessly integrate its exposition.” David Fear (Rolling Stone) also laments that the show “wants to be a science fiction ‘Game of Thrones’ .. There is still enough ‘Dune’ in it to gently scratch an itch while waiting for a potential Part 3. But whatever inherited and/or distinct elements it has is eclipsed by an overwhelming sense of premium-cable déjà vu.
And Kaiya Shunyata (RogerEbert.com) thinks that the show suffers in comparison to the Villeneuve films, and “while two deaths cap out the first episode, everything that follows does not bring forth any sense of urgency or intrigue.” Now it’ll be up to viewers to decide whether the “Prophecy” is worth being foretold.
Best of GoldDerby
Sign up for Gold Derby's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Solve the daily Crossword
