Really? Comparing Dune to Jungle Cruise? I guess that's something to do.
Dune was a great visual and audio spectacle, and it lays the groundwork for what could be an amazing part 2. It managed to portray the foundations of a great setting and was really able to display the scope that this space opera will span.
I had no idea I was comparing it to Jungle Cruise, you didn't mention Jungle Cruise.
No-one has denied it is a film which prioritises visuals.
You say it provided groundwork, but then surely a film has to be more than just groundwork. Even films which are just part 1s will attempt to be more than just groundwork.
You say it portrayed the foundations of a great setting and displayed the scope the future films will span - when the whole problem is that it's this particular aspect which the film singularly failed to convey. In any part.
Some evil dudes left a planet, some other dudes arrived. The ones who left then came back and attacked the ones who'd just arrived. Meanwhile a kid is learning force powers and having visions. That's it, that's all it said, that is the 2.5 hour foundation? And you think that's 'great'?
Well, I guess you're, erm, easily pleased?
Why did the evil guys leave? Why did the new guys arrive? Why did the leaving guys then attack? Why did the boss then support the guys who left? Why are Catholic Church so interested in Paul? Who's the guy who betrayed the new arrivals and why is he important? Why did that guy roll his eyes? Why is everyone fighting with swords? Where is everyone? How many people live on this planet? What kind of infrastructure do they all live in? How do all the various factions relate to each other?
To name but a few glaring issues.
I get that for some of the questions you could get some extremely basic understanding because at one point one character says one line of exposition, but, unfortunately, which ones you hear will be entirely dependent on how obtrusive the sound editing is when the relentless booming deep base soundtrack drowns out everything in it's wake. I really shouldn't be dependent on subtitles for a film in my own language in a cinema with a 10 gazillion watt sound system where I cannot choose to pause, go back, then add subtitles for a whispered one-liner.
As for the concept itself, it's already on shaky ground because it is based on a book written 55 years ago with a mind towards pulpy fantasy as much towards and sense of hard sci-fi.
Take the Worms, for instance. I feel sure the entire galaxy of highly advanced civilisation can figure out a simple poison to eradicate the big annoying sand worms that keep eating our highly expensive spice mining vehicles. Or, if not poison, then just some other means to somehow take the worms out of the mining equation.
And, yes, I'm aware that for fantasy you suspend your disbelief and all that, of course you do, but when you are already on shaky ground with regard to keeping people in that state of disbelief, and you only really offer big sandworms as you're primary set pieces, then you're focusing on the wrong aspect of what makes the story more interesting and more suspendable.
Where's all the political intrigue? The Phantom Menace gives more attention to political intrigue and that film was quite literally aimed at 7 year olds, that was it's primary target audience. And I've heard people say this film is 'mature', and yet this film is mostly about big sandworms and practically zero about political intrigue.
If it was mostly political intrigue then, sure, a bit of sandworm fun can be a fun and silly diversion to ease out of the tense political wrangling, but to have practically zero political wrangling and then have 30 minutes of sandworms is just, well, extremely juvenile? Yes?