It seems like a lot of y'all liked it, and it felt pretty reactionary to me so I'd love to hear an alternative perspective.
Beyond the idea that it's a film about imperial colonial extraction from which we only get the perspective of the empire, it really feels like the presentation of the lifestyle of the royals seems very sycophantic, very deferential.
Like the royals don't experience lavish personal consumption or luxury, no sex slaves, no hedonism, no fun at all really, they're all just earnest and stoic hard workers. The representation of the ruling class is that maybe your bedroom might be a little bigger, but they're just as put upon as the rest of us because of all this duty they're so concerned with. It seems like the take-home message is that any material benefit of being in the ruling class is trivial, but the accompanying responsibly is a terrible burden.
(I haven't read the books and don't plan to btw.)
So can someone explain why they liked it as a leftist?
This is where it fell down I thought. Baron Harkonnen is a sociopathic sex freak who makes Hollywood elites look like a walk in the park. He has real sex slaves - the kind without safe words. He eats like a pig and uses slaves up like kleenex.
He also has red hair, dammit, like all the Harkonnens.
The movie, understandably, didn't want to make the only LGBT character in the movie a giggling pedophile slave owner.
A bad descision imo, made the Baron a little too palpatine-y and arch and less slimey and foul