Other critics commented on issues related to the film's pacing and handling of the source material.[96][97] Critic Owen Gleiberman of Variety wrote: "It's an act of world-building that runs out of storytelling steam… Dune is out to wow us, and sometimes succeeds, but it also wants to get under your skin like a hypnotically toxic mosquito... It's not just that the story loses its pulse. It loses any sense that we're emotionally invested in it… the movie begins to run out of tricks, it turns woozy and amorphous. Will Part II really be coming? It will if Part I is successful enough, and that isn't foregone. It's hard to build a cliffhanger on shifting sands."[105] Kevin Maher of The Times gave the film two out of five stars, stating that while "every frame ... is spectacular", "Dune is also kind of boring".[106] Reviewing the film for TheWrap, Steve Pond called the film "both dazzling and frustrating, often spectacular and often slow" and said: "This version of Dune sometimes feels as if it aims to impress you more than entertain you; it's grim on a staggering level, ditching most of the fun of sci-fi yarns in favor of a worldview that feels more like Villeneuve's Sicario or Prisoners than his Arrival."[107]