478 reviews
A Wasted Opportunity
I enjoyed the Inferno film for the most part as I'm very fond of Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. One of the main reasons that I like these books so much is because they provide such a wealth of background historical information so they're a prefect blend of education and entertainment.
While it was obviously impractical to include an involved literary discussion of Dante's Inferno in the film, it's a shame that it was barely touched on at all as to me, it was one of the most interesting aspects of the entire story. Like many, I was also surprised and disappointed by the changed ending. The book's solution was challenging but elegant; the film clunky and predictable.
Pity.
While it was obviously impractical to include an involved literary discussion of Dante's Inferno in the film, it's a shame that it was barely touched on at all as to me, it was one of the most interesting aspects of the entire story. Like many, I was also surprised and disappointed by the changed ending. The book's solution was challenging but elegant; the film clunky and predictable.
Pity.
Empty calories, mainly due to poor direction
Imagine if Spielberg had directed 'Godfather' and Coppola had directed the Indiana Jones movies. Both great directors, but it wouldn't have worked.
Same thing applies here. Like the first two in this franchise, 'Da Vinci Code' and 'Angels and Demons', there's just something terribly wrong with the direction. Yes, the Langdon movies are suppose to be fast paced, but if almost no scenes are allowed to breathe, does it matter?
And why do director Ron Howard keep on insisting insulting my intelligence? Like in the first two, many things are explained twice, so even the dumbest one in the audience knows what's going on.
Then there's the blatant mistake of shooting the movie in standard widescreen, instead of cinemascope, like the first two. When you make a movie with several visually looking fantastic locales around the world, it SCREAMS cinemascope.
And the best park of the book? They completely changed it. Guess they wanted to avoid any controversy.
Hans Zimmer's score was great, as usual, though.
The first two Langdon-movies are hovering at 6,6 on IMDb. So will this when the dust settles.
If the studio decides to make 'Lost Symbol' and - for once - have a Langdon movie getting great reviews, they should probably hire another director.
Same thing applies here. Like the first two in this franchise, 'Da Vinci Code' and 'Angels and Demons', there's just something terribly wrong with the direction. Yes, the Langdon movies are suppose to be fast paced, but if almost no scenes are allowed to breathe, does it matter?
And why do director Ron Howard keep on insisting insulting my intelligence? Like in the first two, many things are explained twice, so even the dumbest one in the audience knows what's going on.
Then there's the blatant mistake of shooting the movie in standard widescreen, instead of cinemascope, like the first two. When you make a movie with several visually looking fantastic locales around the world, it SCREAMS cinemascope.
And the best park of the book? They completely changed it. Guess they wanted to avoid any controversy.
Hans Zimmer's score was great, as usual, though.
The first two Langdon-movies are hovering at 6,6 on IMDb. So will this when the dust settles.
If the studio decides to make 'Lost Symbol' and - for once - have a Langdon movie getting great reviews, they should probably hire another director.
Good but forgettable (reading the book vs not).
TL;DR: This movie was good but forgettable. Reading the book beforehand is a positive here and you will want to go see it, but keep expectations down and expect a radically altered story with no lasting impression. If you haven't read the book, prepare to be confused, but it can still be an entertaining ride.
Edition watched: 2D IMAX
The largest positive for this movie is Tom Hanks. Hank's role here is a slight departure from how he previously played the role, due to the circumstances that are made apparent from the very beginning (but I won't spoil), and yet he was excellent again as Robert Langdon. Aside from Hanks, the story was muddled but chase-movie action and constant changes of beautiful scenery makes this entertaining if forgettable.
I have read the book (and liked it) and I went to see it with 2 people who had not read it.
For those who haven't read the book, you should know that this is not like the other 2 Dan Brown movies. Those stories dealt with secrets and puzzles from many years ago (hundreds or thousands in some cases) and they had that Indiana Jones for the art history major feel to them. In this movie, all the puzzles are manufactured by a modern day character in the story, so it almost completely lacks that Indiana Jones feel. Even though I had warned my movie companions about this, both were quite disappointed by this aspect.
However, the biggest problem my non-book reading movie companions had was confusion. As someone who knew what was going on, even I felt the way they injected some story elements and then dropped them just as fast was a bit dizzying. Given that this movie was adapted for the screen and had radically altered elements from the book, the handling of the story telling was sub par.
Both of my movie companions felt the movie was entertaining but nothing special. One sentence opinion: "It was OK and I enjoyed it." and "It was OK, let's go eat."
For those who have read the book, in my opinion this movie departs radically from the source material. That said, reading the book is an advantage and might be a compelling reason to go see this. Knowing the book-story means you will know what is going on, even through elements that were not in the book and/or were presented poorly (e.g. skin rash). I found the changes made for a better experience since I wasn't just seeing a rehash of what I had read. That said, among several disappointments, I was looking forward to a Vasari Corridor scene and I was very much let down.
One thing to note, Dan Brown's message was pretty much lost and I wonder if that was intentional? Even the ending, which in the book was used to punctuate Dan Brown's obvious point, is radically changed in the movie. So while the basic story is similar, the actual take away I left the theater with was very different from the book. I mark this as negative because the book made me think about what I had taken for a given, the movie simply entertained me and went away afterwards.
Overall, as someone who read the book, I enjoyed the movie but did feel let down.
Edition watched: 2D IMAX
The largest positive for this movie is Tom Hanks. Hank's role here is a slight departure from how he previously played the role, due to the circumstances that are made apparent from the very beginning (but I won't spoil), and yet he was excellent again as Robert Langdon. Aside from Hanks, the story was muddled but chase-movie action and constant changes of beautiful scenery makes this entertaining if forgettable.
I have read the book (and liked it) and I went to see it with 2 people who had not read it.
For those who haven't read the book, you should know that this is not like the other 2 Dan Brown movies. Those stories dealt with secrets and puzzles from many years ago (hundreds or thousands in some cases) and they had that Indiana Jones for the art history major feel to them. In this movie, all the puzzles are manufactured by a modern day character in the story, so it almost completely lacks that Indiana Jones feel. Even though I had warned my movie companions about this, both were quite disappointed by this aspect.
However, the biggest problem my non-book reading movie companions had was confusion. As someone who knew what was going on, even I felt the way they injected some story elements and then dropped them just as fast was a bit dizzying. Given that this movie was adapted for the screen and had radically altered elements from the book, the handling of the story telling was sub par.
Both of my movie companions felt the movie was entertaining but nothing special. One sentence opinion: "It was OK and I enjoyed it." and "It was OK, let's go eat."
For those who have read the book, in my opinion this movie departs radically from the source material. That said, reading the book is an advantage and might be a compelling reason to go see this. Knowing the book-story means you will know what is going on, even through elements that were not in the book and/or were presented poorly (e.g. skin rash). I found the changes made for a better experience since I wasn't just seeing a rehash of what I had read. That said, among several disappointments, I was looking forward to a Vasari Corridor scene and I was very much let down.
One thing to note, Dan Brown's message was pretty much lost and I wonder if that was intentional? Even the ending, which in the book was used to punctuate Dan Brown's obvious point, is radically changed in the movie. So while the basic story is similar, the actual take away I left the theater with was very different from the book. I mark this as negative because the book made me think about what I had taken for a given, the movie simply entertained me and went away afterwards.
Overall, as someone who read the book, I enjoyed the movie but did feel let down.
Review from a non-book reader
This review is from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the book but still knows his/her movies.
The movie's start is very confusing at first, where Robert Langdon has some visions but they don't really seem necessary and so it takes quite some time to establish the plot. It lacks the inclusion of Renaissance artists' work or a history lesson here or there, they are there, with the main focus on Dante, however it's still not as much as compared to the previous 2 movies, which just made them so much more interesting.
There a couple of plot twists in the movie but nothing that might throw you off your seat or make the movie more interesting.
Hans Zimmer's background score felt under par compared to the beautiful scores and themes he has given for The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons and countless other movies.
Another thing that I felt lacking was a final turn in the end, like a final nail in the coffin, like the previous 2 movies had.
Overall, I don't know about Dan Brown's novel, but the writing of the script was not up to the mark.
The movie's start is very confusing at first, where Robert Langdon has some visions but they don't really seem necessary and so it takes quite some time to establish the plot. It lacks the inclusion of Renaissance artists' work or a history lesson here or there, they are there, with the main focus on Dante, however it's still not as much as compared to the previous 2 movies, which just made them so much more interesting.
There a couple of plot twists in the movie but nothing that might throw you off your seat or make the movie more interesting.
Hans Zimmer's background score felt under par compared to the beautiful scores and themes he has given for The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons and countless other movies.
Another thing that I felt lacking was a final turn in the end, like a final nail in the coffin, like the previous 2 movies had.
Overall, I don't know about Dan Brown's novel, but the writing of the script was not up to the mark.
Discards so many details, The best part of the book was missing
- mjrsblover
- Oct 13, 2016
- Permalink
Mystery thriller set in Florence , Venice and Istanbul ; plenty of suspense , twists and turns
The Dan Brown's international best-seller is brought to life in this film directed by Ron Howard (Cinderella man) with screenplay by David Koepp and starred by Tom Hanks (Oscar winner for Philadelphia -1993- and Forrest Gump -1994-) as the symbol expert named Robert Langdon , Felicity Jones as Dr. Sienna Brooks , among others . The story talks the Symbologist Robert Langdon ,as he wakes up in an Italian hospital with amnesia ; he is being treated by Dr Brooks who hopes will help him recover his memories , when there appears a series killer (Ana Ularu) attempting to kill them . Both of them escape and join forces , being pursued by Carabinieris , officers from World Health Organization and a dark organization . Meanwhile , a millionaire , Dante fanatic (Ben Foster) has supposedly developed a new biological plague that will kill off a large portion of the world's population in order to quickly solve the problem of the world's impending overpopulation , citing the Doomsday Argument . Together , Langdon and Brooks , must race across various cities (Florence , Venice , Istanbul) to foil a criminal plot ; being chased by people from the World Health Organization (Omar Sy) , and one of them (Sidse Babett Knudsen) is someone he knows . As they go through the obscure conspiracy that lies before them and run against the clock to avoid a deadly global scheme .
This thrilling movie is a genuine ripping yarn with intrigue , mystery , tension and outstanding surprises . Inferno is a moving mystery thriller based upon the novel by American author Dan Brown and the fourth book in his Robert Langdon series , following Angels & Demons , Da Vinci Code and The Lost Symbol . The book was released in 2013 and it was number one American Best Seller list for hardcover fiction and Combined Print & E-book fiction . In comparison with the previous two films that focused more on solving codes and riddles and religious against science situations , Inferno (2016) focuses more on moral dilemmas , global diseases , memory loss and character development.
Nice interpretations all around , as main cast as support actors . Tom Hanks gives a magnificent acting , as always , as the American professor of Symbology at Harvard University relentlessly pursued by police forces or organizations and attempting stop a madman from unleashing a global virus that would wipe out half of the world's population . Attractive Felicity Jones , she is pretty good as Dr. Sienna Brooks who teams up with Langdon to discover a malicious world plot . Stunning Ben Foster as Bertrand Zobrist , he is a transhumanist genius scientist , a brilliant geneticist and magnate who is obsessed with Dante's Inferno , he is intent on solving the world's overpopulation problem by releasing a virus . Charming Sidse Babett Knudsen as Elizabeth Sinskey , the former Robert's love interest , and nowadays the head of the World Health Organization . Sympathetic Ida Darvish as Marta Alvarez , an employee at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence who assists Langdon with Dante's death mask . Splendid Ana Ularu as the Consortium's agent in Florence who has orders to follow Langdon but is later disavowed by The Consortium , she falls after a confrontation with Robert and Sienna in the Palazzo Vecchio . Furthermore , Omar Sy and Irrfan Khan as two suspect spies . Stirring and evocative score by Hans Zimmer who composed the music of the three Robert Langdon films . In comparison to Code Da Vinci (2006) and Angels and Demons (2009), where the music was mostly orchestral with a few cues of electronic music , this film has a heavier electronic content . Colorful cinematography by Salvatore Totino , this is the only film of the trilogy to be shot with a 1:85:1 Widescreen aspect ratio, as well as the only one to be shot digitally . Being shot on location , this is the second film where Robert Langdon is in Italy , with the first film being Angels and demons , though the majority of the film was shot in Hungary for budgetary reasons . The picture lavishly produced by Brian Grazer was compellingly directed by Ron Howard , this is the fifth collaboration between Tom Hanks and director Ron Howard . Although it had a budget of $75 million, which was much lower than the first two installments.
As usual , there are several cultural , artistic , historical references , including the followings : a modified version of Botticelli's Map of Hell , which itself is based on Dante's Inferno , Dante's death mask , the Battle of Marciano by Vasari . And historical , known locations : the Palazzo Vecchio , Florence , Il Duomo , the Florence Baptistry , Palace and square of Sain Marcos of Venice and the Hagia Sophia and inside Basilica Cistern , in Istanbul, where Enrico Dandolo is buried. The latter was a Doge of Venice from 1192 until his death. He is remembered for his blindness , longevity, and shrewdness, and is infamous for his role in the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople in which he , at age ninety and blind , led the Venetian contingent , he led to the conquest and sack of Constantinople on April 12, 1204, an event at which Dandolo was present and in which he played a directing role .
This thrilling movie is a genuine ripping yarn with intrigue , mystery , tension and outstanding surprises . Inferno is a moving mystery thriller based upon the novel by American author Dan Brown and the fourth book in his Robert Langdon series , following Angels & Demons , Da Vinci Code and The Lost Symbol . The book was released in 2013 and it was number one American Best Seller list for hardcover fiction and Combined Print & E-book fiction . In comparison with the previous two films that focused more on solving codes and riddles and religious against science situations , Inferno (2016) focuses more on moral dilemmas , global diseases , memory loss and character development.
Nice interpretations all around , as main cast as support actors . Tom Hanks gives a magnificent acting , as always , as the American professor of Symbology at Harvard University relentlessly pursued by police forces or organizations and attempting stop a madman from unleashing a global virus that would wipe out half of the world's population . Attractive Felicity Jones , she is pretty good as Dr. Sienna Brooks who teams up with Langdon to discover a malicious world plot . Stunning Ben Foster as Bertrand Zobrist , he is a transhumanist genius scientist , a brilliant geneticist and magnate who is obsessed with Dante's Inferno , he is intent on solving the world's overpopulation problem by releasing a virus . Charming Sidse Babett Knudsen as Elizabeth Sinskey , the former Robert's love interest , and nowadays the head of the World Health Organization . Sympathetic Ida Darvish as Marta Alvarez , an employee at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence who assists Langdon with Dante's death mask . Splendid Ana Ularu as the Consortium's agent in Florence who has orders to follow Langdon but is later disavowed by The Consortium , she falls after a confrontation with Robert and Sienna in the Palazzo Vecchio . Furthermore , Omar Sy and Irrfan Khan as two suspect spies . Stirring and evocative score by Hans Zimmer who composed the music of the three Robert Langdon films . In comparison to Code Da Vinci (2006) and Angels and Demons (2009), where the music was mostly orchestral with a few cues of electronic music , this film has a heavier electronic content . Colorful cinematography by Salvatore Totino , this is the only film of the trilogy to be shot with a 1:85:1 Widescreen aspect ratio, as well as the only one to be shot digitally . Being shot on location , this is the second film where Robert Langdon is in Italy , with the first film being Angels and demons , though the majority of the film was shot in Hungary for budgetary reasons . The picture lavishly produced by Brian Grazer was compellingly directed by Ron Howard , this is the fifth collaboration between Tom Hanks and director Ron Howard . Although it had a budget of $75 million, which was much lower than the first two installments.
As usual , there are several cultural , artistic , historical references , including the followings : a modified version of Botticelli's Map of Hell , which itself is based on Dante's Inferno , Dante's death mask , the Battle of Marciano by Vasari . And historical , known locations : the Palazzo Vecchio , Florence , Il Duomo , the Florence Baptistry , Palace and square of Sain Marcos of Venice and the Hagia Sophia and inside Basilica Cistern , in Istanbul, where Enrico Dandolo is buried. The latter was a Doge of Venice from 1192 until his death. He is remembered for his blindness , longevity, and shrewdness, and is infamous for his role in the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople in which he , at age ninety and blind , led the Venetian contingent , he led to the conquest and sack of Constantinople on April 12, 1204, an event at which Dandolo was present and in which he played a directing role .
The book is MUCH better than the movie
- Chalice_Of_Evil
- Oct 11, 2016
- Permalink
Production interference ruined ending
- ingunnlara92
- Oct 13, 2016
- Permalink
Description should be "inspired from" not "based on" Inferno by Dan Brown.
- yishu-75061
- Apr 21, 2020
- Permalink
Why would they change the ending? That was the best part of the book... WHY?
If you adored the last two, I don't think you'll be as disappointed as the critics would have you believe.
Honestly, I am not sure where all of the criticism is coming from. It's a thoroughly enjoyable thriller, with constant plot twists riddled through it. It's very similar to both Angels and Demons, and The Davinci Code, so if you considered those mediocre or dull, then expect nothing different here. Many of the critics, it would appear, hated the clue-hunting, historical side of the film. So those critics were, once more, disappointed with the clue-hunting and historical aspects of the film. However, if you saw the first two films and loved them like I do, then you won't be disappointed, as personally, I believe that this actually brings a lot more to the table.
Either way, if you liked the first two, but are concerned about what the critics have to say regarding Inferno, take a look at the reviews for the last two films before you write this film off. The reviews are overly harsh, and many people find the historical fiction and puzzle-solving dull, which if you do, would make the film unbearable. If you don't hate those aspects, then the film is the cherry on top for this trilogy.
Either way, if you liked the first two, but are concerned about what the critics have to say regarding Inferno, take a look at the reviews for the last two films before you write this film off. The reviews are overly harsh, and many people find the historical fiction and puzzle-solving dull, which if you do, would make the film unbearable. If you don't hate those aspects, then the film is the cherry on top for this trilogy.
Was that really necessary?
- mydistracteduniverse
- Dec 25, 2016
- Permalink
Don't watch if you read the book...
A Summary of the Novel for Fans, Bewildering for Others
The film versions of Dan Brown's best-selling thrillers have been passable at best, and the latest, "Inferno," is no exception. While the books are undeniable page turners, the screen adaptations, all directed by Ron Howard and produced by Brian Grazer, are formulaic summaries that remind readers what the novels explored in depth. The Howard/Grazer-Brown films are set against scenic European locations; star Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, an expert on obscure symbology; feature an attractive, much younger female co-star; involve ancient texts or art works that require extensive deciphering to solve a mystery of great import; and move at a fast-pace in a race against time. Unfortunately, unraveling a mystery that involves Dante's Inferno is likely a bit too complex for most viewers to grasp and is easier explained in words than visually on a screen.
Ron Howard's "Inferno," adapted by David Koepp, is not only a sketchy rework of the novel, but also lacks a memorable villain like Paul Bettany's Silas, the albino monk in "The Da Vinci Code," who was sinister, creepy, and unforgettable. While Ben Foster has the acting chops to create a great villain such as his Charlie Prince in "3:10 to Yuma," Foster's Betrand Zobrist herein is largely seen in video flashbacks and lacks any genuine menace. Tom Hanks's Langdon is also somewhat colorless, although he is appropriately professorial and repeatedly lectures the audience on esoteric errors in a visual depiction of Dante's Hell; while perhaps important to unraveling the mystery, the tedious details are about as dull as a college lecture on symbology. Felicity Jones is lovely as the requisite female sidekick, but she has little to do other than be a decorous plot device and on-screen audience for Langdon's lectures.
While the rapid-fire editing of Langdon's hallucinations and visions adds little but confusion, Salvatore Totino's cinematography captures the color of Florence, Venice, and Istanbul, and Hans Zimmer's score is as important an asset to this film as it was to the two previous Dan Brown adaptations. Despite messing with the novel's ending, "Inferno" manages to remind the novel's fans of the story's highlights. However, as with all three Ron Howard films, the complexity of unraveling a mystery based on historical literary texts and art works is practically impossible to film in a satisfying way for viewers unfamiliar with the novels. Howard should have been forewarned by the disappointing adaptation of Umberto Eco's even more complex novel, "The Name of the Rose," and passed on this series. Perhaps a master filmmaker exists who could capture the intellectual challenges of the Brown and Eco books on film, but Howard is not that director. "Inferno" will likely hold the attention of, but still disappoint, those familiar with the book. However, beyond the legions of die-hard Tom Hanks fans, other audiences may be more bewildered than entertained.
Ron Howard's "Inferno," adapted by David Koepp, is not only a sketchy rework of the novel, but also lacks a memorable villain like Paul Bettany's Silas, the albino monk in "The Da Vinci Code," who was sinister, creepy, and unforgettable. While Ben Foster has the acting chops to create a great villain such as his Charlie Prince in "3:10 to Yuma," Foster's Betrand Zobrist herein is largely seen in video flashbacks and lacks any genuine menace. Tom Hanks's Langdon is also somewhat colorless, although he is appropriately professorial and repeatedly lectures the audience on esoteric errors in a visual depiction of Dante's Hell; while perhaps important to unraveling the mystery, the tedious details are about as dull as a college lecture on symbology. Felicity Jones is lovely as the requisite female sidekick, but she has little to do other than be a decorous plot device and on-screen audience for Langdon's lectures.
While the rapid-fire editing of Langdon's hallucinations and visions adds little but confusion, Salvatore Totino's cinematography captures the color of Florence, Venice, and Istanbul, and Hans Zimmer's score is as important an asset to this film as it was to the two previous Dan Brown adaptations. Despite messing with the novel's ending, "Inferno" manages to remind the novel's fans of the story's highlights. However, as with all three Ron Howard films, the complexity of unraveling a mystery based on historical literary texts and art works is practically impossible to film in a satisfying way for viewers unfamiliar with the novels. Howard should have been forewarned by the disappointing adaptation of Umberto Eco's even more complex novel, "The Name of the Rose," and passed on this series. Perhaps a master filmmaker exists who could capture the intellectual challenges of the Brown and Eco books on film, but Howard is not that director. "Inferno" will likely hold the attention of, but still disappoint, those familiar with the book. However, beyond the legions of die-hard Tom Hanks fans, other audiences may be more bewildered than entertained.
Above average entertainment
I am not sure what the dismal ticket sales and generally bad reviews are all about with this movie. If you liked the first 2 Robert Langdon\ Dan Brown movies you should like this one. The only thing missing is a cool religious conspiracy angle. But "Inferno" has the same clues, chases, and surprises that its predecessors had. The plot twists don't make a lot of sense sometimes, I read the book years ago and I would still be hard-pressed to explain how one thing leads to another--but that shouldn't influence anyone's enjoyment of the movie. It certainly doesn't stop anyone from reading the books. I will be looking forward to "The Lost Symbol", hopefully that is still on.
- mclong2009
- Oct 31, 2016
- Permalink
Good one
"Inferno" delivered a somewhat average cinematic experience, earning a 6/10 in my estimation. Its strength lay in the intriguing premise and the visual spectacle of its international settings. Tom Hanks' acting remained a reliable anchor, but the film's weakness emerged in its convoluted plot and attempts to replicate the success of its predecessors. While the cinematography offered glimpses of beauty, it couldn't fully compensate for the film's narrative shortcomings. The music and visuals served their purpose without leaving a lasting impact. Overall, "Inferno" offered a decent enough ride, but it lacked the gripping narrative and innovation required to truly set it apart.
- chera_khalid
- Sep 19, 2023
- Permalink
Another Philosophical Treasure Hunt
Another treasure hunt across Europe as Langdon acts surprised that the world's leading bodies seek his help, should be expected once you've traced Jesus and discovered the Illuminati in the Catholic church. Anyway, in a very similar fashion to the two previous films, Hanks is joined by a female sidekick who also happens to be a genius. Following a series of clues they try to prevent an inevitable doom. If you enjoyed the former films in the series, you'll enjoy this one too.
Again though, there are big plot holes easily spotted, and quite often the dialogue is used to just blind you with art, philosophy and history so you don't think about how daft it's all getting. Seriously, the billionaire could have just opened the bag before the story even takes place and stopped any attempts to stop him. Common sense would suggest the story is just ridiculous.
Plenty of twists along the way to keep up with, but to be fair, you're able to keep a grasp on what's happening throughout if you focus on the bare plot. It moves swiftly, acting is adequate, and it is enjoyable if you manage not to pick it all apart. If you didn't mind similar holes in the Da Vinci Code or Angels & Demons, then Inferno can certainly be enjoyed.
Again though, there are big plot holes easily spotted, and quite often the dialogue is used to just blind you with art, philosophy and history so you don't think about how daft it's all getting. Seriously, the billionaire could have just opened the bag before the story even takes place and stopped any attempts to stop him. Common sense would suggest the story is just ridiculous.
Plenty of twists along the way to keep up with, but to be fair, you're able to keep a grasp on what's happening throughout if you focus on the bare plot. It moves swiftly, acting is adequate, and it is enjoyable if you manage not to pick it all apart. If you didn't mind similar holes in the Da Vinci Code or Angels & Demons, then Inferno can certainly be enjoyed.
- deepfrieddodo
- Feb 13, 2021
- Permalink
Disappointed with the changed ending
- uditgrimreaper
- Oct 13, 2016
- Permalink
2020 Feb, very good timing to re-watch the movie
- byur-65808
- Feb 8, 2020
- Permalink
Total Disappointment
I watched this film with great expectation having read the book and found it gripping with a superb ending . This film left me totally disappointed , it is so changed from the book I could not believe it. It is the equivalent of making a movie about the second world war where Germany wins.If your going to see this read the book afterwards it is far superior.Why it has been changed so much I have no idea , maybe they don't want to offend the W.H.O or the church .I would like to know if Dan Brown approved of this .It may be they just wanted another run of the mill movie where the American hero always saves the day.We need another film maker to step up and make the real Inferno which tells the story as in the book , sensitive issues and all.
- foggydewhurst
- Nov 29, 2016
- Permalink
Enjoyable for what it is
- facesofine
- Oct 28, 2016
- Permalink
A bad version of Jason Bourne
This film tells the story of a cryptology professor who wakes up in a hospital in Florence, not knowing why he sustained a head injury. He then finds out that he has to solve a mystery to prevent the release of deadly virus planted be a fanatical man.
"Inferno" is a change from the previous two films, because this time Professor Langdon doesn't know it all, and the female sidekick doesn't ask a million questions to help clear things up for viewers. This time, Dr Brooks even provides encyclopaedic knowledge when Professor Langdon is incapacitated. However, there is little cryptic mystery to be solved, which makes the film rather uninteresting. They run around like a bad version of Jason Bourne. It's slightly disappointing for me.
"Inferno" is a change from the previous two films, because this time Professor Langdon doesn't know it all, and the female sidekick doesn't ask a million questions to help clear things up for viewers. This time, Dr Brooks even provides encyclopaedic knowledge when Professor Langdon is incapacitated. However, there is little cryptic mystery to be solved, which makes the film rather uninteresting. They run around like a bad version of Jason Bourne. It's slightly disappointing for me.
90 percent good, 10 percent TOTALLY HORRIBLE
- germanysexy
- Oct 19, 2016
- Permalink
The third, and worst, of the Langdon-Hanks-Brown-Howard films
Personally didn't mind 'The Da Vinci Code', though it was a long way from great, but 'Angels and Demons' while with some good things was lacklustre. Unfortunately, the latest film 'Inferno' is no better, in fact all the mistakes made in 'Angels and Demons' are made here and made bigger while a few more grievous ones are made.
There is not much that saves 'Inferno', but it does have to be said that the locations are truly stunning with some nice location work that makes one wish that they belonged in a much better film. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting once again and accentuates the thriller mood of the film, though it was orchestrated more cleverly before. Tom Hanks again gives his role an easy-going charm and effortless authority, there is not much personal at stake seemingly here for Langdon but Hanks is always watchable and gives his all.
However, that is pretty much all that was good. As has been said already, the worst thing about 'Inferno' is the ending (which, also agreed, was the thing that elevated the book to a greater level, the ending in the book was that good), rendering everything seen in the film and all the events in the book useless in an ending that felt like a tacked on cop-out that reeked of production/studio interference. This said, the ending doesn't single-handedly bring 'Inferno' down, as there are other just as glaring problems too.
Ron Howard's direction is a mess, it is hard to believe that somebody who has a Best Director Oscar and has done some very good to outstanding work directed in a way that suggested more first time director learning (or more like struggling to learn) the ropes, finding urgency is a constant struggle and then he paces things in a rushed and erratic way.
Despite the stunning locations and nice location work, 'Inferno' is cheapened by some haphazard editing and over-reliance on high-speed tracking shots that suggest a cinematographer drunk on the job and have a dizzying effect, actually felt rather woozy and sick after seeing the film. Cast-wise, only Hanks rises above his material. Felicity Jones has a very underwritten character with little backstory and incomplete motivations and it shows in delivery and range lacking in expression, a very going-through-the-motions performance. The rest of the cast either overact or are wasted in caricature roles, with no sense of threat present.
Further disadvantaging them are a very corny script, with countless lines of clunky and awkward dialogue that sounds confused, overly-condensed and disorganised. Even worse a story that just doesn't compel, with its over-explanatory at times, but even more frequently convoluted, nature, and pacing that is so jumpy but at the same time so pedestrian that there is the sense that the writers and Howard had no idea what to do with the material and when and how to bring urgency into it.
On the whole, three or so good things but the rest makes Langdon's hair significantly less floppy in comparison. 3/10 Bethany Cox
There is not much that saves 'Inferno', but it does have to be said that the locations are truly stunning with some nice location work that makes one wish that they belonged in a much better film. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting once again and accentuates the thriller mood of the film, though it was orchestrated more cleverly before. Tom Hanks again gives his role an easy-going charm and effortless authority, there is not much personal at stake seemingly here for Langdon but Hanks is always watchable and gives his all.
However, that is pretty much all that was good. As has been said already, the worst thing about 'Inferno' is the ending (which, also agreed, was the thing that elevated the book to a greater level, the ending in the book was that good), rendering everything seen in the film and all the events in the book useless in an ending that felt like a tacked on cop-out that reeked of production/studio interference. This said, the ending doesn't single-handedly bring 'Inferno' down, as there are other just as glaring problems too.
Ron Howard's direction is a mess, it is hard to believe that somebody who has a Best Director Oscar and has done some very good to outstanding work directed in a way that suggested more first time director learning (or more like struggling to learn) the ropes, finding urgency is a constant struggle and then he paces things in a rushed and erratic way.
Despite the stunning locations and nice location work, 'Inferno' is cheapened by some haphazard editing and over-reliance on high-speed tracking shots that suggest a cinematographer drunk on the job and have a dizzying effect, actually felt rather woozy and sick after seeing the film. Cast-wise, only Hanks rises above his material. Felicity Jones has a very underwritten character with little backstory and incomplete motivations and it shows in delivery and range lacking in expression, a very going-through-the-motions performance. The rest of the cast either overact or are wasted in caricature roles, with no sense of threat present.
Further disadvantaging them are a very corny script, with countless lines of clunky and awkward dialogue that sounds confused, overly-condensed and disorganised. Even worse a story that just doesn't compel, with its over-explanatory at times, but even more frequently convoluted, nature, and pacing that is so jumpy but at the same time so pedestrian that there is the sense that the writers and Howard had no idea what to do with the material and when and how to bring urgency into it.
On the whole, three or so good things but the rest makes Langdon's hair significantly less floppy in comparison. 3/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Dec 12, 2016
- Permalink