Inferno

Worse than Angels, better than the Code. Nice historical monuments and Hans’s music alone would have earned the movie a few points, but this time round Brown did some hard work on the plot, letting the balding Hanks save the world from a dangerous pathogen. Which is fine. Cheesy, but fine. The hellish hallucinations are well done, even if a little disruptive in a wider context, but I love Dante. If you know what is in store for you, you’ll leave the movie content. (21/10/2016)

Whether it was The Da Vinci Code or Angels & Demons, these were adventure films that I felt respected the book they were based on. But Inferno pretty much wipes its own ass with the book it’s based on and I can’t understand at all how Ron Howard could have let this happen. I mean the previous films essentially stuck with the idea of the books. In this movie, not only do they not stick with the idea of the book, they essentially completely reversed it so that it would serve the interest of the movie. And I’m sorry about that, really really sorry. Because Felicity Jones has a great character to play in this one. And maybe I see it this way because I simply grew to like her as an actress. But as a whole, I cannot but complain. Inferno is not a good movie. And it would still be average even if I wasn’t familiar with the book. I didn’t like the editing. I didn’t like that the structure of the plot was essentially the same as in the previous films and I didn’t understand at all why the film refers to Dante’s “Divine Comedy” when, at least according to the film, it has no effect on the main idea of the film. And if there is an effect, it’s very fringe. So, personally I think that Inferno is the worst film adaptation of a book that I have ever seen. And seeing all the things that are behind this film makes it even worse. (07/02/2017)

I was disappointed by it less than by the book, during which I just shook my head disbelievingly and yawned. The script improved the silly story a bit, but the main stupidity, unfortunately, remained - it can't be said that the film is bad because it has a brisk pace and at the end everything essentially works together (unless you think about it more than necessary), and both Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones are fine. Only Hans Zimmer didn't do anything extra this time and if I didn't know that the music was composed by him again, it wouldn't have occurred to me (compared to the perfect The Da Vinci Code and especially Angels and Demons). I think Ron Howard should have done The Lost Symbol... Or preferably film something completely different. (24/02/2019)

Ron Howard diligently pushes grand shots even where the viewer wouldn't expect them, and strives to make us forget about how formulaic the whole series feels. The supporting characters unnecessarily dilute the attention, and Felicity Jones' lukewarm performance doesn't help either. But what's even sadder is that even after a long break from Angels and Demons, it's clear that the screenplay is just trying to pick out the better ingredients from that and from The Da Vinci Code without adding anything new. Despite Tom Hanks' still surprisingly vibrant performance, my score remains below average, and I remain confused by this mishmash until this day. (23/07/2018)

Cruelly ordinary, purely artisanal, middle-class Hollywood. The acting is just right – two or three big names and the rest are extras, some mystery, panoramas of famous cities in Italy, and here and there a hint of an action scene. Hanks is cool, but he will never make a dent in the world with Langdon. If this were a single film, it could be described as average, but considering it’s part of a trilogy, where all films are basically the same, it's a dud that doesn't take the material anywhere, in other words, it falls flat. (30/10/2016)