Inferno

I had no idea Hanks needed the money to be willing to star in something like this. But maybe he did it for charity. Or to give a history lesson. Or for the symbolism of it... Actually, it's pretty much about nothing. If you want action, this isn't it. If you want someone on the run, maybe it could be worth it. But if you want someone on the run, during which he has time to spout a lot of fine-sounding nonsense, then this film would be recommended. And then there's the part with the virus. How do you feel about a virus? Like one that wipes out a large part of humanity? Then I can't recommend it in that case, either. The cinematography is poor, the script's weak because the subject matter was weak. I don't think there's much to be done here. The acting is standard for such a B-movie (?). Somehow they'll get you through the dirt. A very weak 2 stars. (09/01/2017)

Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon, and Dan Brown shows that more than anything else, he excels at research. However, in Mr. Howard's rendition, it's all kind of the same, and in this case, I wasn't even interested in the mystery itself, which is usually the cornerstone of Brown's books. The horror moments and illusions are great, and Tom Hanks is again great, but that's about it. (17/10/2016)

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)

It’s without a proper conspiracy subplot that would make news website readers' libidos harden, but with the futile plot of a nickel-and-dime thriller, with Howard making Langdon into Bourne and the viewer, even in the back row, an asshole who needs to see flashbacks 5-7 times. The exceptional stupidity is underlined by the fact that it takes itself seriously to the last symbol. If this were a lone wolf, not a member of a trilogy, I'd consider it decent sabotage from Howard. (13/10/2016)