Inferno

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)

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)

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)

Those who have read the book will likely be very disappointed. The search for a (non)treasure feels too simple. The book is, of course, more extensive in terms of discovering hidden ciphers and explaining their nature. It also goes much deeper in the portrayal of the characters – the fact that Langdon is rescued by a doctor who happens to have similar knowledge to him and immediately figures out everything as he does is very cheesy. The deciphering of the codes is too fast and overall it seems almost secondary, but this should be the main essence of the film, it's probably what the audience enjoys the most. Here you have no choice but to nod and say “okay, if you say so”. On the other hand, I understand that not everything can fit in a film. As an action movie it's not bad, but for one completely unnecessary extra romantic line and the ending, I'm going down one star. (13/10/2016)

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)