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)

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)

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)

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)

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)