Inferno

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.