Inferno

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.

If you manage to watch this through without your brain going "come on", then congratulations. Because if you think about it (not), then this is just a popcorn movie. Something you watch for the ride and the tension rising and just going with the pace and not question things that are happening.

But if by any chance your brain comes to life and tells you: that's just ... bad, let's call it bad, then you should not be too surprised. Tom Hanks has the charisma to carry this though and any change in direction and flip flop that may occur will not deter him. Which brings us to a final set up that is so cringe worthy you probably will lose your teeth over it - not in a good way

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.

So, Ron Howard, Tom Hanks and Hans Zimmer return for the third movie adaptation of Dan Brown's bestselling symbolist and iconology professional, Robert Langdon. Though we seem to be ironically missing, The Lost Symbol where Langdon tramples over Washington's Masonic history, which is currently in development but with Howard only sitting in a producers chair.

Howard's direction, or the editing seems sloppy and rushed with noticeable out-of-sync audio. It shows that they struggled with cramming as much as the butchered novel into the 121min runtime, missing possible reshoots as some of the performances are really not up to scratch, namely Sidse Babett Knudsen and Omar Sy.

Hanks, slips into Langdon mode totally as expected and the delightful Felicity Jones plays the Bond-girl style sidekick very well as we watch them try to figure out the same puzzles and twists Langdon is usually pitted against. It's unfortunate that the more I think about it, the more silly the elaborate idea becomes.

There's inconsistencies and obvious inaccuracies with the book and I wonder how much power Dan Brown had as executive producer. The story here appears much weaker than the novel, as does some of its characters, especially the reworking of Irrfan Khan's "Provost". A lot of the reasonings are just weak and unrealistic which is a shame for something which could actually happen.

Zimmer's score is of the recognisable Langdon theme but, it's been digitised adding a terrible technical feel that might accompany a espionage thriller. Again, giving me the assumption that the film was rushed and not the polished film it should have been.

What's possibly the biggest disappointment of the film is the factual reality that the story is based on, and as much as we all might like the previous, popular Brown conspiracies, this story is a real looming crisis. It lacks the serious impact the book gives of the current population crisis, the fact that we're nearly 9 billion people on a planet that can currently only support an estimated 4.

It fails to question what we should or what would we do in this situation, which we are actually in and is a serious topic for world governments, councils and organisations like WHO. Should we actively do something about population control or let nature take it's natural course. I don't honestly believe this film has audiences going home and taking a long hard think about the issue or the implications of viruses and other methods of population control. The real question being, do we let people die or save as many as we can to keep mankind from extinction.

True to most trilogy tragedies, this is certainly the worse of the series so far and I'm hoping The Lost Symbol doesn't fall to the same fate with a rumoured Mark Romanek at the helm. I had low expectations to begin with and unfortunately it didn't hit the mark.

Running Time: 6 The Cast: 6 Performance: 6 Direction: 4 Story: 5 Script: 5 Creativity: 7 Soundtrack: 4 Job Description: 3 The Extra Bonus Points: 0 Would I buy the Bluray?: actually yes, only to be part of the series.

46% 5/10

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.