Genre: Adventure with facts about history and art
Director: Ron Howard
Cast: Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones
Duration: 2h 1min
Rating: Not worth it
The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons and now Inferno. I must admit I am a big fan of Dan Brown’s movies. They are entertaining, fast-paced, make you think and are esthetically pleasing. Thus, I was really looking forward to see Inferno. Also, it was the first movie of the series I was going to see without previously reading the book, which was interesting as I could evaluate the movie for itself without any preconception. My final opinion: oh boy, what have they done?
There are so many problems with the movie that I don’t know where to start. First, the plot makes absolutely no sense. As its predecessors, the movie pairs Professor Robert Langdon with a lovely female companion with whom he must solve a path of clues related to history and art while being chased by assassins and police forces throughout Europe. However, this time the reasons why there is a mystery to solve in the first place are not only unclear but also even absurd. In other words, there is not even reason for the story to even take place. Also, the plot is confusing and even clumsy at some times: too many confusing twists and turn, lack of explanations, people being extremely irrational, etc. For your information, I was told the plot was completely modified compared to the original novel, including what motivated the story in the first place, the role of many characters and the end. After they described me the real plot, I must say I am very confused why they changed it as the novel at least made sense.
Second, part of the appeal of the series is that it mixes intense action sequences with thought-provoking mysteries about history, art and conspiracy theories. Well, unlike its predecessors, there is little/almost none of this “intellectual side” in Inferno. It seems Ron Howard decided to go more for the action and pursuits rather than the facts, which, in my opinion, was a big mistake. The clues Langdon has to solve are few and extremely simple and, as a result, I left the movie without knowing anything about Dante’s Inferno.
Finally, something I really appreciated from the prior movies was how beautifully they were shot. For instance, in Angels and Demons, with its views and shots of the different locations, the movie really highlighted the beauty of Rome. Now, even while shooting in inherently beautiful locations such as Florence, Venice and Istanbul, the movie doesn’t even stand up for having a nice visual look.
A good point about the movie is that it is fast-paced and I cannot say I was bored at any moment. The two hours of the movie run smoothly but in the end you are left with an empty feeling. The movie had the inputs to be as good at the other two (a solid storyline, a well-known director and Tom Hanks) but it was dilapidated for very strange reasons. I am surprised why…