Reviewed byMonMothmaVote: 6/10/10
I enjoyed the Inferno film for the most part as I'm very fond of TomHanks as Robert Langdon. One of the main reasons that I like thesebooks so much is because they provide such a wealth of backgroundhistorical information so they're a prefect blend of education andentertainment.
While it was obviously impractical to include an involved literarydiscussion of Dante's Inferno in the film, it's a shame that it wasbarely touched on at all as to me, it was one of the most interestingaspects of the entire story. Like many, I was also surprised anddisappointed by the changed ending. The book's solution was challengingbut elegant; the film clunky and predictable.
Reviewed byzeki-4Vote: 6/10/10
Imagine if Spielberg had directed 'Godfather' and Coppola had directedthe Indiana Jones movies. Both great directors, but it wouldn't haveworked.
Same thing applies here. Like the first two in this franchise, 'DaVinci Code' and 'Angels and Demons', there's just something terriblywrong with the direction. Yes, the Langdon movies are suppose to befast paced, but if almost no scenes are allowed to breathe, does itmatter?
And why do director Ron Howard keep on insisting insulting myintelligence? 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 standardwidescreen, instead of cinemascope, like the first two. When you make amovie with several visually looking fantastic locales around the world,it SCREAMS cinemascope.
And the best park of the book? They completely changed it. Guess theywanted 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 thiswhen the dust settles.
If the studio decides to make 'Lost Symbol' and - for once - have aLangdon movie getting great reviews, they should probably hire anotherdirector.
Reviewed bynalandyVote: 6/10/10
TL;DR: This movie was good but forgettable. Reading the book beforehandis a positive here and you will want to go see it, but keepexpectations down and expect a radically altered story with no lastingimpression. If you haven't read the book, prepare to be confused, butit can still be an entertaining ride.
Edition watched: 2D IMAX
The largest positive for this movie is Tom Hanks. Hank's role here is aslight departure from how he previously played the role, due to thecircumstances that are made apparent from the very beginning (but Iwon't spoil), and yet he was excellent again as Robert Langdon. Asidefrom Hanks, the story was muddled but chase-movie action and constantchanges of beautiful scenery makes this entertaining if forgettable.
I have read the book (and liked it) and I went to see it with 2 peoplewho had not read it.
For those who haven't read the book, you should know that this is notlike the other 2 Dan Brown movies. Those stories dealt with secrets andpuzzles from many years ago (hundreds or thousands in some cases) andthey had that Indiana Jones for the art history major feel to them. Inthis movie, all the puzzles are manufactured by a modern day characterin the story, so it almost completely lacks that Indiana Jones feel.Even though I had warned my movie companions about this, both werequite disappointed by this aspect.
However, the biggest problem my non-book reading movie companions hadwas confusion. As someone who knew what was going on, even I felt theway they injected some story elements and then dropped them just asfast was a bit dizzying. Given that this movie was adapted for thescreen and had radically altered elements from the book, the handlingof the story telling was sub par.
Both of my movie companions felt the movie was entertaining but nothingspecial. One sentence opinion: "It was OK and I enjoyed it." and "Itwas OK, let's go eat."
For those who have read the book, in my opinion this movie departsradically from the source material. That said, reading the book is anadvantage and might be a compelling reason to go see this. Knowing thebook-story means you will know what is going on, even through elementsthat were not in the book and/or were presented poorly (e.g. skinrash). I found the changes made for a better experience since I wasn'tjust seeing a rehash of what I had read. That said, among severaldisappointments, I was looking forward to a Vasari Corridor scene and Iwas very much let down.
One thing to note, Dan Brown's message was pretty much lost and Iwonder if that was intentional? Even the ending, which in the book wasused to punctuate Dan Brown's obvious point, is radically changed inthe movie. So while the basic story is similar, the actual take away Ileft the theater with was very different from the book. I mark this asnegative because the book made me think about what I had taken for agiven, the movie simply entertained me and went away afterwards.
Overall, as someone who read the book, I enjoyed the movie but did feellet down.
Academy Award? winner Ron Howard returns to direct the latest bestseller in Dan Brown's (Da Vinci Code) billion-dollar Robert Langdon series, Inferno, which finds the famous symbologist (again played by Tom Hanks) on a trail of clues tied to the great Dante himself. When Langdon wakes up in an Italian hospital with amnesia, he teams up with Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones), a doctor he hopes will help him recover his memories. Together, they race across Europe and against the clock to stop a madman from unleashing a global virus that would wipe out half of the world's population.