A murder inside the Louvre and clues in Da Vinci paintings lead to the discovery of a religious mystery protected by a secret society for two thousand years -- which could shake the foundations of Christianity.
Jack Reacher must uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy in order to clear his name. On the run as a fugitive from the law, Reacher uncovers a potential secret from his past that could change his life forever.
Arthur Bishop thought he had put his murderous past behind him, until his most formidable foe kidnaps the love of his life. Now he is forced to travel the globe to complete three impossible assassinations, and do what he does best: make them look like accidents.
Tommy Lee Jones
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. Written by
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Inferno (2016) had a budget of 75 million dollars, which was much lower than the first two installments. See more »
When Langdon (Tom Hanks) opens Ignazio's e-mail, the apostrophe in "they're" is inverted (in fact, it is not an apostrophe but an okina), but when several close-ups are shown in the next shots (obviously not filmed off the same screen or any screen at all), the apostrophe is correct. See more »
The third, and worst, of the Langdon-Hanks-Brown-Howard films
Personally didn't mind 'The Da Vinci Code', though it was a long way from great, but 'Angels and Demons' while with some good things was lacklustre. Unfortunately, the latest film 'Inferno' is no better, in fact all the mistakes made in 'Angels and Demons' are made here and made bigger while a few more grievous ones are made.
There is not much that saves 'Inferno', but it does have to be said that the locations are truly stunning with some nice location work that makes one wish that they belonged in a much better film. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting once again and accentuates the thriller mood of the film, though it was orchestrated more cleverly before. Tom Hanks again gives his role an easy-going charm and effortless authority, there is not much personal at stake seemingly here for Langdon but Hanks is always watchable and gives his all.
However, that is pretty much all that was good. As has been said already, the worst thing about 'Inferno' is the ending (which, also agreed, was the thing that elevated the book to a greater level, the ending in the book was that good), rendering everything seen in the film and all the events in the book useless in an ending that felt like a tacked on cop-out that reeked of production/studio interference. This said, the ending doesn't single-handedly bring 'Inferno' down, as there are other just as glaring problems too.
Ron Howard's direction is a mess, it is hard to believe that somebody who has a Best Director Oscar and has done some very good to outstanding work directed in a way that suggested more first time director learning (or more like struggling to learn) the ropes, finding urgency is a constant struggle and then he paces things in a rushed and erratic way.
Despite the stunning locations and nice location work, 'Inferno' is cheapened by some haphazard editing and over-reliance on high-speed tracking shots that suggest a cinematographer drunk on the job and have a dizzying effect, actually felt rather woozy and sick after seeing the film. Cast-wise, only Hanks rises above his material. Felicity Jones has a very underwritten character with little backstory and incomplete motivations and it shows in delivery and range lacking in expression, a very going-through-the-motions performance. The rest of the cast either overact or are wasted in caricature roles, with no sense of threat present.
Further disadvantaging them are a very corny script, with countless lines of clunky and awkward dialogue that sounds confused, overly-condensed and disorganised. Even worse a story that just doesn't compel, with its over-explanatory at times, but even more frequently convoluted, nature, and pacing that is so jumpy but at the same time so pedestrian that there is the sense that the writers and Howard had no idea what to do with the material and when and how to bring urgency into it.
On the whole, three or so good things but the rest makes Langdon's hair significantly less floppy in comparison. 3/10 Bethany Cox
32 of 41 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?