Inferno

(2016)

Inferno - Thumbnail
00:00
1:47:07
  • 1080p
  • 720p
  • 480p
Title:
Inferno
Release Date:
13th October 2016
Runtime:
115 min
MPAA Rating:
PG-13
Genres:
Directors:
Ron Howard
Writers:
Dan Brown, David Koepp
Languages:
N/A
Stream Quality:
1080p / 720p / 480p

Storyline

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.

Ratings

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 32%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience 97%
IMDb Rating 6.9

Casts

Ben Foster as Bertrand Zobrist
Felicity Jones as Dr. Sienna Brooks
Irrfan Khan as Harry Sims 'The Provost'
Sidse Babett Knudsen as Dr. Elizabeth Sinskey
Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by moviexclusive 12th October, 2016

The best of Ron Howard's Dan Brown adaptations, 'Inferno' is a sure-footed mystery thriller that isn't afraid to deviate from its source material for better cinematic impact

After committing papal heresy in 'The Da Vinci Code' and 'Angels and Demons', renowned Harvard University symbiologist Robert Langdon is in arguably less controversial territory with 'Inferno', which sees him pitted against a crazed billionaire geneticist who has invented the titular doomsday virus to wipe out half of the world's population. To be sure, Langdon will not come face to face with the madman named Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster) – not only does a pre- credits sequence establish Zobrist's obsession with humanity's imminent demise through overpopulation, it also shows the man pursued along the streets of Florence, Italy, and finally throwing himself off a bell tower. Instead, Langdon finds himself plunged into the world of 14th century Italian poet Dante Alighieri's 'The Divine Comedy' with a series of apocalyptic visions that accompany his apparent head trauma from a gunshot wound, which also causes him to suffer from mild retrograde amnesia. Or so his doe-eyed helpmeet doctor Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) claims, who after saving him from a female carabineri Vayentha (Ana Ularu) in hospital, seems all too willing to be his sidekick sleuth in uncovering a series of clues that will lead them to the virus, beginning with a 'Faraday pointer' containing an altered image of Botticelli's 'Map of Hell' illustration. The trail will lead them across exotic locations in Florence – from the Boboli Gardens to the Palazzo Vecchio to the Florence Baptistry – and Venice before finally culminating in Istanbul's Hagia Sofia. To make things more exciting of course, Langdon finds himself the target of multiple competing parties, including the World Health Organization director- general Elizabeth Sinskey (Sidse Babett Knudsen), her possibly rogue gang of heavily-armed operatives led by Christoph (Omar Sy), and last but not least the ace fixer Harry Sims (Irrfan Khan) of a shadowy consortium. As much as the chase does lend itself to some big-screen cinematic thrills, Dan Brown's Langdon series were probably more suited for the page, seeing as how lengthy chunks of exposition were devoted to educating its readers on the myriad historical references that served as an intricate web of clues for its protagonist. To screenwriter David Koepp's (returning from 2009's 'Angels and Demons) credit, he has effectively streamlined Brown's novel into an effective race-against-time mystery thriller that stays true to the essence of its source. Fans of the book will no doubt draw their comparisons (and let's just say that there are some significant deviations, most prominently the bleak ending which probably would come across too nihilistic for a mainstream audience), but the distillation – complete with reversals, flashbacks and a midway twist – has enabled Ron Howard (who also directed the earlier two adaptations) to produce his most pacey instalment yet of the three- quel. Oh yes, 'Inferno' is probably the least faithful of them, though arguably for the better. Unlike the plodding 'Da Vinci Code', the first hour moves at an almost breathless pace as Langdon and Sienna go from gallery to gallery tracing Zobrist's steps as well as figuring out the allegiance of the assorted figures that seem bent on acquiring the virus. Howard also injects a stronger stylistic audacity to 'Inferno' than his 2006 and 2009 predecessors, in particular in his imagining of the hellish visions that Langdon is plagued with – that of white- eyed lepers kneeling by the roads, sorcerers with their heads twisted around, and streets covered in rivers of blood. Perhaps the only time his film comes up for air is just before the explosive finale set in a red subterranean Turkish bath, with a romantic subplot between Langdon and Sinskey expertly played by two accomplished actors for all that it is worth. Howard also gives some room for the consortium's enigmatic Provost to impress with his wryness and spryness in the latter half, which Khan reciprocates with a ripe but fun performance. Because 'Inferno' was never made or meant to be character-driven, it rests squarely yet again on Hanks' shoulders to make his character appealing. Indeed, Langdon was never an immediately likable person; in fact, his self-aware intellect quite often turns into self- absorbed pomposity. Yet the ultra-genial Hanks downplays these characteristics for a down-to-earth, sometimes even self- deprecating, portrayal that makes Langdon amiable companion over the film's two hours. Truth be told, the popularity of Dan Brown's super-tourist semiology thrillers with their initially refreshing high-minded emphasis on art and culture has somewhat faded in the decade since, but 'Inferno' is still a sufficiently exciting mystery thriller in its own right, thanks to Howard's sure-handed direction and Hanks' ever-reliable presence. If, as its tagline suggests, 'The Da Vinci Code' and 'Angels and Demons' were just the beginning, then you'd be glad to know that this third Ron Howard adaptation of the Dan Brown series is certainly bigger and better.

Reviewed by keneticmotion 12th October, 2016

InferYes? InferNO!

First, I must warn you to a major spoiler alert. Are you ready? They changed the ending! That's right, it was totally and utterly different from the book which changed one's whole opinion of the actions, perceptions, understanding and estimation of the characters. It was a major change and a major mistake, in my opinion. Other than that, the pacing was poor with the first act feeling rushed, the second act feeling forced and the third feeling rushed again like they couldn't wait to sweep this movie under the rug. The performances from the actors were decent enough, not wholly believable, especially Zobrist, yet not wholly dismissible. Just on par. And so, if you ask me if I would recommend it, I would have to tell you, hell-to-the-inferNO.

Reviewed by jordanando 12th October, 2016

Inferno, just not enough

For what was meant to be another smash hit in the franchise, Inferno certainly did not live up to expectations. The main reason behind this was the length of the movie, too much was crammed into such a short amount of time that it just wasn't possible to visually create as good a story on film as was in the book. Everything was not explained clear enough in the movie, take that extra half an hour to do that, just to give people an ending they deserve to see. For those who rather watch a movie than read the book, yeah sure Inferno is a good movie to watch but to the book lovers, this movie was just not the movie that we should be expecting from Howard. Let the same thing happen in the movie regarding the plague as it did in the book, release it, let people worry and then say hey it's actually not as bad as Zobrist was making it out to be. Hollywood just got too much of a grip on this movie, changed the story to suit a typical movie ending, leave out some key plot points and kill one of the characters because we can, this is certainly not the ingredients that make a Hollywood Blockbuster. I don't know if this film warrants doing another one in the series, but if they were to do that, 2 things must be done: 1. make sure it is the original story on screen and 2. make sure the gap isn't seven years I am giving this movie seven out of ten purely because it would be visually appealing to someone who hasn't read the book before, to someone who has read the book, this movie probably rings more of a 3-5.

Reviewed by tranceformer13 12th October, 2016

Finally, a worthy Dan Brown adaptation!

I love Dan Brown books. Although personally I like the non-Langdon books, I admit that Langdon adventures are an enjoyable reading. And then came Da Vinci Code adaptation. And it was boring and very bad as an adaptation. Then, came Angels & Demons, which was again bad but a bit decent. The major complaint was for both of them, the extended green screen use for every monument and landmark, and of course the bad alterations to the main story. Then, they skipped the third book (thank God they are self- contained) "The Lost Symbol" and decided to adapt the fourth book, being a best seller. And the trailer was bad. So, when I went to the premiere, I had absolutely no expectations soever. And I was gladly disproved! Inferno has no green screens and it is no boring at all. OK, there are some faults, mainly the first 15' due to the lame camera action and some out of place "romantic" scenes at the end, but the rest of the movie is FINE. It is a heavy action/adventure thriller, worthy of the book, with minor changes that did not bother me at all. So, yes. If you want to watch a good Langton adaptation, watch Inferno. Skip all the rest. And let's hope they will adapt the other books, too.

Reviewed by zeki-4 9th October, 2016

Empty calories, mainly due to poor direction

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.