Inferno

First of all I read the book before watching the film. This seems to be significant on how the reviews are made.

Like a few others have mentioned on here, the ending is such a disappointment. The book has brilliant twists but the movie is classic simple happy ending. Times are changing and I think people are getting tired of cliché happy endings. Imagine leaving the cinema if the movie ended as the book did. The thought provoking debate that would ensue between watchers would be great.

The love story between Langdon and Sinskey isn't needed.

I found Vayentha's acting poor. I couldn't buy into Sienna's role.Poor acting? Maybe.

I thought people should have died at the end of LOTR and that was over 10 years ago. Too many happy endings for my liking. This movie has betrayed the book to its detriment.

Not a happy camper at all.

I enjoyed the Inferno film for the most part as I'm very fond of Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. One of the main reasons that I like these books so much is because they provide such a wealth of background historical information so they're a prefect blend of education and entertainment.

While it was obviously impractical to include an involved literary discussion of Dante's Inferno in the film, it's a shame that it was barely touched on at all as to me, it was one of the most interesting aspects of the entire story. Like many, I was also surprised and disappointed by the changed ending. The book's solution was challenging but elegant; the film…clunky and predictable.

Pity.

The Dan Brown's international best-seller is brought to life in this film directed by Ron Howard (Cinderella man) with screenplay by David Koepp and starred by Tom Hanks (Oscar winner for Philadelphia -1993- and Forrest Gump -1994-) as the symbol expert named Robert Langdon , Felicity Jones as Dr. Sienna Brooks , among others . The story talks the Symbologist Robert Langdon ,as he wakes up in an Italian hospital with amnesia ; he is being treated by Dr Brooks who hopes will help him recover his memories , when there appears a series killer (Ana Ularu) attempting to kill them . Both of them escape and join forces , being pursued by Carabinieris , officers from World Health Organization and a dark organization . Meanwhile , a millionaire , Dante fanatic (Ben Foster) has supposedly developed a new biological plague that will kill off a large portion of the world's population in order to quickly solve the problem of the world's impending overpopulation , citing the Doomsday Argument . Together , Langdon and Brooks , must race across various cities (Florence , Venice , Istanbul) to foil a criminal plot ; being chased by people from the World Health Organization (Omar Sy) , and one of them (Sidse Babett Knudsen) is someone he knows . As they go through the obscure conspiracy that lies before them and run against the clock to avoid a deadly global scheme .

This thrilling movie is a genuine ripping yarn with intrigue , mystery , tension and outstanding surprises . Inferno is a moving mystery thriller based upon the novel by American author Dan Brown and the fourth book in his Robert Langdon series , following Angels & Demons , Da Vinci Code and The Lost Symbol . The book was released in 2013 and it was number one American Best Seller list for hardcover fiction and Combined Print & E-book fiction . In comparison with the previous two films that focused more on solving codes and riddles and religious against science situations , Inferno (2016) focuses more on moral dilemmas , global diseases , memory loss and character development.

Nice interpretations all around , as main cast as support actors . Tom Hanks gives a magnificent acting , as always , as the American professor of Symbology at Harvard University relentlessly pursued by police forces or organizations and attempting stop a madman from unleashing a global virus that would wipe out half of the world's population . Attractive Felicity Jones , she is pretty good as Dr. Sienna Brooks who teams up with Langdon to discover a malicious world plot . Stunning Ben Foster as Bertrand Zobrist , he is a transhumanist genius scientist , a brilliant geneticist and magnate who is obsessed with Dante's Inferno , he is intent on solving the world's overpopulation problem by releasing a virus . Charming Sidse Babett Knudsen as Elizabeth Sinskey , the former Robert's love interest , and nowadays the head of the World Health Organization . Sympathetic Ida Darvish as Marta Alvarez , an employee at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence who assists Langdon with Dante's death mask . Splendid Ana Ularu as the Consortium's agent in Florence who has orders to follow Langdon but is later disavowed by The Consortium , she falls after a confrontation with Robert and Sienna in the Palazzo Vecchio . Furthermore , Omar Sy and Irrfan Khan as two suspect spies . Stirring and evocative score by Hans Zimmer who composed the music of the three Robert Langdon films . In comparison to Code Da Vinci (2006) and Angels and Demons (2009), where the music was mostly orchestral with a few cues of electronic music , this film has a heavier electronic content . Colorful cinematography by Salvatore Totino , this is the only film of the trilogy to be shot with a 1:85:1 Widescreen aspect ratio, as well as the only one to be shot digitally . Being shot on location , this is the second film where Robert Langdon is in Italy , with the first film being Angels and demons , though the majority of the film was shot in Hungary for budgetary reasons . The picture lavishly produced by Brian Grazer was compellingly directed by Ron Howard , this is the fifth collaboration between Tom Hanks and director Ron Howard . Although it had a budget of $75 million, which was much lower than the first two installments.

As usual , there are several cultural , artistic , historical references , including the followings : a modified version of Botticelli's Map of Hell , which itself is based on Dante's Inferno , Dante's death mask , the Battle of Marciano by Vasari . And historical , known locations : the Palazzo Vecchio , Florence , Il Duomo , the Florence Baptistry , Palace and square of Sain Marcos of Venice and the Hagia Sophia and inside Basilica Cistern , in Istanbul, where Enrico Dandolo is buried. The latter was a Doge of Venice from 1192 until his death. He is remembered for his blindness , longevity, and shrewdness, and is infamous for his role in the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople in which he , at age ninety and blind , led the Venetian contingent , he led to the conquest and sack of Constantinople on April 12, 1204, an event at which Dandolo was present and in which he played a directing role .

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.