Reviews & Ratings for
Inferno More at IMDbPro »

Page 1 of 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

156 out of 187 people found the following review useful:

Production interference ruined ending

Author: ingunnlara92 from Iceland
14 October 2016

What happened in the process of adapting the book to script, filming, cutting, editing? Did someone get knocked over on the head or did they just make a decision to kill their own film? In a nutshell: Know that brilliant, creative, controversial yet elegantly beautiful plot twist ending we all know and love from the books? Well, here's a cheesy happy ending. I can just imagine the producers (which happen to be Ron Howard and Brian Graze of Imagine) sitting in their little office going: Mmm.. that ending is crazy! We can't let that happen! What will the audience say? We can't make a STATEMENT like that! YOUR AUDIENCE (a large amount being book readers) are coming to be impressed, to see an interesting look at overpopulation and Dante's inferno and plague images! I mean, the fact of the matter is: Overpopulation is a problem and Dan Brown proposes an elegant solution in the form of a "plague" which PLOT TWIST: Doesn't actually kill anyone, but makes the 1/3 of the population (by random) become infertile. It solves the issue without being genocide. No one dies, yet the problem is solved. Elegant, brilliant, shocking, and opens up a conversation about a real life crisis we are facing. Interesting subject relevant to your audience.

Right, okay, at some point they decided to change the ending. Which means at the end you are still stuck with the question of overpopulation. The film makers decided to stick with the crowded scenes. So they constantly showing us that THIS IS A PROBLEM that needs to be solved. Or at least something to acknowledge. Did they offer an alternative or did they decide just to stop the bad guy? They decided to stop the bad guys, not offering even a philosophical comment by Professor Langdon. The problem is still staring us in the face as Langdon flirts with W.H.O. director Sinskey and gets his watch back.

You did not give us an ending. You did not give us a tying up of knots. You gave us a cheesy, cheap, Hollywood ending that blew up in your face.

Also lets talk about the casting choices. Or not. Because it sure looks like they didn't give a crap.

I think the producers got scared. Copped out. Underestimated their audience. Just bad storytelling really. What a waste of a Friday evening that was.

93 out of 129 people found the following review useful:

Empty calories, mainly due to poor direction

Author: zeki-4 from Denmark
9 October 2016

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.

55 out of 71 people found the following review useful:

Why would they change the ending? That was the best part of the book... WHY?

Author: tudor2
16 October 2016

Dan Brown is one of my favorite writers, maybe Inferno was not his best book but it was still good enough. i've read it in 2 days , i know a lot of people that loved it. One of the best things about Inferno was the ending, and they decided to leave it out of the movie script...

That was a big mistake, that's why i recommend everybody to give the book a chance even if u tried the movie...

I gave the book 9 stars out of 10. I can only give the movie 4 stars out of 10.

I'm sorry they changed the soul of the movie , they tried to make it more Hollywood and they made a big mistake...

Thanks

44 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

A Wasted Opportunity

Author: MonMothma from Ireland
15 October 2016

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.

44 out of 58 people found the following review useful:

Disappointed with the changed ending

Author: uditgrimreaper from India
14 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

specially Created my first account to tell Sony what the hell they have done

Ending was the biggest let down When you expect the movie to actually show virus being released as compared to the cliché plot of virus being contained in the last moment , it is disappointing and waste of money to be let down

Irfan Khan was wasted while Felicity Jones was expressionless

For Book lovers it would definitely be a letdown

Emotion building was missing, and it was too fast paced that made it a let down.... If you are reading this avoid Inferno...

39 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

Messy, weak and lacking the serious impact of a serious crisis.

Author: Guy Jeffries from London, Uk
16 October 2016

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

35 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Don't watch if you read the book...

Author: hectorblg from Mexico
15 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

kind of SPOILER... It doesn't matter casting, direction, location, production, acting and anything if the best part of the book, the GLORIOUS AND GREAT FINALE that made Dan Brown a genius was changed to the most common, stupid ending of a silly Hollywood mystery/thriller movie. It's like if in 'The Empire strikes back', Darth Vader answered: "yes, I killed your father..." or in 'Seven', Kevin Spacey is caught by Brad Pitt just in time to save his wife. What the hell were the producers thinking? They had the chance to make one of the best movies in 2016 and just wasted it. Too much shame on Ron Howard for being such a poor director and for Dan Brown for allowing it.

27 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Good but forgettable (reading the book vs not).

Author: nalandy from Philippines
13 October 2016

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.

39 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Discards so many details, The best part of the book was missing

Author: Muhammad Rustom from Turkey
14 October 2016

The movie was good but not good enough as the book was, if you read the book you can imagine a better movie, when the movie started i tried to concentrate on small details which were missing but that was changed when Langdon and sienna have been separated until that point the movie was quite similar to the core concept of the book except that Langdon were able to solve the mystery easily and too fast.. after that point the movie took different direction than Dan brown him self the killing at the end of movie was ejection from Ron Howard

in the book they couldn't contend the virus and they were late six days they get there in the last day where the virus became widespread and they couldn't do any thing. sienna was trying to help and she didn't kill any body at the end also she told Dr. Elizabeth Sinskey what is the virus

the message of the book wasn't delivered enough

the bad part is that maybe some audiences didn't understand the essence of the virus

28 out of 39 people found the following review useful:

Just give me another Da Vinci Code

Author: Robin Vangampelaere from Belgium
19 October 2016

I never did read the Dan Brown books and solely went to see this movie with the previous two movies as background. What a disappointment!

The movie starts with Robert Langdon having flashbacks and weird visions. By itself nothing out of the ordinary weren't it for the tedious assembly. In stead of getting people invested in what is happening with the professor, you just get white flashes alternated with some scenes that do intrigue until they give those again a generic filter you can even make yourself in Windows Movie Maker.

When the movie eventually gets into the story it's rushing from one place to the next. If this was an ordinary action movie that would be acceptable, but absolutely not in a Dan Brown movie. The attractive part of Langdon is the puzzle solving, the adventure, the mysteries. Not someone who says:"Let's go trough this door. I know it is there because I read it in a book."

The ending is the worst of the whole movie. Again, a lot of action, but that is not what the Dan Brown-series is about. I heard that in the book the ending is totally different and I really wonder why they changed it, but this is a review of a movie and not from the book. So, I have to give the ending the fame of one of the worst endings of 2016 for me. No puzzle, no big reveal, just some action.

Overall if you like Langdon and you wished for something like Angels & Demons without the riddles and with even more action than you are at the right place, but that's absolutely not what I wanted or expected from this movie. I wish I could go back to the static, immersive Langdon from The Da Vinci Code who paused here and there and where the history and the characters intrigued him and me.

Page 1 of 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

Related Links