When Robert Langdon wakes up in an Italian hospital with amnesia, he teams up with Dr. Sienna Brooks, and together they must race across Europe against the clock to foil a deadly global plot.
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.
Uploaded By: ZACH Downloaded 20,630 times January 06, 2017 at 04:41 AM
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.
Reviewed by zeki-46 / 10
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.
Reviewed by tudor24 / 10
Why would they change the ending? That was the best part of the book... WHY?
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...