The film versions of Dan Brown's best-selling thrillers have been passable at best, and the latest, "Inferno," is no exception. While the books are undeniable page turners, the screen adaptations, all directed by Ron Howard and produced by Brian Grazer, are formulaic summaries that remind readers what the novels explored in depth. The Howard/Grazer-Brown films are set against scenic European locations; star Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, an expert on obscure symbology; feature an attractive, much younger female co-star; involve ancient texts or art works that require extensive deciphering to solve a mystery of great import; and move at a fast-pace in a race against time. Unfortunately, unraveling a mystery that involves Dante's Inferno is likely a bit too complex for most viewers to grasp and is easier explained in words than visually on a screen.
Ron Howard's "Inferno," adapted by David Koepp, is not only a sketchy rework of the novel, but also lacks a memorable villain like Paul Bettany's Silas, the albino monk in "The Da Vinci Code," who was sinister, creepy, and unforgettable. While Ben Foster has the acting chops to create a great villain such as his Charlie Prince in "3:10 to Yuma," Foster's Betrand Zobrist herein is largely seen in video flashbacks and lacks any genuine menace. Tom Hanks's Langdon is also somewhat colorless, although he is appropriately professorial and repeatedly lectures the audience on esoteric errors in a visual depiction of Dante's Hell; while perhaps important to unraveling the mystery, the tedious details are about as dull as a college lecture on symbology. Felicity Jones is lovely as the requisite female sidekick, but she has little to do other than be a decorous plot device and on-screen audience for Langdon's lectures.
While the rapid-fire editing of Langdon's hallucinations and visions adds little but confusion, Salvatore Totino's cinematography captures the color of Florence, Venice, and Istanbul, and Hans Zimmer's score is as important an asset to this film as it was to the two previous Dan Brown adaptations. Despite messing with the novel's ending, "Inferno" manages to remind the novel's fans of the story's highlights. However, as with all three Ron Howard films, the complexity of unraveling a mystery based on historical literary texts and art works is practically impossible to film in a satisfying way for viewers unfamiliar with the novels. Howard should have been forewarned by the disappointing adaptation of Umberto Eco's even more complex novel, "The Name of the Rose," and passed on this series. Perhaps a master filmmaker exists who could capture the intellectual challenges of the Brown and Eco books on film, but Howard is not that director. "Inferno" will likely hold the attention of, but still disappoint, those familiar with the book. However, beyond the legions of die-hard Tom Hanks fans, other audiences may be more bewildered than entertained.
Ron Howard's "Inferno," adapted by David Koepp, is not only a sketchy rework of the novel, but also lacks a memorable villain like Paul Bettany's Silas, the albino monk in "The Da Vinci Code," who was sinister, creepy, and unforgettable. While Ben Foster has the acting chops to create a great villain such as his Charlie Prince in "3:10 to Yuma," Foster's Betrand Zobrist herein is largely seen in video flashbacks and lacks any genuine menace. Tom Hanks's Langdon is also somewhat colorless, although he is appropriately professorial and repeatedly lectures the audience on esoteric errors in a visual depiction of Dante's Hell; while perhaps important to unraveling the mystery, the tedious details are about as dull as a college lecture on symbology. Felicity Jones is lovely as the requisite female sidekick, but she has little to do other than be a decorous plot device and on-screen audience for Langdon's lectures.
While the rapid-fire editing of Langdon's hallucinations and visions adds little but confusion, Salvatore Totino's cinematography captures the color of Florence, Venice, and Istanbul, and Hans Zimmer's score is as important an asset to this film as it was to the two previous Dan Brown adaptations. Despite messing with the novel's ending, "Inferno" manages to remind the novel's fans of the story's highlights. However, as with all three Ron Howard films, the complexity of unraveling a mystery based on historical literary texts and art works is practically impossible to film in a satisfying way for viewers unfamiliar with the novels. Howard should have been forewarned by the disappointing adaptation of Umberto Eco's even more complex novel, "The Name of the Rose," and passed on this series. Perhaps a master filmmaker exists who could capture the intellectual challenges of the Brown and Eco books on film, but Howard is not that director. "Inferno" will likely hold the attention of, but still disappoint, those familiar with the book. However, beyond the legions of die-hard Tom Hanks fans, other audiences may be more bewildered than entertained.