Personally didn't mind 'The Da Vinci Code', though it was a long way from great, but 'Angels and Demons' while with some good things was lacklustre. Unfortunately, the latest film 'Inferno' is no better, in fact all the mistakes made in 'Angels and Demons' are made here and made bigger while a few more grievous ones are made.
There is not much that saves 'Inferno', but it does have to be said that the locations are truly stunning with some nice location work that makes one wish that they belonged in a much better film. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting once again and accentuates the thriller mood of the film, though it was orchestrated more cleverly before. Tom Hanks again gives his role an easy-going charm and effortless authority, there is not much personal at stake seemingly here for Langdon but Hanks is always watchable and gives his all.
However, that is pretty much all that was good. As has been said already, the worst thing about 'Inferno' is the ending (which, also agreed, was the thing that elevated the book to a greater level, the ending in the book was that good), rendering everything seen in the film and all the events in the book useless in an ending that felt like a tacked on cop-out that reeked of production/studio interference. This said, the ending doesn't single-handedly bring 'Inferno' down, as there are other just as glaring problems too.
Ron Howard's direction is a mess, it is hard to believe that somebody who has a Best Director Oscar and has done some very good to outstanding work directed in a way that suggested more first time director learning (or more like struggling to learn) the ropes, finding urgency is a constant struggle and then he paces things in a rushed and erratic way.
Despite the stunning locations and nice location work, 'Inferno' is cheapened by some haphazard editing and over-reliance on high-speed tracking shots that suggest a cinematographer drunk on the job and have a dizzying effect, actually felt rather woozy and sick after seeing the film. Cast-wise, only Hanks rises above his material. Felicity Jones has a very underwritten character with little backstory and incomplete motivations and it shows in delivery and range lacking in expression, a very going-through-the-motions performance. The rest of the cast either overact or are wasted in caricature roles, with no sense of threat present.
Further disadvantaging them are a very corny script, with countless lines of clunky and awkward dialogue that sounds confused, overly-condensed and disorganised. Even worse a story that just doesn't compel, with its over-explanatory at times, but even more frequently convoluted, nature, and pacing that is so jumpy but at the same time so pedestrian that there is the sense that the writers and Howard had no idea what to do with the material and when and how to bring urgency into it.
On the whole, three or so good things but the rest makes Langdon's hair significantly less floppy in comparison. 3/10 Bethany Cox
There is not much that saves 'Inferno', but it does have to be said that the locations are truly stunning with some nice location work that makes one wish that they belonged in a much better film. Hans Zimmer's music score is haunting once again and accentuates the thriller mood of the film, though it was orchestrated more cleverly before. Tom Hanks again gives his role an easy-going charm and effortless authority, there is not much personal at stake seemingly here for Langdon but Hanks is always watchable and gives his all.
However, that is pretty much all that was good. As has been said already, the worst thing about 'Inferno' is the ending (which, also agreed, was the thing that elevated the book to a greater level, the ending in the book was that good), rendering everything seen in the film and all the events in the book useless in an ending that felt like a tacked on cop-out that reeked of production/studio interference. This said, the ending doesn't single-handedly bring 'Inferno' down, as there are other just as glaring problems too.
Ron Howard's direction is a mess, it is hard to believe that somebody who has a Best Director Oscar and has done some very good to outstanding work directed in a way that suggested more first time director learning (or more like struggling to learn) the ropes, finding urgency is a constant struggle and then he paces things in a rushed and erratic way.
Despite the stunning locations and nice location work, 'Inferno' is cheapened by some haphazard editing and over-reliance on high-speed tracking shots that suggest a cinematographer drunk on the job and have a dizzying effect, actually felt rather woozy and sick after seeing the film. Cast-wise, only Hanks rises above his material. Felicity Jones has a very underwritten character with little backstory and incomplete motivations and it shows in delivery and range lacking in expression, a very going-through-the-motions performance. The rest of the cast either overact or are wasted in caricature roles, with no sense of threat present.
Further disadvantaging them are a very corny script, with countless lines of clunky and awkward dialogue that sounds confused, overly-condensed and disorganised. Even worse a story that just doesn't compel, with its over-explanatory at times, but even more frequently convoluted, nature, and pacing that is so jumpy but at the same time so pedestrian that there is the sense that the writers and Howard had no idea what to do with the material and when and how to bring urgency into it.
On the whole, three or so good things but the rest makes Langdon's hair significantly less floppy in comparison. 3/10 Bethany Cox