To me, this movie is perfection.

Great Film overall

Better Late Then Never

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

What could you expect from a proffesional director like Ron Howard?He's a cliché. He knows how to direct any kind of scene, knows how to score those scenes, the rhythm the scenes require, everything. He's also soulless. He doesn't elevates anything. Granted. These books (Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons and Inferno) are hard to elevate because Dan Brown (I love him) writes very simplistic almost-direct-to-movie-script-like movies.But still, Ron Howard does this with other material too. In this case, he gets some visuals sueper right (R. Langdon's nightmares). But those are just a few.Other than that, this is a movie to turn your brain off and enjoy the ride, but not much more than that.

Part 3 in the Dan Brown/ Robert Langdon 'books to films' see's Hanks return in another Ron Howard directed film, this time it's "Inferno" that gets the treatment. The female co-pilot in this film, as each story has had one, is Felicity Jones as Sienna Brooks. Waking up in a 'hospital' with 'amnesia' Langdon has to solve the mystery of his lost memory while working on the mystery of solving a modified version of Dante's "Inferno", which will help them uncover a global terrorist plot created by billionaire Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster). Having no memory makes it difficult for Langdon to know what lead him here, what's happened and what coffee is called. Twists and turns, high adrenaline, book-smart sleuthing, with a little more paranoia than before. This film really had a lot of potential, more so than the other films - it's darker, has potentially bigger fatality risks for humanity and it has a lot of unexpected twists. Unfortunately I found this to be the weaker of the three films pumped out so far. Dialogue and reasoning was occasionally stupid. Intentions and motives were sign posted. The bad guy is really the good guy and the good guy is really the bad guy - a staple for these Dan Brown films. It's all been done and is a bit tired. The main change was that the riddles and clues weren't marked out as obviously for the audience, in fact they were glossed over pretty quickly as if they didn't really matter - if you've watched the film, think back - what was Dante's map of hell there to point out - most people probably won't remember without it taxing their thoughts for some time. This was a theme - rather than look at the puzzles it was more a case of being a chase film. What happened to the end of the film too? Avid book readers will know that this is not how the book ended - it looks like director and producers wanted their own version of the end to make the film fall in line with Hollywood - nothing gets answered or resolved - the issue of overpopulation, which is a central theme to the movie, is still there at the end. It hasn't been looked at, hasn't been solved - it's all as it was when the film started. A little let down, 5 out of 10. Not awful, but definitely not great either. I don't think there will be many more of these now - this trilogy seems to have gotten worse in all aspects, from directions to cast delivery, from scenery on view, to performances, from story telling to plot twists.

I so enjoyed the book that I took my whole family to the cinema to see this film, which had me standing up at the end declaring it bloody terrible and a total disappointment. The ending of the book was so spot on so I couldn't understand the need to change it so drastically, to this wet nonsense. After leaving I also realised they had changed all of the character's physical characteristics, and their personalities. Why??

Since I'm a mortal and thus unable to spare infinite amounts of time, I haven't read the Dan Brown book this movie is based on. By way of educated guess I would say that this is a fairly faithful adaptation, since everything screams Dan Brown : an implausible premise, weird conspiracies involving fanatics and assassins, bizarre minions cropping up all over the place, lots and lots of explosions, lots and lots of pursuits, untimely excursions into Art History 101 or the touristic treasures of the Mediterranean Area. Another typical trait : a time bomb, neatly labeled for your convenience.And of course there is the usual incompetent twaddle about symbolololology : no franchise can do without.The plot holes are beyond counting. The main one is serious enough to capsize the ship all on its own. If you are a misanthropic lunatic obsessed with the population explosion and environmental degradation, and if you are able to get your hands on a deadly virus, why not use the virus immediately ? Or if you fear that you will be unable to perform the work yourself, why not leave clear instructions to your collaborators along the lines of "This is the exact hiding place of the object : go there and open the vial" ? Why would anyone want to pile riddle upon riddle, or organize a magical mystery tour along the most stunning works of art of Italy and Turkey ? Talking about riddles, it is a mystery to me why fine artists like Sy, Knudsen or Hanks give themselves the permission to participate in tripe like this. Yes, yes, there are mountains - Himalayas - of cash involved, but surely there must be other projects providing a nice fee ? Who knows, perhaps someone was kind enough to give them an injection, afterwards, which induced retrograde amnesia.Or there may be some kind of "Ipcress file" brainwashing going on : ask these people where they were during the shooting and they'll go "kkksst-krr-kssst-errgl".The problem is that "Inferno" isn't just an annoying and obnoxious movie, it crosses the line where it becomes actively dangerous.Dan Brown may be honestly convinced of the dangers of overpopulation but if so, he chooses a most perverse way of showing his concern. The movie tells the story of a misanthropic eccentric who wants to "cull" the human population. This is not miles removed from suggesting that everyone worried about overpopulation is, by definition, a misanthropic eccentric seething with blood lust - especially if one takes into account the current cultural climate, where fact, reason and civic discourse have been snowed under by propaganda, wishful thinking and conspiracy theories. The sad results are here : think, for instance, of the vast number of people who do not "believe" in climate change, as if this were a matter of belief and not of facts. Also deeply disquieting : the large number of people who are willing to gobble any exciting nonsense, as long as there are enough explosions and pursuits, but who can't be arsed to read a serious report on a serious environmental issue. Dan Brown, a purveyor of cheap conspiracy theories and brainless thinking if there ever was one, contributes merrily to the confusion. The same can be said of the various makers of this movie.