User Reviews

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

This^ seems to be the popular comment whenever a movie adaptation of a book is released. I myself haven't read too many of the books that have been turned into movies, and of the ones that I have read, the movie versions were fairly decent. So it comes as quite a shock for me to see a movie adaptation of a book and be sorely disappointed, which is unfortunately the case with Inferno. I hadn't read the books that the two previous movies were based on, I only saw the film versions, and I actually preferred Angels & Demons to The Da Vinci Code. Inferno was the first Dan Brown novel I've read, which I did so once I learned there was a movie version being made and who had been cast. I don't know what the previous two books were like, but for me personally, Inferno was a fantastic read that I couldn't put down. I know some of what Dante's Inferno is about and its fascinating subject matter which allows for some nice disturbing imagery. It felt like it would make a great movie, and I could totally picture the book playing out onscreen. Sadly, the changes made are rarely ever for the 'better', contrary to what some opinions may have you believe.

The beginning was the first change I noted, as it pretty much puts out there what the "villain's" motive is right from the beginning, whereas in the book you discover what it's really all about as you read on. I'll admit that Ron Howard's managed to tackle the tricky subject of Robert Langdon's hallucinations that he finds himself with after waking up in a hospital, wounded, with amnesia, quite well. There are some striking images. These visuals could be confusing/might not make complete sense to some, but they convey just how disorientated Tom Hanks' character is. Speaking of, Hanks is obviously comfortable in the role now, this being his third outing. Langdon is a likable guy, though he's a bit snarky at times, but it's never to the detriment of his character. His Langdon is confused and trying to piece things together with the help of Dr. Sienna Brooks played by the lovely Felicity Jones. Yes, she's much younger than Hanks, as have been his previous two leading ladies...deal with it. They aren't paired up in 'that' sort of way. She helps him on his journey of discovering clues regarding how to stop the spread of a virus that Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, who's pretty much wasted here) believes is the only solution to Earth's overpopulation problem.

Jones' Sienna proves more than a match for Hanks' Langdon, she's intelligent, resourceful, cunning, and is more than she appears...which, unfortunately, is where the movie's first real mistake occurs. The book goes into great detail about Sienna's background and what drives her as a character/the choices she makes, but apart from one flashback scene late into the movie, we're not given nearly enough information about her to really understand the character's motivations. There's a lot more to the character than what the movie would have you believe, and I was particularly disappointed/upset regarding what they did with her at the end. Jones is more than up to the task of portraying this character's complexities, and she has a nice chemistry with Hanks, so it's a shame the movie doesn't dive into her character more. I don't mind changes from book to movie if they make *sense*, but there's really no reason why such a drastic change had to be made with her character.

Adding to the above disappointment is the changing of the book's ending as a whole. The message was actually really important, and I was hoping it wouldn't receive the 'Hollywood treatment', but sadly they've gone the predictable route by not sticking to what made the book's ending so great. The movie could've been saved, had they kept the book's ending, but instead it's rather weak/wholly paint-by-numbers and therefore boring. Along with the two leads, the movie's other benefits are its pace (things seldom slow down until near the end, before the climax),as mentioned before, its visuals, and the return of an actually *interesting* requisite assassin who pursues Langdon. The Da Vinci Code had Paul Bettany's memorable albino monk, the second movie's equivalent was...some guy with glasses, and this time we have one in the form of Vayentha. Ana Ularu doesn't get to say much, but she conveys a lot with just her looks and appears ruthless enough in the role. The confrontation between her, Langdon and Sienna above the Hall of the Five Hundred in the Palazzo Vecchio is memorable, especially when she meets her fate.

I was less fond of the Elizabeth Sinskey character/her relationship with Langdon, which slowed things down near the end. Time could've been better spent elsewhere. Irrfan Khan's 'The Provost' feels as though he's meant to provide the majority of what little 'humour' (albeit of the morbid variety) the movie has, but falls rather short on account of the fact that he tends to mumble/is hard to understand a lot of the times. Omar Sy's Christoph Bouchard is...fine. Ida Darvish's Marta, however, is a welcome side character. Reading a book that I enjoyed immensely, only to have a sub-par movie adaptation of it made is a new experience for me, and not one I'd like to repeat in the future. For those who're wondering whether they should read the book before seeing the movie...see the movie first if you don't wish to be disappointed, as perhaps when taken on its own merit the film isn't that bad. However, if you have a sense of morbid curiosity and wish to see just what's been done to what *should've* been a great movie, then read the book first. The third option is to imagine the film's cast when reading the book and NOT watch the movie, as doing so will most likely lead to your disappointment just like it did for me.

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.

I had been meaning to watch Inferno when it first came out in the cinemas, but circumstance kept me from doing that for several weeks. If I had known then what I know now, I would have skipped the cinema altogether and waited until the movie is out on Netflix.

The Book

I listened to the book version earlier this year and it took me months to finish. It was just really not that good. Something about the story kept me from putting it aside and listen to something else in between several times. The story just drags on and on. Dan Brown really tries hard to recreate the success of the Da Vinci Code. But he doesn't quite get there. I think he needs to get away from the Robert Langdon stories and come up with something new.

I listened to Deception Point awhile back and that was brilliant. It is one of his earlier books, pre Langdon era. I reckon after The Da Vinci Code it was a logical step to keep the momentum going. Angels and Demons and The Lost Symbol where still okay, although already declining in that order. I may need to take a break from Dan Brown for a while. Maybe I start enjoying his books again in the future.

With all of that in mind I was wondering why I was so eager to watch the movie Inferno in the first place. I suppose the answer is I read the books and I saw the other movies. Might as well keep going.

Mixed Feelings

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the story. There is something intriguing about it. Why I had such a hard time finishing it I don't know. Maybe they're we're just too many twists and turns. The momentum got lost along the way. Movies are never as detailed as books; how could they be, and that partly appealed to me in this case. Plus I really do enjoy watching Tom Hanks. The previews for the movie looked halfway interesting and that settled it for me in the end. So, when I finally got the chance I went ahead and booked my ticket.

With all that in mind however, I didn't have very high expectations for the movie and thus I was not disappointed. It is by no means terrible, but it is definitely not the best movie ever made.

The Movie

Tom Hanks once again resumes to role of Robert Langdon, a Harvard university professor, who specialises in religious iconology and symbology. In this installment he finds himself waking up with a head wound in a hospital in Florence, Italy with no idea of what happened. He does not know why he even is in Florence nor does he remember how he got there.

From here on the story develops pretty close to the book for a while. The ending has been changed to conform more to a Hollywood style finish, which is a shame. It's a disease in the movie industry to change stories, sometimes almost beyond recognition. It didn't go quite that far with Inferno but still. I rather liked the book ending.

The Story

Robert Langton wakes up in the hospital in Florence Italy struck with a head wound and partial amnesia. He has no recall of the past two days and no idea how he got to Florence and why he is there. When a fake police officer attempts to show to him he is rescued by his doctor Sienna Brooks. They find a bio hazard tube in his belongings that turns out to be a projector for the scene of Dante's Inferno. Together Langdon and Brooks race to put the pieces of the puzzle together to find out who wants to kill him and what is behind those strange visions that Langdon has. In the end it come down to saving the world from a major catastrophe. We would not expected anything less.

It's fascinating how the movie incorporates the weird dreams and flashbacks that Langdon has. That part was very well done and is as disorienting to the viewer as it must have been for the character himself.

Overall, Inferno is not a terrible movie, but in my opinion its also nothing to get excited about. I guess that is why it has taken me quite a while to write the review.

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

Where to start? Whole movie is messed up. The movie is good but stating that it's based on INFERNO novel made it worse. People expections are high when they go to see movie after reading book. The casting for Provost & Beartron Zobrist were awful especially of Provost. There are lots of alterations that makes it from being in Awe to Meh. The element of surprise is altered heavily, they opened the suspense of vector virus far sooner than I expected & the virus was never actually saved but in movie it was saved. As a stand-alone movie it is good but after reading book I was highly disappointed with it. If you have read the book don't watch it with high hopes. I didn't like the character played of Provost by Irrfan Khan. Provost in book was calm and smart but movie he felt dumb at times. Till date I think Da Vinci Code was the most accurate adaptation of Dan Brown.

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.

Real Inferno happening... don't read news due to spoiler alert...

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...

The latest entry in the Dan Brown series is entertaining, just not as good as the previous two. The first one had plenty of controversy, and the second one dared explore the world of the Vatican and human intrigue. The professor is now in the middle of another adventure to save half the world from a very deadly plague.

Such enterprise might prove a bit too complicated because he is injured and suffering from episodes of memory loss. To complicate matters even more, while trying to put together the latest puzzle, he sees something on a surveillance video that places him in the middle of another crime scene.

There was something about the plot in the novel which was more challenging than the other two. This is part of the problem in this adaptation for there are too many twists in the story, and things become hard to understand for those who have never read the book or have forgotten most of it.

The good professor has a new ally. They narrowly avoid getting caught in Florence, find themselves facing more threats on a train to Venice, and things go really strange when the principals are in Turkey.

Howard tried hard, but this movie would have benefited from a more careful treatment of the story. Unlike some of the recent films that have been split into two, this one actually needed that type of adaptation in order to make it more accessible.

Still, it's a pleasure to see Sy, Jones, and Hanks interacting with each other. Talk about being dressed and having too many places to go to.

I am a big fan of both the books and the movies. And when I saw that Inferno would finally be released as a movie, I was thrilled. So I bought a ticket, went into the cinema, watched it..... and came out disappointed. It started out strong and it was visually appealing and it hooked me to my seat. I couldn't look away. Then we come to the last part. Yes, Sienna's reveal wasn't exactly foreign since I read the book but could they please keep the snogging to a minimum. He could have explained it in another way but noooo. This is Hollywood so there must be at least a whole scene full of making out in a sexy way (uuuggghhh). This however did not bother me as much as another thing. THE BLOODY ENDING! They entered the cistern and I was so ready to just grin happily when they would find the broken bag that had released the virus long before the plot began. But what did they do? Change it all up so it's never released and they live happily ever after (well not all of them). I was ready to cheer. I was ready to rave about it. Instead I find myself writing a negative review about it. Bad move, movie company. Bad Move!