Yes! Finally a sequel! I actually just re-watched "The Da-Vinci Code" & "Angles & Demons"
Finally I came around watching this movie. I have the book on my bookshelf for quite some time now but never took the time actually reading it. After not even being able to finish this atrocious movie I am even more hesitant about taking that time.
Dan Brown books have a rather predictable and obvious story progression but I like them anyway.
This relatively particular high suspense chase from tourist attraction to tourist attraction, some shocking twist at some time and the happy end. Nothing extraordinary creative but usually with an intriguing set and interesting facts here and there about history, symbology, etc. Perhaps not entirely correct all the time but still.
In the movies this has been - until this movie - pretty suspenseful with a great Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon.
But the start of this movie just feels stressful with this amnesia thing. Shaky, flickering hallucinations are a thing that annoy me incredibly much. It just does and at the start of this movie I was already very quickly annoyed. Add in the chase part of this kind of story and you get a very stressful start of the movie. I don't know about you, but I do not watch movies to get stressed.
Add in cardboard sidecharacters and a terrible, terrible twist with Dr. Brooks that you will not care about because that character is just a hollow shell without any distinctive motive like any of the other characters. Everyone in this is only a backdrop for Hanks to play his worst Langdon yet.
This movie is stripped away from all the things that make it worthwhile, that make Dan Brown stories intriguing. Left is only the formulaic composition of the same story we already had in Angels & Demons.
Cook and fry some noodles with vegetables, put some meat on it if you want, some tangy sauce and you get a simple but yummy meal. Cook noodles and put them on a plate and you get this movie. Tasteless, boring noodles.
If you're into that (by choice), you'll like this movie.
Book > Movie till the end of times
This movie is crap. I don't like it
Just like The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, this was incredibly well done. The plots in these movies are put together so good but this might have been my favorite in the trilogy. Because Langdon doesn't remember what happened you have to put together the pieces of his mind the same way as he does and throughout the movie you learn as much as he does. A great shocker when Sienna turns out the be part of the sinister side instead of the good girl she pretended to be.
And the always pleasant bonus of these movies is the amazing scenery.
This was a great movie... until to the point where they've decided to change the book ending... Ruined the whole thing for me...
Atrocious! This movie is an abomination. People were moaning midway, some walked out. I don't know if Ron Howard was high when he made this or just didn't care or both, but I regret that I actually paid for this. And that's coming from someone who paid to see Under Siege with Steven Seagal and the Police Academy movies. Seriously do yourself a favor and skip this one. If you enjoyed Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons you will hate this one. Even more so you will ask yourself if this is even from the same people. All I can say is this. If something works please don't try to make it different just so because it's different. Have an idea! This was a total mess from start to beginning and the first 30 minutes where Langdon has hallucinations are barely watchable. Someone was clearly on acid. There is just no other explanation how an accomplished film maker like Howard made something as terrible as this. If someone has that flash thingy from Men in Black please send me a message. I need to get flashed. Twice. Just to make sure.
I agree with Galileo 5 .. Worst movie with Tom Hanks and the biggest disappointment of the year.
was this based on the book? really? must have read a different book. turned the movie to commercial garbage when the book was surprisingly different with the ending. changing above all else the ending? oh no...
Compared to the first two movies in the Robert Langdon series, this was a poor and disappointing movie.. Slow and full of plot holes, this does not represent Tom Hanks wonderful acting at all.
This movie is horrible for those who read the book first! They changed the end of the story, and for worse!
Dan Brown's novels are terrible and so it is with the films. I have fallen asleep during all of them. Please, Ron Howard, don't make another one. If I want to watch a movie about somebody running around a museum I would watch Ben Stiller. Hellish... Dante must be turning in his grave.
Despite all the negative I read about this movie I wanted to watch this because I´m usually the first one to tell others to form their own opinion.
Well, it´s a typical Dan Brown story that doesn´t care much about plausibility or plot holes. That doesn´t necessarily make this an awful movie. If you can accept that and don´t ask to many questions you might be entertained.
Engaging with a lot of twists, even if not all of them work. Probably the least silly of the films as well. While being less of a religion based thriller. Tom Hanks was excellent, probably his best work as Langdon.
I enjoy it, even with many riddles it didn't get confusing and it had agony and an ok story.
Tom Hanks continues doing well and the film is still intense and interesting, if you liked the others you will likes this
Sidse Babett Knudsen is so MOTHER
The weakest of Dan Brown's Langdon novels is unsurprisingly the weakest of Ron Howard's adaptations. Not really Howard's fault, since the source material was so uninspired, but after almost a decade since Angels and Demons, it was kind of a deflated return to form for Hanks and Howard.
Still gotta give props to my man Hans Zimmer for keeping the Langdon score going so hard!
And do u still think COVID was not released into Wuhan by US millitary attending Millitary World Olympics that year October in Wuhan?
Dan Brown novels are much better to read.
Awful adaptation of a fairly decent novel. An atrocious change at the end make it unbearable.
It's been said before, but still... having just re-read the book, I thought it was finally time to see the movie adaptation (if that's what you want to call it).
Absolutely horrible changes they made to the story! I get that you might have to cut some parts out, or rewrite something to make it fit into a 2-hour movie, but why waste time with the totally useless Langdon-Sinskey "romance" instead of some actual storytelling?
Of course, the whole changed ending (which I had heard about) is, in a word, shit.
Sienna is suddenly "evil", there are bombs going off, the provost is now a knife-wielding action man, and the virus isn't released!?
The whole last part inside the cistern made no sense at all. "Dr. Sinskey" sees the bag explode inside the plexiglass thing and just declares that the virus is contained. No testing, no nothing, she just knows.
So-so movie on its own, but an absolutely horrible book-to-movie.
Let me break this down for you in terms of my thoughts:
The best:
+ Tom Hanks is ace as usual
+ Some interesting ideas
+ It's nicely shot
The worst:
- Hanks hair
- Felicity Jones character
- It's boring
- Bland directing
- Horrible writing
- Who ask for a third one?
Good luck with the next Han Solo movie, Howard.
Why change the end of the movie??
Robert Langdon returns to save the world from a sinister airborne pathogen in this continuation of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code franchise. Oddly, despite three jumbo-sized films and a whole mess of fluffy promotion, the series has yet to settle on a definitive identity for itself. Where I felt there was a whiff of something worth pursuing in the first film - a middle-aged professor, cracking dusty cryptographs against the backdrop of ancient history - subsequent films have steadily minimized that in favor of beefier, more generic reaches.
In Inferno's case, Langdon has been plopped into the aftermath of a personality cult and blessed with a case of amnesia. It feels like a mismatch from the start, like Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock taking the spotlight in the latest Bourne adventure, and never settles into much of a rhythm. The constant wheel-jerks and "shock and awe" plot twists of the earlier chapters haven't gone anywhere, of course, and they're still far too numerous for their own good. Such drastic shifts lose all meaning if they occur at five-minute intervals. Costars Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones have a certain entrancing dynamic, a central relationship which is robbed of its defining moment by the abundance of such plot acrobatics.
The shame of it is, Inferno actually has a few clever ideas. Tragically, they're almost completely washed away by hopeless over-complication and desperate mood swings.
The movie is kinda disappointing...Read the book if you didn't.
The movie as execution is bad, I was expecting the plot of the novel to save a bit the awful experience. To my surprise they "tamed" the end and destroyed one of the few things that could bring this film up to an acceptable level.
This movie is stupid. Nothing makes sense and it's boring. All three movies are the same formula and it got old after the first. If I wanted to watch someone try to kill a bunch of people to save the world I would of watched Infinity War again.
While I generally enjoyed the earlier installments in this series I can't imagine what Hanks was thinking when he went back to the well one more time. Woof.
https://IHateBadMovies.com
not good for 6 but only to the turkey scenes
Useless movie
( nothing to add)
Felicity Jones was a fine partner for Hanks. Then we get that silly twist Dan Brown always has. That is disappointing. Under-rated actor Irrfan Khan (Jurassic World, Life of Pi) easily steals the show in this one.
In this flawed trilogy, the first film is still the best. I was into this movie anyway but that twist is bad. Shocking but bad.
Loved the Book and i also liked the other Langdon Movies but this one... Boring, way away from the Book and just bad.
Mas de lo mismo, muchos fallos en el guion y los primeros minutos son bastantes pesados. Lo mas agradable el contenido de las ciudades históricas visitadas.
The previous movies were quite good adaptions of the books, this one was.... definately a lot less good. Still an entertaining movie.
too over exploted history, but TH is always 10/10,
The worst of the Langdom movies but if you enjoy Tom Hanks you should enjoy this too.
Yet another reason for me to never listen to modern reviews. I quite enjoyed that. Actually I liked it far better than the previous two movies.
It took them quite some time to continue with the Robert Langdon saga. I read the books years ago and I could remember most of the story so I was surprised how accurate it seemed to be (might be I remembered too little ;)). Quite solid movie – though nothing special ;).
I did read the book but that was some time ago, so didn't really remember what happens. Enjoyed the movie too.
Decent film. Good thriller. Recommend.
They changed the ending compared to original book completely. Seriously?
Book was good, movie was beeeeeh
If you havent read the book you dont have any clue what you are watching.
I'll spare you the trouble, just dont watch this one, skip it!
Não sei dizer ainda se é o melhor!
To much talking around nothing and generally not so exciting.
no new ideas in this movie
Excellent this delivery of Dan Brown
It was a really bad movie mates.
I like Tom Hanks, great actor. This movie is more of the same style as Davinci code. Starting to get a bit samey now.
how to play this movie
I was with my friends to watch, a i was familiar with previous part,but my friend didn't
I was thinking what was wrong with the director, bad bad bad movie
Read the book then watch the movie and wonder why they are so different! All in all pretty enjoyable but Book > Movie
it's good but not as other paryts like the da vinci code angels and demons
While maintaining the core material of the book, the issues of overpopulation are done well to alarm us of a real situation that is happening right now. But changing some key parts of the plot was the tipping point that turned the movie into a bland, Hollywood flick. The book had a bold idea at the end (by releasing the virus to Earth's population and turning one third of mankind infertile) and because of that, it created a strong female character that was the companion of Langdon, but also a major plot-and-mind-changer throughout Inferno.
The movie made the complete opposite, destroying the wicked and brilliant character that was Sienna (putting her in a position of a senseless mass-murderer without ideas or principles).
Overall, with the beautiful scenery and good VFXs, the movie discarded the intricate solution of overpopulation to a simple "cat and mouse" chase with the good and "heroic" ending.
Shout by PaulaBlockedParent2017-01-10T02:22:31Z
So angry they changed the ending. It could have been actually the major twist. When I read the book it was awesome, I loved it. But the movie mmm they could have made something better. And I think the performances were weak. I was excited when I saw they were making a film of this, I enjoyed the davinci code and angels and demons. Ironically, Inferno is the only book I've read from Dan Brown. Maybe that's why I didn't like the movie? I don't really know but we'll. It could have been so much better.