Inferno

Cruelly ordinary, purely artisanal, middle-class Hollywood. The acting is just right – two or three big names and the rest are extras, some mystery, panoramas of famous cities in Italy, and here and there a hint of an action scene. Hanks is cool, but he will never make a dent in the world with Langdon. If this were a single film, it could be described as average, but considering it’s part of a trilogy, where all films are basically the same, it's a dud that doesn't take the material anywhere, in other words, it falls flat. (30/10/2016)

The previous two installments had their merits, but the same cannot be said for the new addition, Inferno. Ron Howard disappointed me this time. As a film, Inferno lacks anything that dazzled or impressed me. Tom Hanks seemed to be bored with the role of Langdon after a long time. While I did see some brighter moments in the film, they quickly faded due to nonsensical and inappropriate moments. The plot felt elementary, and I didn’t encounter any major surprises in the main storyline. One thing I can at least praise is the locations where it was filmed, but especially Hans Zimmer's music. He was the only one who didn’t let me down in the entire film. Maybe I’m alone in this, but I expected a mystical and mysterious atmosphere, which I simply didn’t get. Instead, I was presented with members of the World Health Organization carrying automatic weapons. Really? It all felt rushed and overly action-packed, which didn’t suit the story at all. I give it 50%. (04/02/2017)

It’s without a proper conspiracy subplot that would make news website readers' libidos harden, but with the futile plot of a nickel-and-dime thriller, with Howard making Langdon into Bourne and the viewer, even in the back row, an asshole who needs to see flashbacks 5-7 times. The exceptional stupidity is underlined by the fact that it takes itself seriously to the last symbol. If this were a lone wolf, not a member of a trilogy, I'd consider it decent sabotage from Howard. (13/10/2016)

Worse than Angels, better than the Code. Nice historical monuments and Hans’s music alone would have earned the movie a few points, but this time round Brown did some hard work on the plot, letting the balding Hanks save the world from a dangerous pathogen. Which is fine. Cheesy, but fine. The hellish hallucinations are well done, even if a little disruptive in a wider context, but I love Dante. If you know what is in store for you, you’ll leave the movie content. (21/10/2016)

Ron Howard diligently pushes grand shots even where the viewer wouldn't expect them, and strives to make us forget about how formulaic the whole series feels. The supporting characters unnecessarily dilute the attention, and Felicity Jones' lukewarm performance doesn't help either. But what's even sadder is that even after a long break from Angels and Demons, it's clear that the screenplay is just trying to pick out the better ingredients from that and from The Da Vinci Code without adding anything new. Despite Tom Hanks' still surprisingly vibrant performance, my score remains below average, and I remain confused by this mishmash until this day. (23/07/2018)