Well let me begin by stating the fact that I haven’t read any of the books these Robert Langdon movies are based on and because of that, the following review won’t have any of the book vs movie comparison. So the preferred audience for this review would be the ones who are familiar with the stories only via movies. The level of intrigue was good in the first part The Davinci Code and it got a prolific acceleration when it came to Angels and Demons. The common things that made those movies interesting (and equally controversial) were the involvement of religion, belief in God and certain hidden agendas that got covered up. Those movies had dramas set on a more realistic backdrop.
When it comes to Inferno the hunt for clue and criminal format is there, but the lack of connection it has with religion and beliefs and the relatively less use of Langdon’s expertise in signs and anagrams sort of makes Inferno the least intriguing film in the series. Robert Langdon this time is in Florence and his condition is a bit too troublesome as he was going through some mental trauma which caused him to see certain illusions. He has no idea on what happened to him in the last 48 hours and with the help of Dr. Brooks who treated him, he is trying to find out what lead him to Florence.
The format of the other movies in this series has definitely influenced the viewers in creating a pattern in their minds about the story. The lack of excitement is largely because of the fact that the film isn’t doing much to be surprising in its speedy narrative. You do tend to predict who the baddie here is and to be honest, the chances of your prediction going wrong is fairly less.
The sort of hectic feel and tension Angels and Demons created and the kind of historical facts getting related inside a fiction in The Davinci Code and the overall intellectual tussle with religious beliefs ( a topic that excites me personally) created an aura around those films. But Inferno looks like a safe play with no such exciting references and we are dwelling inside Dante’s concept of Inferno. I don’t know whether the book had it, but the hunt for a bag of viruses that can eliminate 95% of the human race needed a few more layers to make it look more convincing on a thought level.
Unlike the other two films, Tom Hanks gets to portray a less clear and more troubled Robert Langdon. Felicity Jones delivers a good performance as Dr. Brooks. The character of Sims played by Irrfan Khan isn’t an extensive one, but it is an important one and Irrfan has played the role with his signature elegance. The rest of the cast comprising of Ben Foster, Sidse Babett Knusden and a few more were okay doing their part.
Ron Howard mixes up the treatment. It has a good tempo in the beginning. Then it slows down occasionally when the film deviates in to the personal regrets of the main protagonist. And like I said already, the amount of excitement and the level of surprise aren’t that amusing. While the concept of Inferno and the signature style of finding the truth in Langdon’s way keeps the audience occupied, that X factor in content and making which should have kept us at the edge of the screen was missing. Hans Zimmer’s scores where fitting. The visual effects where composed neatly to give the required feel.
To sum it up, I would say Inferno is my least favourite in the franchise and it’s an average film. I repeat, this is the review of a guy who went for the film without reading the book.
Rating : 2/5
The lack of connection it has with religion and beliefs and the relatively less use of Langdon's expertise in signs and anagrams sort of makes Inferno the least intriguing film in the series.
Green: Recommended Content
Orange: The In-Between Ones
Red: Not Recommended
