Inferno 2016 Movie Review: The viewers will have noticed something strange happens when the long awaited trailer for two minutes to a major release, starting with a three-second ad ... movie ilong-awaitedere is something that has been noticed that there is a reason why the studies are teaser trailer to see the point. Take for example the first trailer for the new film Hell Tom Hanks. Inferno stars Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones and called "Inferno," which is any information that can be extracted from the other three payment movie trailer towing.
If you saw it, you know that micro-trailer was an accelerated version of the full trailer with Hanks hits and Jones followed by Inferno title card. The total 90 second trailer, which basically gives details of the plot of the movie, which for - but like many others, maybe they have not so far. No doubt, but micro-trailer, many wonder why they really need so suddenly spread and for what purpose.
I am an enthusiastic fan of Dan Brown, I have read most of his books and I'm eager for his next one. Though not very artful, he manages to conjure up every single time my very definition of a page-turner, it's literally painful to put one of his books down unless it's finished. This is due to his mastery of thrilling storytelling, absolute sense of structure and good use of cliffhangers, which produce addictive best-sellers. But all this wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the support of a juicy story that is always both escapist and informative. Now, both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons managed to be middle-grade movies: they didn't bring anything new to the table, they didn't do justice to the source material and, especially, they tried to condense too much in one movie.
Inferno is no different... The thing is that Dan Brown's writing is fast paced and every bit of action relies on the previous, yet he has time to develop each one of them so that they don't feel rushed. Bringing this to a movie is incredibly difficult, not impossible but it's something that none of the movies was able to do. This is because they follow a formula started in The Da Vinci Code and which is dead present in Inferno: rushed scenes, confusing action, dreadful cinematography and a directorial effort that leaves much to desire. Yet the plot is so intriguing, Hanks so charming and Felicity Rogue One Jones is such a perfect fit that you can't help being entertained. I wouldn't say "yeah, you should definitely go see it" but if you do, it's completely understandable.
Langweilige Verfilmung, hektisches Gewusel statt wirkliche Action, verstärkt durch dauernde Sirenengeheul und nervende Lautsprecherdurchsagen. Krude Storieline, wieso kann der Milliardär nicht einen sinnvollen Freisetzungsmechanismus installieren und ist somit auf so was Unsicheres wie seine Freundin angewiesen. Und wieso wird der Virus nicht wie im Roman freigesetzt, der Filmbösewicht hat doch absolut Recht mit seiner Einschätzung der planetenzerstörenden Menschheit. Für das Geschwurbel vom Guten und Schönen und es gibt immer einen Weg, kann sich kein Schwein was kaufen. Die Argumentation des Bösewichte, warum große Teile der Menschheit ausgelöscht werden müssen, wird weder hinterfragt noch entkräftet. Schade, da wär deutlich mehr drin gewesen.
After tiptoeing over The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown's third book in his Robert Langdon series the producers ended up picking the fourth book Inferno to follow up The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons.
Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon the symbologist who's the greatest asset is his mind but here he is thrown into new territory by having amnesia after he awakes in hospital in Florence with no recognition and somebody is trying to kill him. ?The film quickly gets into gear with unsettling visuals, quick-flowing plot, and intrigue. Langdon with the help of his Doctor (Hot from Rogue One star Felicity Jones) most go on the run to prevent an eccentric billionaire from releasing a virus that will wipe out half the world's population. ?The book was very convoluted and the film's screenplay has done a good job of structuring the adaption for the screen as well taking quite a few liberties with the story that change quietly considerably.
Some work well such making Harry Sims (CEO of the private security company called "The Consortium") a much more engaging, physical character and played by a scene-stealing Irrfan Khan (Life of PI). Another change is to principle character is more forced and gives Langdon a slight love interest in the movie. This I imagine was to make his role a bigger ark after three films but fails to elevate the concept past the idea stage making it a wasted unfilled concept.
?However despite the concept being engaging the film never really elevates itself from a solid thriller to brilliant one. Perhaps due to the source material of the book not really being better than the previous three you were not necessarily going to make a better film than the previous films. The editor goes into overdrive to make things seem more frantic then the material has allowed.
The movie is an enjoyable thriller that may have been better suited as TV mini-series with its twists and turns that beat through effectively, however, the film hits the motions but fails to innovate, take risks or really push the lead actor or director out of their comfort zones to raise the bar of this third film.
?
When you get to the third film you really need to raise the bar not lower it. There are numerous examples of third films really delivering building upon the success of previous films in their franchise such as: The Bourne Ultimatum, Prisoner of Azkaban, Indiana Jones, and The Last Crusade, Lord Of The Rings: Return of the King.
?Inferno is certainly not a bad film it is by all means it's an enjoyable film with the ever enjoyable solid Hanks but lots of potentials are replaced with a by the numbers thriller that is fun but not minds blowing or that memorable.
I am an enthusiastic fan of Dan Brown, I have read most of his books and I'm eager for his next one. Though not very artful, he manages to conjure up every single time my very definition of a page-turner, it's literally painful to put one of his books down unless it's finished. This is due to his mastery of thrilling storytelling, absolute sense of structure and good use of cliffhangers, which produce addictive best-sellers. But all this wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the support of a juicy story that is always both escapist and informative. Now, both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons managed to be middle-grade movies: they didn't bring anything new to the table, they didn't do justice to the source material and, especially, they tried to condense too much in one movie.
Langweilige Verfilmung, hektisches Gewusel statt wirkliche Action, verstärkt durch dauernde Sirenengeheul und nervende Lautsprecherdurchsagen. Krude Storieline, wieso kann der Milliardär nicht einen sinnvollen Freisetzungsmechanismus installieren und ist somit auf so was Unsicheres wie seine Freundin angewiesen. Und wieso wird der Virus nicht wie im Roman freigesetzt, der Filmbösewicht hat doch absolut Recht mit seiner Einschätzung der planetenzerstörenden Menschheit. Für das Geschwurbel vom Guten und Schönen und es gibt immer einen Weg, kann sich kein Schwein was kaufen. Die Argumentation des Bösewichte, warum große Teile der Menschheit ausgelöscht werden müssen, wird weder hinterfragt noch entkräftet. Schade, da wär deutlich mehr drin gewesen.
Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon the symbologist who's the greatest asset is his mind but here he is thrown into new territory by having amnesia after he awakes in hospital in Florence with no recognition and somebody is trying to kill him. ?The film quickly gets into gear with unsettling visuals, quick-flowing plot, and intrigue. Langdon with the help of his Doctor (Hot from Rogue One star Felicity Jones) most go on the run to prevent an eccentric billionaire from releasing a virus that will wipe out half the world's population. ?The book was very convoluted and the film's screenplay has done a good job of structuring the adaption for the screen as well taking quite a few liberties with the story that change quietly considerably.
Some work well such making Harry Sims (CEO of the private security company called "The Consortium") a much more engaging, physical character and played by a scene-stealing Irrfan Khan (Life of PI). Another change is to principle character is more forced and gives Langdon a slight love interest in the movie. This I imagine was to make his role a bigger ark after three films but fails to elevate the concept past the idea stage making it a wasted unfilled concept.
?However despite the concept being engaging the film never really elevates itself from a solid thriller to brilliant one. Perhaps due to the source material of the book not really being better than the previous three you were not necessarily going to make a better film than the previous films. The editor goes into overdrive to make things seem more frantic then the material has allowed.
?
When you get to the third film you really need to raise the bar not lower it. There are numerous examples of third films really delivering building upon the success of previous films in their franchise such as: The Bourne Ultimatum, Prisoner of Azkaban, Indiana Jones, and The Last Crusade, Lord Of The Rings: Return of the King.
?Inferno is certainly not a bad film it is by all means it's an enjoyable film with the ever enjoyable solid Hanks but lots of potentials are replaced with a by the numbers thriller that is fun but not minds blowing or that memorable.
No comments:
Post a Comment