Critic Reviews

Bourne it is not, but the twists come with enough regularity to keep the squishier parts of the plot from mucking up the works.

Inferno delivers as an engaging thriller that I frankly enjoyed far more than Howard’s last Brown outing.

It is a satisfying but thoroughly idiotic film, in which relationships make no sense, character motivations change on a dime, and Tom Hanks has weird hair. But brainless as it is, it’s artful. It is a well-made bit of silliness, a piece of construction optimally designed to maintain audience interest while garnering absolutely no one’s respect.

Although some of the film’s many twists are not that surprising, they’re satisfyingly delivered, and with a strong supporting cast ...plus striking dream imagery, this adds up to arguably the best in the franchise so far.

Koepp has managed a brisk adaptation, although some of the dialogue can feel very forced, particularly when it comes to the clue-solving set-ups. Still, Howard keeps the viewer constantly occupied, Felicity Jones is an engaging sidekick, and there’s clearly a lot more mileage left for Tom Hanks in this franchise’s tank.

It's fair to say that Inferno won't be for everyone, but those who have stuck through Howard and Hanks' previous Dan Brown adaptations should find enough thrills to keep them interested in solving the mystery.

Returning director Ron Howard somewhat belabors the Botticelli-inspired hallucinations Langdon suffers from following a konk on the head – though you really can’t oversell the creepiness of a beaky plague mask – but he continues to have an inspired hand in casting his supporting players.

Inferno is the exact cinematic equivalent of an airport paperback, which is what’s fine and forgettable about it.

Perhaps Howard’s dutiful obligation to Brown’s treasure-hunt oeuvre will end here, with the temperate Inferno sparking a resurgence to follow. Dante wrote that “The poets leave hell and again behold the stars.” Here’s hoping that Howard has some shine left in him.

Early promise proves misleading in a sequel that should be far better than The Da Vinci Code than it actually is.