‘Inferno’ Engages A Solid Mystery, But Fails To Ignite | Film Review

Sixteen years ago, with his novel “Angels & Demons”, author Dan Brown first introduced the world to the character of Robert Langdon, renowned professor of religious iconology and symbology. While the book was a success in its own right, it wouldn’t be until three years later, with the release of “The Da Vinci Code”, that the character and his adventures would move beyond bestseller and become a world-wide phenomenon of “Harry Potter” proportions.  In fact, the boy wizard’s fifth outing, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”, was the only book to outsell it in 2003.  Those days, you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who didn’t have a rat-eared copy of it tucked away under their arm.  If they didn’t, well, they were probably reading about the Potter kid’s latest mischief.

With global sales in the high millions, instant brand recognition amongst even those who hadn’t read it, and controversy of (ahem!) biblical proportions stemming from its subject matter, it was no wonder that Hollywood leapt on the property and rushed to transfer Robert Langdon from the page to the screen as quick as possible. Just three years later, America’s favorite acting son, Tom Hanks, donned Langdon’s snazzy all-black suit – and a pretty groovy haircut – and went off in search of The Holy Grail.  With global ticket sales of $758 million, it was a no-brainer that Langdon would return, and he did just that in 2009 with “Angels & Demons”, once again featuring Hanks in the main role; this time out rushing to quell a threat seeking to literally topple the Catholic Church.  When the smoke cleared, the global take – and Tom’s haircut – were much more subdued.  Still, $485 million dollars world-wide is nothing to sneeze at, and with two more Langdon books to draw on, a third movie was almost certainly inevitable.

And here we are. It’s taken more than double the time as before, but Hanks is back once again, running around ancient cities in search of a threat tied to religious iconography.  Now, I have to be careful here.  “Inferno” is what I like to call – from a reviewer’s point of view – a minefield movie.  It is a mystery story, and any plot points I reveal, no matter how minor, could be construed as spoilers.  So, to avoid any hard feelings, I’m going to keep the plot pretty simple.  At the beginning of “Inferno” our intrepid hero awakes (somewhere), with a hell of a head wound (that may have some side-effects), and is forced to go on the run (somewhere else), with a pretty, young doctor (not a spoiler – they’re running together on the poster), to stop a plot (Minefield!) that could cause a real headache (for someone or many someones) and is tied to something religious (someone’s “Inferno” – again, it’s on the poster).

And that’s as far as I’ll go. If you want to learn more, I suggest Wikipedia.  To be honest, the story is way too complicated to delve into anyways.  As with the first two films in the series, much of “Inferno” has Hanks running all over the place spouting historical facts and theories left, right, and center to anyone who’ll listen.  Do I know what he’s going on about?  Mostly, that’s a big “Hell No!”  I appreciate the history lesson, but – like a certain philosophy class I took long ago – my retention of the facts presented pretty much went in one ear and out the other.  However, with a movie like this, that doesn’t really matter.  As long as I’m confident Hanks knows what he’s talking about, I’m willing to go along for the ride as I do enjoy these kinds of movies (“National Treasure” also comes to mind).  However, as the story progressed, I couldn’t help but feel that I was watching a whole lot of something I had already seen before.  Twice even.  Maybe more.

And therein lies the rub. “Inferno’s” worst enemy is its predecessors.  Hanks pretty much goes through the same motions, and although there were some new twists, I wasn’t overly surprised.  In a Dan Brown movie, you know those twists are coming, and when you’re constantly on the look-out for them, more often than not you’ll probably hit the nail on the head.  And that happens a few times here.  Quite possibly the biggest in the movie I saw coming a mile away, and I’m sure most of you will as well.

Am I spoiling the twist by saying there’s a twist, when the actual twist may not be a twist at all, or is in fact a real twist that you may or may not consider a twist, or vice-versa? Now there’s a mystery truly worthy of Robert Langdon’s talents.

All of the main talent is back from “Angels & Demons”: besides Hanks, we have Ron Howard directing, David Koepp on writing duties, and Brian Grazer producing. The gang’s all here, and they’ve pretty much given us what we are used to.  Howard continues to be a solid director, but he is far from an inspiring one.  His movies, while very pretty to look at, too often lack emotional depth.  There was a spark or two at times, such as when Hanks has a heart to heart with a woman from his past (please, don’t let that be a spoiler), but that was about it.  Like a painting, everything “Inferno” has to offer is right there on the surface of the screen, and it is pretty much a blank canvas underneath.

The talent of the actors is what really drives this movie. Hanks continues to be someone who is damn near impossible to dislike or be bored by, and he was his usual gosh-dang-it-I-love-this-guy self.  I really do buy into his character, even if I don’t understand half of what he’s saying.  This time around, he has a new female partner in the form of Felicity Jones.  She does an admirable job with what Koepp gave her to work with, but it is a role that could have been filled by just about any actress of note.  She’s very good, but deserves much better.  Ben Foster has a small but integral role as a wealthy scientist with some weird ideas on how to save the planet (careful, careful), and I certainly could have used more of him.  He is a damn fine actor who doesn’t get near the praise and projects he should.  And finally, I quite liked Irrfan Khan as the security expert whose love of money, power, and reputation may or may not lead to him doing the right thing.  I love the presence he establishes in his movies, and you can’t take your eyes off him here.  But alas….you know what I’m going to say.

“Inferno” is what I would categorize as harmless entertainment. It isn’t bad, and it isn’t great.  It is, essentially, a so-so trip to the cinema.  If you enjoyed “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels & Demons” you will probably have a good time with this, though not near as much as you had with the first, I’d guess.  Watching Tom Hanks unravel the mystery is good fun, the views are splendid, the action doesn’t bore, the twist at the beginning is much appreciated, and I really liked the location of the final confrontation and how the action there played out.  I just wish the majority of the movie hadn’t seemed so much like a rehash of the first two.

“Inferno” is a pretty decent way to kill an evening, but I doubt it’ll be lighting fires under the butts of many moviegoers this weekend.