Inferno (2016)
 |
: https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/movie/star-wars-empire-strikes-back/id975793398?mt=6&at=1010lrYR
Director: Ron Howard
Writers: David Koepp, Dan Brown
Cast: Tom Hanks (Robert Langdon), Feclicity Jones (Sienna Brooks), Irrfan Khan (Harry Sims), Ben Foster (Bertrand Zobrist), Omar Sy (Christoph Bouchard), Sidse Babett Knudsen (Elizabeth Sinskey), Ana Ularu (Vayentha).
Opening Credits:
The Holidays are here, and in just enough time for a suspense action adventure called Inferno. The very thought of having a film of this nature just before Christmas is beyond me. But, i had to do something different, especially when it comes to a Dan Brown book. Huge fan by the way, but enough of the fan boy stuff. Did i also mention that i'm a Ron Howard fan, thought i'd throw that in there as well. Let's get thing train going, shall we. What was the intentions of the film makers, good or bad, let's get into the first films. The previous films were good, each one with their own story. Angels & Demons is about the Illuminati. Da Vinci Code is not only spiritual, but it brings you to another level; And i don't mean a video game. The storyis about unlocking the secrets of an ancient society, driven by faith and history. Langdon goes on a hunt for the truth. Dan Brown's written work has elevated, and the film Da Vinci Code did well on screen. Although Inferno went into production instead of the Symbol, which by the way i would've loved a true on screen translation before Inferno. Everything was placed in the right direction with the previous films. This one on the other hand did something different, which i will go into shortly. www.reeltimemoviereview.com
Review:
The Geneticist Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster) is running from a team of agents. They work for the firm called the Consortium. The lead agent involved in this particular mission is Christoph Bouchard (Omar Sy). He was given an order to find Zobrist. Mr. Bouchard has been chasing Zobrist for some time; The man has managed to slip around corners faster than he thought he could. What did he not see coming was the tower Zobrist was running to. The man had ran as fast as he could, circling the spiraled staircase. The end came near. The drop from above was high enough for an instant death, he had jumped before the agents grabbed him. His plans are just beginning, his knowledge must end here in death. Christoph Bouchard just before he could get any answers. The man had jumped before, any resolution. The mission wasn't a complete failure, but now he would have to answer to the Provast.
Good:
The acting was amazing, from the start of the film to the finish. Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon is absolutely incredible as the professor. The way he connected with the other characters, and his delivery hit all targets. Tom Hanks can act his way out of anything. Felicity Jones as Sienna Brooks was very good as the Doctor who saved him in the hospital. She connected with Langdon, and helped him throughout the story, which was detailed and surprisingly good for a movie based on a book. Irrfan Khan plays Harry Sims "The Provast," a CEO of the firm called the Consortium. I loved the names in this film, almost like a spy film if you ask me. Anyway, Irrfan Khan played Mr. Sims well; His acting was mysterious, a shadow character. You couldn't tell the side he was on until it was time to let the audience know. Ben Foster plays Zobrist and he does it with true power. I could see this dude in a documentary trying to prove his point, and making his point every step of the way. The guy from that annoying infomercial. Plays it out, and in the end get's his way no matter what. Omar Sy played the agent after Langdon, Christoph Bouchard. He really did an amazing job. Played the good and the bad guy, he was great being the jerk in the film. Granted he was given orders, but this character reminded me of a character right out of a spy novel.
Inferno had many great qualities throughout the film, i especially enjoyed the hunt for the truth. I'm a sucker for films like these. The Protagonist has to search for the answers to the question but in order to do that he must take a trip around the world. Guess that's why i like Indiana Jones so much, Jones was a man who loved adventure. So yes adventure films are my kinda thing. Inferno had adventure like qualities that reminded me of the hunt, so if this movie has any great gift, that would be it.
Bad:
The acting was probably the only thing that i really loved about this film. And the adventure, which is always good in any film type. I hate to do this but the story, down to even the characters were changed around. In the previous films you are absorbed in the very many locations that made the book come alive on film. I don't really understand the feeling i got while watching this film. It was like it was shot nowhere near Italy, or Turkey. The surrounding were different, to fast. Granted the main characters were running, trying to escape, so there really was no reason to stop, or whatever. But the adventure had no time to breathe, it just moved without the audience absorbing the surrounding. I was so into the escape, running part that i had forgot what they were looking for. The environment wasn't able to take away. Like if you're on location to inspect the pieces of the puzzle. The film was fast, scene to scene, and to me it failed to bring you in the story. It really didn't have the time to tell you a story, it moved without stopping to look around. I understand the chase, but what it did was forget about the little things. The love of the previous film was diminished, because of the fast paced vibe that became Inferno.
Da Vinci Code (2006) brought the audience inside the Louvre, the surroundings of that story, made you feel like you're inside. Feeling what Langdon did when he gathered clues he needed to continue on. The movie was a good book adaption, it was enough to establish the book's essence. Granted i understand movie folks can't put everything that came from the book on the the silver screen. But they can bring out the important parts, the details that matter the most. Da Vinci Code managed to get it done, it was difficult but it achieved the impossible. The box office numbers told the story. Inferno was like a bad action movie, moving so quickly that by the time you knew what's going on, it really didn't matter, it fell apart by the last Act. The importance of the final Act, and the film only established a woman, Sienna Brooks was the girlfriend of Zobrist, and here it comes he had made a device that could be detonated, a virus, plague that would end the population problem. Instead of doing it the way the book had. The movie folks went on and gave a Hollywood ending, which killed whatever the story wanted to tell you. Instead Zobrist was just another bad guy, his hand wasn't strong enough.
What i really liked about Inferno the book version is that Sienna was more than a follower. She was convicted enough to do everything possible to get whatever Zobrist wanted. The guy had people that believed in him. A man with a strong vision, a problem that could lead to something bigger. The Planet we live on. The way we as humans treat the very environment. You see the book had depth, it was more than just an explosive device. But like all Hollywood films, they had to go with this shabby, horrible ending. Ron Howard is a wonderful director, so it pains me to even go this route. I'm sure he had pressure, and when the big guns pressure the director, things get a bit skewed. The characters were great, not a problem there. But the story was all over the place. It was like if they had many rewrites, and decided to go with the weakest one. Hopefully the Symbol is not chopped, like this one was. Sick and tired of Hollywood changing things just for the big buck. But what was really needed, is simply the story to stay on task.
Ugly:
The really bad or in this case ugly part of the film is the way the story progressed. Zobrist was the antagonist in the movie, he even brought in Sienna. But by the time the movie tells you what's happening you really begin to suspect towards the beginning. I mean Sienna is a Doctor, she helps Langdon escape the hospital with a mysterious woman dressed as an officer but then she starts to shoot inside the hospital. Vayentha (Ana Ularu) an elite assassin. She was careful. But yet in the movie she shot inside the hospital with no problem. Even after we learn of the Consortium's manipulations. Yes i had an issue with that, no worries it's just the way i feel about that particular scene on film. Made the assassin look stupid, and to me a professional wouldn't have gone that route. Sienna was a manipulator herself, but why? leave the hospital. Just that particular scene didn't work for me, it looked fake, a bit to fake. The audience caught on. Something was going on, and it was to obvious.
The film just kept going, no consequences. The authorities were not even there. I would've loved an inspector, or someone after Langdon without any action. Meaning no antagonist threat. Just plane old detective work. The film didn't go in that direction, it just moved without anything, no reasons, especially the way Sienna just helped Langdon, even though she told him she had met him when she was a young girl. Why? Would a doctor just leave her place of business to help an American man who had some head trauma. So the woman Doctor does her job by helping Langdon escape. Wow! I really did not get that part. So according to the story, Sienna helps the man she barely knows escape the assassin. Then to top it off she takes the man she barely knows to her apartment. Starts murmuring something about death. Yeah i get the twist; Sienna was Zobrist's girlfriend and knows of the devious plan to destroy the world. That wasn't even hidden. The audience at this point is going really! I mean the story was fast, not down time, but to get this woman to help the Professor, is beyond me. She could've lied and said she is working for some organization or something of that nature. Instead she had loved his work since a kid. Sienna risked her life to get him out of the limelight. The connection to me wasn't strong enough; Langdon should've offered her something in return for her help.
I understand by the third Act you know who everybody is, so by the time it ends something should've happened, but it did not. The explosive device with the virus should've exploded, and the devious plan to destroy the world would be real to billions of people on the Earth. The problem with this is the bomb, device, virus, did not happen at all. What did happen in a form of a plague, 1/3 of the population was affected, it created a new infertile masses, all at random by the way. The major twist was creating a way to solve overpopulation. Dan Brown wrote a story with a very hard ending that opens up many roads. The problem here is the film makers decided to make it the typical Hollywood type of film, and my guess this wasn't Ron Howard's call but the big guns all the way up.
The missing pieces that were in the book and omitted in the film, was the key to the story. The essence of the whole book was the ending. The beauty of making a film was lost. Ambiance, connections, the elements of the characters and how they interact with the surroundings in the story. Everything had fallen a apart. There was no real way to fix the story, instead Hollywood kept the whole Zobrist video, which in the book was a big deal. A no big deal. The film's Zobrist scenes should've been shocking, but i wasn't; And i'm sure audiences weren't shocked either. To me if you're going to make a film based off of a book, have the writer on location. Have him review the script, making sure everything goes well. If the studio gives you 120 minutes to work with, then work with the writer, period. Sometimes movies go off the handle with content, and everything that goes into making a film. My thing is, if you're going to make a movie based off of a really good book, please do it right.
Comments