Don't really understand the number of bad reviews on this one. It's not a GREAT movie, but it's very watchable and entertaining, with enough twists to keep you interested.

B+

This really is more of the same. For some reason the books just don't lend themselves to be made in good told stories on screen. Hanks is fine, and Felicity Jones has a good role, I also liked the Indian guy from Jurassic Park and Foster has a good but small role. The film has same fine moments of chase and discovery but it never feels really very threatening. It feels like a kind of James Bond but the action and guns is replaced with cultural discoveries and intellect. Howard does an OK job with this too and I thought the score was pleasant. This is a franchise that needn't be though, each film is brought down to around average in terms of overall viewing pleasure. Hank's filmography would look better without it.

C+

I will admit I was never bored. Hanks and Jones, even when giving half an effort, are still compelling. However, these globetrotting mystery boxes should be fun instead of self-serious slogs. Humor can go a long way. Take Raiders of the Lost Ark. I don't think anyone would go out of their way to call that film a comedy, but it's funny. It has a smirk on its face the entire time even though it's made with upmost skill. It has charm. Raiders knows it's silly. I think even The Da Vinci Code knows it's silly (a film which I enjoy more than most others but wouldn't put in same league as Raiders). Inferno doesn't, and that's the problem.

C

Inferno is one jumbled up stumble of a movie. It's Ron Howard's Crank. Personally, I blame the source material. Even the mighty T.Hanks can't save Inferno from going down in flames. *C*

*1/2 / ***** (D-)

It's a really bad movie. This is a franchise that digs itself deeper and deeper into bad filmmaking with every new movie. Not only does it repeat over and over the puzzles and the "solutions" to them, the whole plot is as random as they come. The shallow way the whole Dante thing is being interpreted and used is really laughable. It was actually very cringe-worthy to sit through all the Inferno, Beatrice explanations. National Treasure also uses some historic facts and twists them into a narrative that really has nothing to do with reality, but it does it in such s carefree way without actually trying to smack the explanations into your face over and over again as if it were some kind of a fact you have to believe in rather than a made up story for entertainment purpose.

The seriousness hurts the movie a lot. The story is really not that dark or scary as the movie tries to present it. Actors try their best, but there's not much here to work with. Irrfan Khan is the sole standout and his character brings some much needed lighter and fun moments.

Oh, and the twist with Sienna is too predictable. I said she was the bad guy the minute she came on screen. Also no bullets in the front part of the door was made too obvious and just confirmed the whole thing was a set up. They should've cut that and reveal it only when the Hollywood prerequisite part of "now I have to explain the whole plot twist" came. At least it would make it somewhat not too obvious.