Inferno

 (14,808)
6.22 h 1 min2016X-RayPG-13
Robert Langdon races across Europe to foil a deadly plot.
Directors
Ron Howard
Starring
Tom HanksFelicity JonesIrrfan Khan
Genres
SuspenseDrama
Subtitles
English [CC]
Audio languages
English
Rentals include 30 days to start watching this video and 48 hours to finish once started.
Add to Watchlist
Add to
Watchlist
By ordering or viewing, you agree to our Terms. Sold by Amazon.com Services LLC.
Write review

More details

Producers
Ron Howard
Studio
Columbia Pictures
Rating
PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned)
Content advisory
Substance usefoul languagesexual contentviolence
Purchase rights
Stream instantly Details
Format
Prime Video (streaming online video)
Devices
Available to watch on supported devices

Reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars

14808 global ratings

  1. 69% of reviews have 5 stars
  2. 17% of reviews have 4 stars
  3. 9% of reviews have 3 stars
  4. 3% of reviews have 2 stars
  5. 2% of reviews have 1 stars
Write a customer review
Sorted by:

Top reviews from the United States

Mindo'ermatterReviewed in the United States on August 20, 2019
4.0 out of 5 stars
Most Focused Dan Brown Movie Portrayal
Verified purchase
The shortest of the Robert Langdon movie adaptations of Dan Brown's book, which was the longest of the most famous trilogy volumes. This standalone film sequel has no relationship to the prior two films, other than the author, Ron Howard, and Tom Hanks, which is a good thing, making the order viewed unimportant.

Loved the on-location filming that added to the drama's experience and the characters in the movie. Although there are some variations from the book, obviously for time and visual media format, other than some minor revisions at the end, both movie and book are nearly the same.

Tom Hanks' performance was well done, while not upstaging the presentations by the other actors, something that made the movie more believable. A fun movie to watch multiple times, the storyline emphasizes more the drama than surprises, thereby making the movie more focused and enjoyable. Although the film ending was appropriate and satisfying, I liked the book ending better.

A fun 2-hour movie experience when you need a fast diversion.
13 people found this helpful
LTReviewed in the United States on August 12, 2017
2.0 out of 5 stars
Horrible adaptation
Verified purchase
I admire Tom Hanks' acting skill, but he wasn't given much to work with here. I will always prefer any book to the movie, but I appreciate well done book to screen adaptations. This doesn't come close being a faithful, or even coherent, telling of the book. I wonder if the screenwriter bothered to read the book at all. It isn't my favorite Dan Brown book, but they had much better material to work with than thin plot they cobbled together. All of the historic details and the charm of the Robert Langdon character is missing here. It isn't even movie of the week material. Save your money and spend it on something worth watching. The only stars given here are for the obvious effort Tom Hanks made to try and make something out of this mess.
22 people found this helpful
StraightShooterReviewed in the United States on August 27, 2017
2.0 out of 5 stars
Disjoint, Unintelligible.
Verified purchase
This is a visually stunning movie with lots of great chase and fight sequences, set in some very lovely cities.

But the storyline just has too many unbelievable elements and non-sequiturs, and the clues are so labored, that after a few minutes all that's left are the visuals. The starting premise is fine, stock thriller fodder. A genius wants to cull the world's population by half in order to save both the planet and humanity itself. He develops a plague virus. Okay so far. But instead of just releasing the virus he puts it in an aerosol bomb somewhere, with a countdown timer. The genius has associates. Some know exactly where the bomb is but are content to wait there and be infected when it blows up. Other associates are deliberately not told where the virus bomb is, and instead are given an obtuse starting clue that might lead them to the bomb (if they are very smart, and dispose the services of the hero's expertise), where their mission would be to ensure that no one prevents it from blowing up. The clues are so obtuse, in fact, that no one could follow them, unless he wrote the screenplay. By the way, many of the characters seem to be able to teleport from one locale to another, too.

If you like Dan Brown and Tom Hanks, you will still like this movie. Just ignore the plot.
14 people found this helpful
KdbReviewed in the United States on July 13, 2020
1.0 out of 5 stars
There's no excuse for this movie to be so bad
Verified purchase
This movie had everything going for it: Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, and Dan Brown. Seriously, how do you mix those up and get such a horrible movie? I've been a fan of Tom Hanks movies forever, especially when Ron Howard is the director. And as cheesy as they may be, Dan Brown's books are very entertaining. Although, I have to admit that this is one I hadn't read. Maybe if I had, the movie would have made some sense. But as is, I have watched it three times and I still can't tell you what really happened. Maybe it's because it's so bad that you really don't care.

That really must be it because at the end of the movie you will find yourself caring very little about any of the characters, including professor Langdon (Tom Hanks) who is usually a very likable and interesting character. He's witty, sardonic, and knowledgeable about everything to the point of being that annoying kid in the class who knows the answer to everything. Beyond his fictional profession of being a "symbologist," he's apparently an expert in European art and history because there's nothing this guy doesn't know. And amazingly enough, he's always paired up with a beautiful woman, who despite being a doctor or nuclear scientist, somehow seems to know just as much about whatever art clues he is following to solve whatever mystery is afoot.

And that formula, as unbelievable as it is, usually works. But here, we're given a doctor who coincidentally (or not) seems to know everything about Dante, the person whose clues they are trying to solve. His and Botticelli's, who painted Dante's levels of hell, or the Inferno (ah yes, the title of this masterpiece). And despite being drugged and suffering from a head wound, Langdon still knows everything about both, including whether the levels are out of order or if there are tiny little differences between one version and another. At least in the Da Vinci Code they had to occasionally ask someone or look something up, but no, he has been studying and no longer needs help. They access Google one time because somehow neither of them managed to memorize Dante's entire book, but every other obscure detail they knew.

But the biggest problem with this movie is trying to understand exactly what is going on. There's a virus -- maybe already released, maybe in him -- that can kill half the population of the world. And you find yourself really not caring. There's no real urgency, despite the movie trying hard to create it, and the surprise toward the end should tidy things up but just makes it more muddy. I won't ruin it for you because the movie does that on its own. Suffice to say, you won't know what happened when the credits roll. And you probably won't care.

What I want to know is how this got past producers and test audiences. Did everyone lie to them because they didn't want to feel bad dissing a Tom Hanks movie? Did they not test this or at least have a few intelligent people watch it before saying, "Yeah, let's spend even more millions marketing this."? Howwwww???? I keep rewinding the last 20-30 minutes to try to figure it out and no, still lost. There's a virus, some weird clandestine agency, a love interest, and some water. That's all I got.

And while we're at it, let's talk about the love interest, something that hasn't show up in the other films. It's not discussed much, but she exists. A possible love, but we're given so little time to learn anything about her that we really don't care if they end up together or she dies. Or they have coffee and call it a day. You just don't care. You just do not care one little bit because you don't care about anyone in this film. Did someone just die? Yeah, whatever. Who? Eh, who cares?

The really sad thing is that they aren't going to team up to make the other Dan Brown book into a movie with Tom Hanks as Langdon, The Lost Symbol. It's about freemasons and is set in DC, so it covers all sorts of fun American history. It was so much more interesting than this film, but this utter flop has probably killed the series so I hope the person who chose to do this one first gets fired over and over. Ugh!!!

So yeah, don't pay to watch this movie because you're just encouraging them to make more like it. It was a bigger disappointment than the The Phantom Menace, if that gives you any idea how bad it is.

I really want my money back on this one.
3 people found this helpful
joel wingReviewed in the United States on November 25, 2021
3.0 out of 5 stars
You have to ignore how outrageous the plot gets to enjoy this one
Verified purchase
Inferno was the third installment of the Robert Langdon/Tom Hanks films based upon Dan Brown novels. This one starts off differently from the previous two however. Hanks has amnesia and isn’t interpreting symbols left and right. He’s also on the run with his doctor Felicity Jones and trying to figure out how he’s connected to doomsayer Ben Foster who recently died. Of course Hanks does eventually get back to his trade of symbology. On the other hand the movie has a ridiculous premise that the United Nations’ World Health Organization chases people. That’s just the start of this overblown plot that involves Foster’s crazy plans for the world, a private firm he hired and more.

I really liked the previous two movies in this series. I enjoyed this one as well despite the plot. In fact, you actually have to ignore how outrageous things get to watch this.
aseReviewed in the United States on January 31, 2017
3.0 out of 5 stars
For me it was just meh...
Verified purchase
The draw of the first two movies for me was the historical and puzzle solving aspect. This movie had very little of that and the story was a bit predictable. The way it was filmed was also a bit annoying. I understand that they were trying to make you feel add if you were in the same mental fog as Tom Hanks but it just wasn't my thing. Also, I felt like they were trying to see how many times they could have Tom Hanks character get hit on the head and still be believable. The lead female character was very predictable and not well portrayed. Much of the dialogue involving her felt forced and poorly acted. It's not a complete waste of your time but I wouldn't put this movie on a must see list.
17 people found this helpful
A.J.Reviewed in the United States on February 1, 2017
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not Excellent but good-
Verified purchase
So I read the reviews before watching this next installment made movie from The Amazing Dan Brown novels And I definetly agree that this one is Not...At...All In the same ballpark as the first two! (Da Vinci Code & Angels & Demons) The cinematography and story line Was in No way close to the other two! Tom Hanks is Amazing regardless BUT if you watch the other two first Then this one it looks more like a made for Tv movie rather than something you'd anticipate wanting to see on the Big Screen! It's like they rushed it and threw it together giving you more of watered down version of the movies we've previously LOVED and That's why I'm giving it 3.5 stars-
3 people found this helpful
LoraxReviewed in the United States on October 12, 2020
2.0 out of 5 stars
Action Without Substance
Verified purchase
The whole narrative from the book was changed leaving out most of the historical connections. I understand it was to keep audiences engaged with only action and suspense but the book worked better. (Nod to Dan Brown) Still it was entertaining. I don't know who writes the comments (Cast and Trivia) but they have major mistakes. In particular the reference to benzodiazepines not being drugs that cause amnesia. False. One in particular, midazolam, is specifically used in surgeries to cause amnesia so patients don't remember the procedure. I know. I am a professional pharmaceutical chemist who invented certain benzodiazepines.
See all reviews