In other words, I'm a pretty much the worst audience for a Robert Langdon movie. What keeps me watching them isn't the puzzles and the hidden mysteries though. It's Tom Hanks in the lead role and Ron Howard's direction. For Inferno, it's the inclusion of Felicity Jones. There's enough parts that I do like to make up for the comically absurd story.
Because it is absurd, make no mistake. The movie wastes no time getting into the story. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) wakes up in a hospital bed in Florence with no memory of the last few days. Almost immediately, he's attacked by a hired gun posing as a cop. He's saved by his doctor (Felicity Jones), who just happens to be a genius superfan of his. They spend the rest of the movie on the run from several agencies as Langdon tries to solve and remember a Dante-themed puzzle in order to prevent the release of a virus developed by a crazy billionaire that would kill half the world's population. In typical Robert Langdon fashion, this involves numerous museums where he notices details overlooked by scholars for generations and uses secret passages forgotten by almost everyone except him. You really have to take each beat of the story on good faith, because it is all gibberish when put together. The number of close calls, conveniently timed recollections of events he forgot, and elaborate ruses strain every bit of believability. Even if I give it the One Big Leap of believing that this is a world in which these kinds of puzzles can, would, and do exist, the logistics of Langdon's escapes, the coincidental run-ins, and the logic of the billionaire's evil plan don't follow*.
*The billionaire (Ben Foster) has a virus that will kill half the world's population. His thought is that overpopulation will destroy us all. He points out that the overpopulation is exponential. His fix is to kill half of the world's population. By his own math, that only sets back the overpopulation crisis by a few decades or maybe a century or two. It doesn't actually "fix" anything.
As I said though, I didn't see the movie because I expected to get much out of the plot. Ron Howard knows how to direct. He does a good make making even the silliest scenes feel important. If nothing else, I can't say that he wasn't trying. The same goes for Hanks and Jones. They are good actors. That much has been established, but both of their performances in Inferno are getting the Harrison Burgeron treatment. Hanks has to play with amnesia and Jones must remain a blank canvas for most of the film. I would've thought that Hanks would be more comfortable playing this character after three films. These films are so plot-driven though, that it's almost like trying to get to know a detective on Law & Order (they only give out information a little at a time and when it's convenient for the story).
Inferno isn't great by any means. The story is strained and the performances are limited by that story. If you can turn your brain off (but also leave it on a little so you can understand all the Dante references) for two hours, it zips along at a good pace, never stopping long enough for you to reflect on how silly it all is. Unlike other movies I've seen in the last few weeks, it doesn't try to be too cute with its twists and I appreciate that. The movie knows that it's more complex than clever and doesn't pretend otherwise. If I said last week that Never Go Back was about 80% as good as Jack Reacher, then Inferno is maybe 70% as good as the previous installments. It's a good enough episodic sequel that doesn't aspire to much more than it achieves.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment