sign in
register
Watch
Hulu fuboTV Starz Apple TV Channel
+7
Inferno
Hulu fuboTV Starz Apple TV Channel
+7
JustWatch
Remove ads

Inferno

2016
Suspense/Thriller
Mystery
2h 1m
When Robert Langdon wakes up in an Italian hospital with amnesia, he teams up with Dr. Sienna Brooks, and together they must race across Europe against the clock to foil a deadly global plot. (imdb)
Directed by:
Ron Howard Ron Howard
Written by:
David Koepp David Koepp
Starring:
Tom Hanks Tom Hanks Ben Foster Ben Foster Irrfan Khan Irrfan Khan Paul Ritter Paul Ritter Sidse Babett Knudsen Sidse Babett Knudsen Fausto Maria Sciarappa Felicity Jones Felicity Jones Ana Ularu Ana Ularu Omar Sy Omar Sy Vincenzo Tanassi Ida Darvish Paolo Antonio Simioni
More
Franchise:
Robert Langdon
Genres:
Suspense/Thriller, Mystery
Countries:
Hungary, USA
Languages:
English, French, Italian, Turkish
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

Inferno

2016
Suspense/Thriller
Mystery
2h 1m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 25.5% from 1027 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(1027)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
filliganFilligan
Rated 03 Nov 2016
71
23rd
Listen, I don't care. These movies have always been stupid and I've always enjoyed them in spite of myself. Maybe it's because Ron Howard has actual directorial talent, maybe it's because I wish Tom Hanks was my uncle, maybe it's because Dan Brown's ideas are fascinating in an empty-headed way. Howard relies primarily on editing chicanery here, often to the film's detriment, and the ending is a little too cleanly resolved, but meh! I enjoyed it overall.
Rated 03 Nov 2016
frederikaFrederikA
Rated 21 Oct 2016
45
24th
The Hanks/Howard road trip to scenic Europe now pitstops in Florence, Venice and Istanbul, in yet another impressively inept marriage between cultural sightseeing and third grade mystery shenanigans. On the plus side it's more streamlined this time around but a late game twist undermine any attempt at logic in the plot. Irrfan Khan seems to be enjoying himself though, so good for him.
Rated 21 Oct 2016
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
Rated 22 Jan 2017
67
19th
It's a ride. It makes little sense when examined, but goes so fast that it doesn't give you time to reflect as it moves from one moment to the next. I've seen this kind of thing done much better, but I've also seen it done much worse. Enjoyable and disposable.
Rated 22 Jan 2017
ytadelYtadel
Rated 01 Mar 2017
0
0th
Holy shit, Ron Howard, what happened?! I've watched Willow a hundred times, but Ron just laid a complete, complete goose egg here. This is not just bad, it's one of the very worst wide theatrical release films of THIS ENTIRE DECADE. This is top to bottom incompetent filmmaking. Utterly godawful on every level. Swap Tom Hanks out for fucking Sean Patrick Flannery or something and there's nothing that would indicate this isn't a straight-to-DVD movie. AND NOT EVEN A DECENT STRAIGHT-TO-DVD MOVIE
Rated 01 Mar 2017
kasperlKasperL
Rated 31 Jul 2017
40
19th
Mindbogglingly stupid. And yet, for some reason, instead of hating it, I found myself pitying everyone involved. Except for Irrfan Khan whose delivery was simply abysmal.
Rated 31 Jul 2017
cagedwisdomcagedwisdom
Rated 12 Dec 2016
25
17th
They can't make National Treasure 3, meanwhile this gets play? Come on. Irrfan Khan was the highlight, would have preferred a film about his agency.
Rated 12 Dec 2016
ofterdingenOfterdingen
Rated 10 Oct 2016
60
51st
The first half is pretty good. Especially the rather exiting chase/hunt through The Palazzo Vecchio. But overall it's pretty standard stuff. It gets weaker as it goes along before losing itself in a labyrinth of boring flashbacks and characters explaining everything they do.
Rated 10 Oct 2016
joelwatchesmoviesjoelwatchesmovies
Rated 16 Mar 2018
5
24th
Pretty damn grim at some points, both to its detriment (Langdon's hellish and nausea-inducing opening nightmare sequence was a poor choice to have at the beginning of the film) and to its benefit (the unflinching camera during the plot's moments of violence helped highlight the high stakes-see the two falls to death). The rest of it is a mixed bag as well: the clue-hopping remains fun but cheesy, the third-act character twists feel arbitrary but keep you engaged until the suspenseful climax.
Rated 16 Mar 2018
maakalmaakal
Rated 20 Oct 2016
67
28th
It was fun most of the way through, but kind of fell apart towards the end. Anyone who's read the book will be disappointed, as they changed the coolest thing (actually the only thing) that made the book interesting
Rated 20 Oct 2016
damildamil
Rated 05 Jul 2017
55
34th
I liked The Da Vinci Code (2006), and, to a lesser extent, Angels & Demons (2009), but the whole thing is getting kinda tired now. Ron Howard does a fine job directing, but the script is simply convoluted and boring. The dialogue was often pretty bad, not sounding like a normal human being at all. Tom Hanks is okay, but his character is so thin. I didn't think Felicity Jones was very good. I still want them to do The Lost Symbol, but only because I like things to be complete.
Rated 05 Jul 2017
peyrinpeyrin
Rated 10 Jul 2020
25
7th
Plot twist: the virus was COVID-19
Rated 10 Jul 2020
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 28 Oct 2016
30
17th
Bless Tom Hanks and Ron Howard for putting their energy into making these movies, but it's time to stop. Calling the plot "preposterous" almost feels too kind - it's contrived, convenient, and silly. The problem isn't the direction and acting; it all comes down to this story, which doesn't hold up. Enjoy the sightseeing tour, but forget about trying to make sense of the plot - either in the moment or afterward. Inferno isn't worthless as a movie, but it is as a thriller.
Rated 28 Oct 2016
remybistoremybisto
Rated 06 Dec 2016
40
11th
Would've been good if they stick to the book's plot. No Hollywood movie tone or mood excuse here. You can't just pluck any stories strictly into those, this is your chance to be, if not received well, at least not forgettable.
Rated 06 Dec 2016
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 29 May 2017
69
22nd
It's easy to see why Dan Brown's popular: he excels at keeping audiences guessing & crafting plenty of (maybe 2 many) reversals & plot twists. What's surprising is that there's so much of an audience for his innumerable asides & tangents into the history & arcana of Western European art. So while the last 30 mins provides some sorta satisfying reveals & a thrilling climax, everything that comes before is a string of riddles w/ answers that r best mulled over on the page or in a lecture hall
Rated 29 May 2017
glumpy99glumpy_99
Rated 22 May 2017
83
69th
Likably silly Dan Brown hokum benefits from both Hanks and Howard's effortless professionalism on both sides of the camera; it's pleasing to see the fun they are now having with this material after the deadly earnestness of Part 1. Episodic storyline is really just a Bond-ian excuse to send Hanks running through a variety of exotic locales and people, but it's so entertaining (if a bit long) that it's hard to say you don't get your money's worth.
Rated 22 May 2017
videoetronVideoetron
Rated 28 Jan 2021
39
4th
Worse than the one before, which was also worse than the one before. It's like this time they could barely even be bothered with codes and stuff. Some family-friendly escape room on easy mode. The final scene wasted a cool-looking setting with abysmally boring action.
Rated 28 Jan 2021
panzerwolfpanzerwolf
Rated 23 Apr 2024
30
7th
I love movies where characters find clues and chase after them to solve historical puzzles by using their knowledge of history. Zimmer's soundtrack is beautiful and all the locations look incredible and make you wonder about all the beautiful and mysterious things that humankind has built. But the movie is shallow and just gets ripped apart by its attempt to do everything and being an action movie with mysteries. Just boring and ultimately fails to build up the suspense it promised to deliver.
Rated 23 Apr 2024
stewballStewball
Rated 30 Oct 2016
70
54th
Flashy but a waste of effort.
Rated 30 Oct 2016
hakkanarejohakkanarejo
Rated 22 May 2017
85
29th
Famous symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) follows a trail of clues tied to Dante, the great medieval poet. When Langdon wakes up in an Italian hospital with amnesia, he teams up with Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones), a doctor he hopes will help him recover his memories. Together, they race across Europe and against the clock to stop a madman (Ben Foster) from unleashing a virus that could wipe out half of the world's population.
Rated 22 May 2017
barraocBarraoc
Rated 06 Mar 2017
30
5th
Two hours of trying to make uninteresting stuff look interesting and unexciting happenings seem exciting. Big yawn.
Rated 06 Mar 2017
daphnlDaph_NL
Rated 27 Aug 2017
37
12th
What a waste. I have seen all of this before and Inferno does not bring anything new to the table. At all. It is one big fast-paced action sequence and the beginning is confusing. Hanks does well as usual, but even he can't salvage this one. 37/100.
Rated 27 Aug 2017
fmoraesfmoraes
Rated 16 Jul 2021
50
15th
2021/07/03
Rated 16 Jul 2021
braddad68braddad68
Rated 16 Apr 2019
88
36th
As a fan of the Robert Langdon series (symbologist from Dan Brown novels), this was a must-see for me. Critics bashed it, but I enjoyed it. A simpler plot but plenty of action.
Rated 16 Apr 2019
hamstercanhamstercan
Rated 21 Oct 2016
68
57th
First of all I need to make something clear; we don't make bombs at Istanbul university, and you can't just go in without school id. Book ending with virus being exposed was better.
Rated 21 Oct 2016
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
Rated 03 Mar 2017
39
10th
Of all of the franchises Hanks could have made for himself - why this? The movies have been consistently terrible and he is completely wrong for the role.
Rated 03 Mar 2017
icceicce
Rated 23 Dec 2017
60
7th
They changed the ending.
Rated 23 Dec 2017
carsonwidCarsonWid
Rated 12 Nov 2016
52
25th
Bad script but decent acting and direction. I'd like to see Hanks and Howard invest their talents elsewhere
Rated 12 Nov 2016
christofchristof
Rated 04 Jan 2017
25
4th
Another installment of Where's Waldo in Europe. Why did I watch this? What was I expecting? Nonsense.
Rated 04 Jan 2017
dresd_r_e_s_
Rated 20 Feb 2018
1
8th
Holy crap... (pun intended) *Bad
Rated 20 Feb 2018
coffeecoffee
Rated 11 Dec 2016
80
74th
Definitely the best of the Langdon films so far. (A little research on Malthus and Naess is advised before watching this.)
Rated 11 Dec 2016
amazedemonamazedemon
Rated 11 Jan 2017
56
11th
Dan Brown's books read like films with added exposition dumps, and I enjoyed Howard's first two adaptations, flawed as they may be. Simply put, Infero is a let down. The film begins with overtures of a zombie/ horror film which is quickly abandoned in favour of chases and action sequences. Howard may have caputured a sense of urgency, but forgot to include characters that have any depth and a plot that has intrigue at it's heart. The ending is unsatisfying as is the film that preceded it.
Rated 11 Jan 2017
nackermanNackerman
Rated 17 Aug 2018
20
1st
A fantastically stupid film.
Rated 17 Aug 2018
philamentalphilamental
Rated 24 Sep 2020
27
3rd
This is bad. Painfully obvious 'twist' from the moment the seed is first planted. And for a series that's largely dependent on it's protagonist being the smartest guy in the room, nerfing his cognitive abilities for most of the movie doesn't leave you left with much.
Rated 24 Sep 2020
pluggedinPluggedIN
Rated 06 Nov 2016
60
62nd
http://www.pluggedin.com/movie-reviews/inferno
Rated 06 Nov 2016
spaceflohspacefloh
Rated 30 May 2018
30
9th
eng; [inferno]; ein wissenschaftler wacht mit erinnerungsverlust im krankenhaus auf und muss anschließend historischee rätsel lösen um die menschheit zu retten.;
Rated 30 May 2018
tdh1878TDH1878
Rated 10 Apr 2023
29
4th
Not only is Inferno a terrible film with vapid characters and ideas, but it's also quite possibly one of the dumbest movies of the decade, and an insult to any talent that Dan Brown holds.
Rated 10 Apr 2023
sheepslashersheepslasher
Rated 08 Nov 2016
3
56th
boy howdy do i love me an archeological thriller
Rated 08 Nov 2016
ptravers2ptravers2
Rated 03 Jan 2017
3
12th
Here's the third futile attempt by director Ron Howard to turn the bestselling claptrap of author Dan Brown into something watchable. He comes close, but not close enough.
Rated 03 Jan 2017
aalperraaaalperraa
Rated 02 Nov 2016
70
42nd
22.10.2016, Cinemaximum ANKAmall
Rated 02 Nov 2016
duderDuder
Rated 03 Mar 2017
40
3rd
Not that much different from the previous films. The same mediocrity caries through the film. Of course the major change at the end from the book is very, VERY disappointing. I had found it very refreshing in the book but the film, of course had to be a positive ending with the most unnecessary action scenes at the end with bombs and shit.. so stupid..
Rated 03 Mar 2017
ottott
Rated 07 Aug 2018
5
1st
total mindless junk with a hint of someones real fear of academic radicalisation
Rated 07 Aug 2018
bratingsbratings
Rated 30 Oct 2016
31
17th
Not only is Inferno a terrible film, but it's also quite possibly one of the dumbest movies of the decade, and an insult to any talent that Dan Brown holds.
Rated 30 Oct 2016
batkojohnybatkojohny
Rated 24 Sep 2018
30
3rd
Allow it
Rated 24 Sep 2018
chemical404chemical404
Rated 26 Dec 2016
31
13th
Another sequel Hollywood released this year after the long break. Looks like even ideas for sequels are drying out in creative minds of Hollywood. It plays a lot like Jason Bourne type of globe-trotting action movie, and pseudo-historical mysteries are pushed to the background. The clue-solving is often ridiculous ('cracks some obscure historical reference for direction', oh yea, the dude who made the clue also works there). Poor sequel to poor movie series.
Rated 26 Dec 2016
aaasolankiaaasolanki
Rated 30 Oct 2016
74
36th
Disclaimer - I had read the book before I watched the movie. The movie is just like the book - extremely fast-paced, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The puzzle solving that takes pages of reading is done with in seconds in the movie due to the 2 hour runtime. This might not be to everyone's liking. The first half stays true to the book but the second half takes a major diversion. The book's end was not everyone's cup of tea and the same goes for the movie too. I liked both though.
Rated 30 Oct 2016
dst7175dst7175
Rated 28 May 2017
5
3rd
Wow this is garbage
Rated 28 May 2017
rossRoss
Rated 01 Feb 2017
35
26th
The book was surprisingly enjoyable, but the movie filters most of the interesting parts away and leaves you with the most generic Hollywood thriller of 2016.
Rated 01 Feb 2017
myfavchordsmyfavchords
Rated 20 Oct 2018
66
18th
The actors do a good job in this movie. However the script and the story are severely lacking in this installment. The script is weird and it makes the film disappointing.
Rated 20 Oct 2018
gkfilmgkfilm
Rated 08 May 2017
45
13th
Entertainment: 3/4 (felt like parts of it were unnecessarily horrific even to tell the story.) Spirit: 1/3. Sustainability: 0.5/3.
Rated 08 May 2017
marazimarazi
Rated 06 Jan 2017
65
17th
Fena diil
Rated 06 Jan 2017
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 11 Aug 2017
28
21st
bad movie
Rated 11 Aug 2017
td888td888
Rated 21 Feb 2017
20
9th
A big jumbled mess. Big fail by Howard and Hanks. Everyone says so.
Rated 21 Feb 2017
tancantancan
Rated 11 Feb 2017
76
46th
Very beautiful and exotic historical structures such as Cistern Basilica and Hagia Sophia, exciting action, but very cliche senario.
Rated 11 Feb 2017
hajikarimihajikarimi
Rated 15 Mar 2017
86
23rd
1474: far from davinci codes!
Rated 15 Mar 2017
punqPUNQ
Rated 03 Jan 2017
40
57th
Entertaining in that standard blockbuster way.... while falling short like most blockbusters of 2016 did. I had the handicap of not seeing The Da Vinci Code (2006) or Angels & Demons (2009), so I had a few holes to fill, but overall it's pretty strait forward stuff in the usual international sight seeing style of action films we have today.
Rated 03 Jan 2017
mwestcottmwestcott
Rated 04 Feb 2020
30
8th
Inferno is without a doubt the worst in the Langdon trilogy. It's not a good movie for the most part. Frantic in editing instead of pace. Large scale in idea instead of tone. Tom Hanks does what he can and it may encourage some to check out the far superior book.
Rated 04 Feb 2020
jnsonejijnsoneji
Rated 19 Nov 2016
85
33rd
The movie is gripping till the end. However, all the blood and terrible scenes doesn't make sense when you complete the movie. Seems, Tom Hank has worked in the movie just for the sake of it. Falls in the trap of novel based bad movies.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
dargumindargumin
Rated 18 Oct 2016
64
21st
The premise is pretty cool, a villain intent on doing a terrible thing through pure rational reasoning. Certainly better than your "try to take over the world" villain. Some points of the book are changed for the better - eg the reveal of the traitor, but 2 are for the worse (The Sinskey & Provost plot lines) They did a great job of bringing the book to life visually but Felicity Jones & Sidse Babbett Knudson lack intensity given whats at stake, practically phoning their performances in.
Rated 18 Oct 2016
scholar69420Scholar69420
Rated 21 Jan 2024
40
14th
A mediocre conclusion to a generic fantasy action trilogy based on the most unrealistic works of historical fiction ever written. The writing is particularly lazy here, but other than the plot it isn’t entirely bad
Rated 21 Jan 2024

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...