In _The Da Vinci Code_, what begins as a murder mystery morphs into an art history thriller with ridiculous conspiracy theories and cheesy plot twists. While this absurdity can certainly repel audiences, many enjoy it as a guilty pleasure, soaking up the connections between art, history and conspiracy.
The third film adaptation of Dan Brown’s mystery series about symbology professor Robert Langdon, again starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard, hit theaters last weekend, offering only disappointments. Where _The Da Vinci Code_ used art history as the driving force of its mystery, _Inferno_ makes the art an afterthought to a dull, disorienting thriller. Instead, it focuses on the worst aspects of the original: dumb plot twists and a cartoonishly irrational villain.
Suffering from head trauma and memory loss, Professor Langdon (Hanks) wakes up in an Italian hospital under the care of Dr. Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones). When an assassin invades the hospital, Langdon and Brooks are thrust into the streets of Florence, Italy, in the middle of a mystery that neither they nor the viewers understand.
Unable to remember what chain of events brought him to his predicament, Langdon experiences hallucinatory visions and obscure flashbacks. Just as the memory loss disorients Langdon, these visions similarly affect the audience. Where the absence of context and exposition is meant to create mystery and intrigue, it rather generates a confusion that prevents anyone from investing in either the story or the characters. The first 15 minutes are so painfully disastrous that they could easily send viewers out demanding a refund.
As Langdon regains his memory and his visions cease, _Inferno_ becomes increasingly tolerable, but nothing more than that. Instead, the film shifts into a confusing web of characters, unified only by their chase of the missing symbology professor. From the World Health Organization to an underground band of mercenaries, this cluster of secondary characters is irritatingly presented without motivations of any kind.
For most of the runtime, audiences are frustratingly left in the dark. The only thing they do understand is the primary plot surrounding Langdon and Brooks.
Unaware of any larger context, Langdon and Brooks know they must outrun those conspiring against them to prevent a global threat. Hopping from clue to clue, they race to find a deadly virus that could cut the world’s population in half.
Along the way, _Inferno_ presents an unceasing and infuriating slew of plot twists. But tricking viewers doesn’t make a good film. Instead, it undermines the gravity of each big reveal, reducing each of them to meaningless nonsense.
All of these issues completely obscure the biggest draw for _The Da Vinci Code_ fans: art history. Most of the mystery’s clues come from Dante’s _Inferno_, but they never amount to anything more than references. The former offers viewers with a brief history lesson, whereas viewers leave _Inferno_ having learned nothing.
_The Da Vinci Code_ is a guilty pleasure for history nerds and art buffs. But no one, not even fans of the first Dan Brown adaptation, will find _Inferno_ better than tolerable.
**MOVE gives _Inferno_ 1.5 out of 5 stars.**