I seem to have neglected my blog for a fair few weeks. I haven’t been overly busy but here’s hoping it will make a comeback during the last few months of this year. What was that, did I just say last few months of the year?! There’s two more weeks of October then it’s November and New Year’s Eve before you know it. Crazy.
I went to see Inferno at the weekend starring Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones. It’s based on Dan Brown’s book of the same name and I finished it in about a week which was impressive since it was a good 600 pages…
Anyway, the story focuses on Professor Robert Langdon (whom you may know from Da Vinci Code.) He wakes up in a hospital in Florence with no recollection of how he got there. A doctor called Sienna Brooks helps Langdon escape from the hospital so he doesn’t get shot at by the Italian government who seem to be chasing him. Back at Sienna’s apartment, he finds a small canister in his pocket which projects Dante’s version of hell. It has been altered by scientist, billionaire, Betrand Zorbist who has left a code within the picture for the owner of the canister to decipher. This then leads to a chase round the city to find clues linked to Zorbists’ controversial ideas before he killed himself.
It’s a long, complex story and I thoroughly enjoyed the book but the film was a waste of time. Here’s why:
- The characters weren’t cast well
Nothing bothers me more than when film producers don’t interpret characters like I do, especially when there’s glaringly obvious traits that should be included. Sienna is supposed to be blonde but she is brunette in the film. She is actually meant to be bald but this isn’t evident at all. I think Felicity Jones was the wrong choice to play Sienna too as she is portrayed as ballsy and highly intelligent which doesn’t really work as Jones is very British and has a calm temperament. Elizabeth Sinskey is also meant to have grey hair but has brunette in the film.
One of the characters from the book isn’t in the film and he’s one of the main characters. How does that even happen?
2. 3 hours worth of action is crammed into 2
The book is quite a bulky read but the film packs everything into an ambitious 2 hours which makes the story jump to something different every second. Characters aren’t introduced properly, Langdon solves the clues in seconds and the ending is rushed. It’s almost embarrassing.
3. Plot twists are changed
Langdon is told by Elizabeth Sinskey that Sienna was working for Zorbist at the end of the book but in the film Sienna reveals herself to Langdon half way through which ruins the suspense. The ending is also completely different from the book. The virus they have been trying to stop gets out in the book and infects everybody but in the film, they manage to contain it. Would that be too scary for a film? I thought maybe because the film was given a 12a rating, they had to change it to a happy ending but that’s what I enjoyed about the book, the ending wasn’t happy.
4. There’s a random love interest between Langdon and Sinskey
In the book, Sinskey is purely just someone he met to discuss Zorbist with but in the film, there seems to be a history between them. There’s no point in this, it just takes away from the main storyline.
The film tries to be funny at points, joking about Langdon’s memory loss and clues that aren’t even funny. It’s meant to be a serious thriller not a comedy.
There are so many things wrong with this adaptation and I was really disappointed. It was messily put together and so many things were chopped and changed to fit into 2 hours. If you haven’t seen the book, you won’t have a clue what’s going on or whether the people chasing them are good or bad. Save yourself a tenner and stick to The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons.