In the Hand of Dante Feature Scores
Explore all 43 feature scores for In the Hand of Dante, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
43 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.01 (2%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.47 (16%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.45 (12%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.425 (58%)
-
Very negative below 1.55 (12%)
Pros
Sort
-
The crisp black-and-white modern sequences and vivid color period scenes are the film's most consistent achievement. Painterly compositions, roaming camera work, and striking locations give it a grand visual identity.
-
Gerard Butler is the most frequent standout, with John Malkovich, Al Pacino, and Martin Scorsese also earning praise. The ensemble remains uneven because several prominent performances feel miscast or tonally disconnected.
-
Oscar Isaac is usually the film's strongest anchor, differentiating Nick Tosches and Dante with commitment and charisma. Even favorable assessments note that the sprawling script makes his task unnecessarily difficult.
-
Few films combine literary scholarship, medieval mysticism, organized crime, reincarnation, and romantic melodrama this boldly. The result is unmistakably original even when it fails.
-
The contrast between widescreen monochrome and boxier color imagery gives the film a distinctive look. Even harsh critics often admire its painterly frames, textures, and locations.
-
The theft, manuscript authentication, and early criminal pursuit create the film's best suspense. That tension fades as romance and metaphysical reflection take over.
-
The lost-manuscript caper and reincarnated-writer structure create a genuinely unusual plot. Its singularity is a major asset, even though the execution is unwieldy.
-
Medieval Italy and the black-and-white criminal world have vivid, contrasting identities. The settings are imaginative and visually rich even when the narrative connection between them is weak.
Cons
Sort
-
At roughly two and a half hours, the film is consistently described as bloated. Its length magnifies the repetition, tonal drift, and weak second half.
-
The two timelines, dual casting, side plots, and metaphysical links are difficult to track. Their connection remains tenuous until a late explanation that does little to unify the story.
-
The cross-century romance is the most repeated weakness. It is underwritten, rushed, and emotionally cold, leaving the declarations of timeless love unconvincing.
-
The dialogue is frequently florid, repetitive, and self-consciously poetic. Period speeches, odd accents, and grand declarations often become confusing or accidentally funny.
-
The final act is one of the weakest sections. Melodrama, an awkward showdown, and an unearned philosophical resolution replace the energy of the earlier manuscript plot.
-
The first act and manuscript investigation can move well, but the film increasingly meanders. Long philosophical passages, repeated detours, and a sluggish second half make the journey feel punishing.
-
The story is an audacious literary-gangster epic with flashes of fascination, suspense, and beauty. Its dominant impression, however, is of an overstuffed, confusing mess that collapses under its scope.
-
The screenplay contains an intriguing premise and ambitious ideas but lacks discipline. Absurd turns, unclear motives, disconnected threads, and self-important writing keep it from cohering.
-
The film jumps between gangster pulp, solemn historical drama, black comedy, romance, and spiritual reverie. Those modes frequently clash instead of enriching one another.
-
Oscar Isaac and Gal Gadot rarely create the passion needed for the cross-century love story. A small minority found their pairing effective, but the dominant impression is emotional distance.
-
The all-star ensemble is wildly uneven. Several supporting players add force and humor, but the mismatched styles, accents, and flat performances often make the drama feel unintentionally comic.
-
The experience is highly divisive. Some enjoy the strange cast, violent pulp, and trainwreck fascination, but most find the film exhausting, dull, and difficult to recommend.
-
The film reaches for love, grief, faith, and artistic transcendence but remains emotionally remote. Its intellectual ambitions rarely turn into a moving human experience.
-
The portrayal of Dante's faith, worldview, and medieval context is frequently criticized as revisionist or superficial. Its historical world works better as stylized fantasy than persuasive biography.
-
The film badly needs a tighter cut. Jolting timeline transitions, repetitive stops, wandering subplots, and scenes that run too long drain momentum from the stronger crime material.
-
The violence is graphic, sudden, and often mean-spirited. It can add shock and danger to the crime story, but many find it excessive or emotionally unpleasant.
-
The period clothing divides opinion. Some find it sumptuous and memorable, while others see cheap, theatrical costumes that make the medieval sections feel like historical cosplay.
-
The adaptation preserves the novel's dual structure and excess, yet its interpretation of Dante's beliefs is sharply disputed. The film often feels more loyal to its own mythology than to the historical poet.
-
The oversized beards, wigs, and conspicuous hair choices are memorable but often distracting. Several looks invite laughter instead of supporting the historical illusion.
-
The spiritual message is muddled and heavy-handed, mixing reincarnation, anti-institutional religion, art, and romantic salvation. Its conclusions can feel simplistic or hostile rather than profound.
-
This is best suited to viewers who enjoy audacious, divisive auteur projects and can tolerate confusion. Most will find the length and self-importance hard to endure.
-
The film's ambition earns scattered admiration, but its indulgence, incoherence, and length have produced overwhelmingly negative critical reactions.
-
The criminal plan, character behavior, romance, and handling of priceless documents often strain credibility. The film favors heightened myth and pulp over believable detail.
-
Julian Schnabel takes a fearless, highly personal swing, but the freedom becomes self-indulgence. His visual confidence is clear, while narrative control, tone, and restraint are much less reliable.
-
Ideas about art, commerce, faith, violence, redemption, and artistic obsession are abundant. They are often compelling in isolation but rarely developed into a coherent or emotionally grounded argument.
-
Key motivations are vague, supporting figures arrive late, and several women function more as symbols than fully formed characters. The film's scale leaves too little room for believable growth.
-
The action is limited and rarely becomes a strength. The few bursts of violence and confrontation are weakened by awkward staging and uneven performances.
-
The Italian setting and Dante material are visually prominent, yet the accents, casting, and limited use of Italian performers often feel inauthentic or caricatured.
-
The dramatic material is overextended and pompous rather than emotionally persuasive. Large conflicts and spiritual stakes are presented with weight, but seldom earn it.
-
The film's profanity and vulgar speeches contribute to an abrasive, hostile atmosphere. The coarse language is more likely to repel than enhance the experience.
-
The mature sexual imagery is brief but deliberately provocative. It fits the film's adult tone, though the surrounding vulgarity and symbolism may feel gratuitous.
-
The soundtrack includes conspicuous choices that can feel more like a filmmaker's indulgence than an organic part of the story.
-
The locations and historical spaces can look grand, but the physical world is inconsistent. Some sets feel painterly and immersive, while others appear cheap or sloppy.
-
The black-and-white gangster and authentication material is usually the most satisfying part. The medieval biopic and spiritual romance are slower, thinner, and less coherent.
-
Gerard Butler's outrageous gangster provides much of the intentional humor, while other laughs come from campy casting, accents, and solemn scenes that land unintentionally.
Cast & Creators
-
CinematographerRoman Vasyanov's cinematography is the most consistently praised contribution. The luminous color, crisp monochrome, unusual framing, and painterly movement give the film beauty even when the story fails.
-
Uncle CarmineAl Pacino makes a strong impression in a very small role. His understated, gravelly presence gives the opening moral lesson more weight than most of the later drama.
-
Louie / Pope Bonifacio VIIIGerard Butler is the film's most frequent scene-stealer, attacking Louie with comic menace and full commitment. Some find the work overplayed or miscast, but many consider it the movie's liveliest performance.
-
Joe BlackJohn Malkovich gives the mob storyline eccentric menace and dry humor. He is often praised as compelling, though one account felt he was simply coasting on familiar mannerisms.
-
Nick Tosches / Dante AlighieriOscar Isaac is the consensus anchor, bringing charisma, commitment, and contrast to the dual lead. Even severe detractors usually recognize the difficulty of his task, though a few consider the material one of his weaker showcases.
-
ComposerBenjamin Clementine brings an electrifying presence and also contributes the music. His brief appearance stands out within the film's crowded collection of cameos.
-
IsaiahMartin Scorsese's bearded mentor is memorable and often warmly received, with several calling him a highlight. Others find the costume, dialogue, and solemn delivery unintentionally comic or embarrassing.
-
Don LeccoFranco Nero's brief appearance adds old-school gravitas and is repeatedly treated as a welcome cameo.
-
Dr. Susanna PuliceSabrina Impacciatore receives sharply mixed reactions. One critic attacks her line readings, while another finds her excellent and able to do more than the role deserves.
-
DirectorJulian Schnabel's uncompromised ambition is both the attraction and the problem. His visual imagination and willingness to take risks are clear, but self-indulgence, tonal confusion, and weak narrative control dominate the response.
-
RosarioJason Momoa is usually judged miscast, with his accent and late-arriving gangster role drawing ridicule. A few find his flamboyant presence briefly entertaining.
-
Giulietta / Gemma DonatiGal Gadot is the most consistently criticized major performer. Her dual roles are described as flat, stiff, and emotionally unconvincing, with little chemistry opposite Oscar Isaac, though a few viewers found the pairing effective.