Netflix's latest high-profile release, the crime thriller In the Hand of Dante, has been met with a wave of harsh criticism, with some outlets calling it the worst film of the year. Despite a star-studded cast featuring Gal Gadot, Oscar Isaac, Gerard Butler, Al Pacino, Jason Momoa, and John Malkovich, the film has failed to impress both critics and general audiences since its debut on the streaming platform.
The film, which premiered at film festivals earlier in 2026, initially received middling early reviews, scoring a 43% on Rotten Tomatoes. However, since its wider release on Netflix, the criticism has intensified dramatically. Multiple outlets have described the movie as a 'sprawling, overly-ambitious mess' that is difficult to follow, with a narrative that jumps across centuries and continents without a coherent throughline.
The story follows Oscar Isaac in a complex dual role: he plays Nick, a modern-day scholar obsessed with the works of Dante Alighieri, and also portrays Dante himself in a separate 14th-century timeline. The modern plot revolves around Nick being approached by the Italian mob, who offer him the chance to study the lost original manuscript of The Divine Comedy. The film then leaps back and forth between 2001 and the 1300s, chronicling Dante's life as he begins writing his masterpiece. This ambitious structure, intended to mirror the layered nature of Dante's epic poem, instead leaves viewers confused and disengaged.
Critics have been particularly harsh on the film's pacing and structural confusion. Little White Lies noted that the movie 'isn’t even entertaining enough to count as a compelling disaster.' Slate magazine raised a pointed question: 'Pacino. Scorsese. Oscar Isaac. Why did these people all sign on to such a terrible movie?' The reference to Scorsese likely stems from the film's producer credit for the legendary director, who is listed as an executive producer. RogerEbert.com compared In the Hand of Dante to Francis Ford Coppola's meme-worthy misfire Megalopolis, stating that 'there’s the sense that only the filmmaker fully understands what in Dante’s fiery Hell all of this is supposed to mean.' Metro echoed this sentiment, suggesting that if you enjoyed Megalopolis's perplexing excess of everything, then this may be one for you.
The film is based on the 2002 novel of the same name by Nick Tosches, a journalist and author known for his unconventional biographies and crime fiction. Tosches' novel weaves together a modern heist thriller with historical fiction about Dante Alighieri, creating a meta-narrative that challenges the reader to piece together fragments of history and fiction. The adaptation, directed by Julian Schnabel—an artist known for his painterly films like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and Before Night Falls—seems to have attempted to capture the novel's intricate layering but fell victim to its own ambition.
Gal Gadot, best known for her iconic role as Wonder Woman in the DC Extended Universe, plays a supporting character in the film. Her role, while highly anticipated, has been criticized as underwritten, with reviewers noting that her charisma is wasted in a part that offers little dramatic weight. Oscar Isaac, who has received widespread acclaim for performances in Ex Machina, Inside Llewyn Davis, and the Star Wars sequel trilogy, delivers a committed performance in dual roles but cannot overcome the disjointed screenplay. Gerard Butler, typically associated with testosterone-fueled action films like 300 and the Has Fallen series, appears in a relatively minor capacity as a shady art dealer, again underutilized.
The supporting cast includes Al Pacino, Jason Momoa, and John Malkovich, each of whom brings their own distinctive energy but are given little coherent material to work with. Pacino, in particular, delivers a hammy performance that critics have described as a parody of his later work. Momoa appears in a few scenes as a muscular enforcer, playing against type but with limited screen time. The presence of these heavyweight talents has only amplified the disappointment, as audiences wonder what drew them to such a troubled project.
Beyond the narrative problems, the film's technical aspects have also come under fire. The cinematography, while occasionally striking in the black-and-white segments set in the 14th century, is otherwise described as flat and uninspired. The score, composed by frequent Schnabel collaborator John Zorn, is jarring and atonal, further contributing to the sense of dissonance. The editing, often cited as the film's worst flaw, jumps erratically between timelines without clear markers, leaving viewers struggling to track which century they are in.
The film's production history has also been a topic of speculation. Originally announced in 2020, the project underwent several delays and writer changes. Schnabel, known for his meticulous approach and aversion to studio interference, clashed with Netflix executives over the film's runtime and narrative structure. Early cuts reportedly ran over three hours, and the final 140-minute version may have been the result of hasty post-production decisions. Critics have noted that the film feels like a heavily truncated version of a much longer, possibly more coherent work.
The reception of In the Hand of Dante has reignited discussions about Netflix's strategy of greenlighting expensive, star-driven projects without a proven commercial track record. While Netflix has achieved hits with similar gambles—such as The Irishman and Roma—the platform has also produced notable failures like The Gray Man and The Woman in the Window. In the Hand of Dante now stands alongside these films as a cautionary tale of how A-list casts and massive budgets cannot guarantee quality.
Cultural references to Dante's Divine Comedy have a long history in film and literature, from Se7en's use of the seven deadly sins to the video game Dante's Inferno. Adapting the actual life of Dante Alighieri, however, is a far more challenging task. The 14th-century poet was not only a literary giant but also a political figure in Florence, exiled from his hometown and writing his masterpiece as an act of literary revenge and spiritual exploration. Tosches' novel boldly imagined what would happen if that original manuscript survived into the modern world, but translating that conceit to the screen requires a delicate balance that Schnabel and his team failed to achieve.
Despite the critical drubbing, there may be a niche audience for In the Hand of Dante. Some viewers appreciate the sheer audacity of the project, its willingness to fail spectacularly rather than play it safe. The film's visual ambition—particularly its use of period-accurate locations in Italy and elaborate medieval costumes—has been praised in some quarters. For those with a high tolerance for experimental narrative structures and a deep familiarity with Dante's work, the film might offer moments of interest. But for the general audience, it is likely to remain an endurance test.
The film also highlights a recurring challenge in Hollywood: adapting literary works that are themselves dense and multifaceted. The 2002 novel by Tosches is a cult favorite, admired for its daring mix of genres and its erudite allusions. Yet what works on the page—especially a page filled with Tosches' sardonic footnotes and digressions—often flounders on screen. The book's loyal readers have criticized the film for stripping away the novel's humor and philosophical depth, leaving only a convoluted plot.
In the end, In the Hand of Dante serves as a reminder that even the most distinguished talent can produce a misfire when the underlying material is not properly adapted. The film is now available for streaming on Netflix, and viewers curious to judge for themselves can decide whether the reviews are warranted. Based on the overwhelming consensus, though, this is one trip through the circles of Hell that most are likely to skip.
Source:Yahoo Entertainment News