DISASTER CONFIRMED: Schnabel’s Opus Is Too ‘Pretentious’ To Function
Julian Schnabel’s new movie, “In the Hand of Dante,” starring Oscar Isaac, is a self-important, bloated spectacle that proves that beauty without brains is just a pretty picture. While the film is visually stunning—courtesy of cinematographer Roman Vasyanov—that’s where the compliments end. This two-hour navel-gaze is a pretentious disaster that is too self-serious to be taken seriously.
Isaac plays real-life journalist/novelist Nick Tosches, who gets sucked into a criminal conspiracy to steal an alleged manuscript of The Divine Comedy. In baffling flashbacks, Isaac also plays Dante Alighieri himself, struggling with his spiritual failings and loveless marriage. The film treats its source material like the author’s own brazen self-insert fan-fiction, where Nick Tosches is a “brilliant, bold, hunky iconoclast” and possibly the living reincarnation of Dante.
You could fill the whole screen with nothing but this protagonist’s ego. The entire movie is presented with such bloviating, soupy seriousness that the audience can’t connect. The spiritual ambition is suffocated by the self-aggrandizing tone, and the “transcendent” romance is utterly unconvincing. The crime plot is so cheesy and pulpy it’s practically curdled.
️ THE VILLAIN SCANDAL: The Homophobic Killer Is The Only Relatable Character
The film’s most shocking indictment of its own storytelling is the fact that the most enjoyable and relatable character is a violent, mass-murdering bigot. Gerard Butler plays Louie, a gangster who travels with Tosches and kills nearly everyone they meet. Louie is a queer, yet violently homophobic, monster.
But Louie is the only character who approaches Tosches’s mythologizing with a “welcome and refreshing lack of interest,” acting like Han Solo approaching Luke Skywalker’s mystical world in Star Wars. His cynical, homicidal presence provides the only relief from the thick fog of self-importance.
However, once the film moves past this sidebar character, there’s nothing left to cling to. Let’s be honest: the fact that the mass-murdering bigot is the movie’s most relatable character isn’t exactly a selling point. It’s a massive, uncomfortable moral failure that the filmmakers seem oblivious to.
GAL GADOT’S SLUMBER: Her Post-Wonder Woman Flop Continues
The scandal of the film’s acting roster centers on Gal Gadot, whose mission to prove her charismatic turn in the first Wonder Woman film was a “fluke continues to be successful.” Gadot’s performance here is so flat, it’s raising serious questions about her acting abilities outside of the superhero costume.
She spends most of the film looking and sounding sleepy, which just makes us want to take a nap too. This latest venture into high-art drama is a major professional misfire for the star, who needs a critical success to cement her post-DC career. Gadot’s lack of energy highlights the weak, obtuse material she was given.
On the upside? At least she doesn’t have a musical number this time, avoiding a repeat of the awkward singing she promised for the disastrous Snow White remake. But the bottom line is clear: Gadot’s dramatic career pivot is stumbling badly.
THE SCORSESE CAMEO: Religious Baggage Piled High
If the film wasn’t already drowning in self-importance, it brought out the big guns for a bizarre cameo. Martin Scorsese, arguably the most prominent Catholic filmmaker in Hollywood history, appears as Dante’s Jewish spiritual advisor.
In a scene that defies unpacking, Scorsese’s character gives the Catholic author—and his Catholicism—an “official seal of religious approval.” The amount of religious and cultural baggage piled into this one scene is staggering, and it’s presented with the same bloviating seriousness as the rest of the film. It adds zero clarity and maximum confusion to the already convoluted plot threads.
Even talented character actors struggle to make sense of this mess. John Malkovich, in a thankless role as a corrupt art dealer, is wasted behind a desk. Oscar Isaac, known for his ability to captivate even with obtuse material, is visibly fighting for his life against the sheer absurdity of the script.
CLIFFHANGER: Is This Intentionally Bad Art, Or Just A Disaster?
“In the Hand of Dante” dangles precariously between solemn camp and artistic tragedy. The film is “unbridled, unfettered and bold,” but those adjectives are not always complimentary. The director, Julian Schnabel, who is famed for beautiful dramas about artists, seems to have lost the thread entirely in a thick fog of self-importance.
Is the film intentionally absurdist, or is it a genuine disaster? The answer remains unclear, but either option is unfortunate. Schnabel dared to “boldly walk face-first into a brick wall,” and the only saving grace is that his wall, thanks to Roman Vasyanov, has pretty pictures on it.
The world waits to see if this colossal flop will be quickly forgotten, or if it will be studied in film schools for its perfect self-destruction.
Oscar Isaac leading the pretentious film.
Gerard Butler as the murderous, homophobic gangster.
Gal Gadot’s unenthusiastic performance.
Martin Scorsese’s bizarre spiritual cameo.
The real-life character Isaac plays.
The subject of the stolen manuscript.
The only saving grace: the visual splendor.
The narrative critique of the source material.
John Malkovich’s thankless role.
The scandal of the most relatable character.
The star’s attempt to prove her previous success was a fluke.
Isaac’s battle against the confusing script.
The element that obscures Schnabel’s vision.
The film’s overly serious tone.
The contradiction in Butler’s character.
The specific, bizarre role of Scorsese.
The saving grace for Gal Gadot.
Dante’s historical struggles in the film.
The potential final status of the film.
The way Louie approaches the protagonist’s world.
The context of Gadot’s career choices.
The quality of John Malkovich’s acting.
The assessment of the film’s general quality.
The metaphor for the director’s failed effort.
The excessive focus on the protagonists’ inner world.
The unconvincing nature of the love story.
The quality of the criminal conspiracy plot.
The confirmed success of her “fluke” mission.
Scorsese’s typical religious identity.
Louie’s function as a secondary character.
The fact that visual beauty is the only positive.
The dual role of the leading man.
The confusing merging of reality and fiction.
The strong but often negative adjectives.
The key detail of Louie’s personality.
The seal of religious approval scene.
The detachment of the historical storyline.
The immense ego of the protagonist.
The uncertainty of the film’s tone.
The strong performance despite the plot.
The difficulties of her career transition.
The difficulty of Isaac’s performance.
The final, damning metaphor.
