Inferno (2016)
I'll admit that I'm an apologist for Dan Brown and, to a lesser extent, the Ron Howard/Tom Hanks adaptations thereof. I guess the main knock on the novels is the quality of the writing, but I think that kind of misses the point. They are page-turning humanities classes rather than literature. Each entry takes a city or set of cities, it lays in pretty thick description of art and architecture that lets us, through Robert Langdon, vicariously travel to these notable places. Layer on top of it some philosophical/historical notion, in the case of Inferno you have Malthusian population bomb rhetoric that sends us into Florence.
In adapting for cinema, it necessarily trims out and simplifies the plot. We get far less of the description of places and things. Arguably the advantage of cinema is that instead of description we actually get to see these wonderful settings, but in this case I feel like it never takes the time to really explore this. So it doesn't even take advantage of the one thing it should have an edge in. In this way, I feel like this is the worst adaptation in the series (I'd argue Angels and Demons, which was a much less complex novel to begin with, is the superior adaptation).
So even as a fan of the series I can't recommend this. Also, I wonder if Assassin's Creed has taken over some of the series' mantle, letting you roam historical reconstructions of these grand cities (AC2 puts you in Florence, and expansion put you into Rome). I suppose I will have to check out that adaptation to see how the film manages that feeling.