Old School. Biblically Independent.
By Mae Abdulbaki | Film | June 29, 2026
There are occasions when a movie is so bad that it’s almost incomprehensible how it got made to begin with. In the Hand of Dante is one such film. Directed by Julian Schnabel and co-written by Schnabel and Louise Kugelberg, the film, which had its premiere at the 2025 Venice Film Festival, is not even something I would call pretentious so much as it is arduous and overly dull. At two and a half hours long, its length is never justified by a competently told or intriguing story. Anyone, even hard-core Dante Alighieri enthusiasts, would find this movie hard to sit through thanks to its insincerity, astoundingly awful dialogue, and an audacity that could have been applauded had it attempted to be more interesting.
A story within a story, In the Hand of Dante tries to pull off being a crime thriller, an epic romance, and an intriguing mystery. It doesn’t accomplish any of these. Oscar Isaac plays dual roles as Nick Tosches, a real-life novelist whose 2002 book is the premise of the film, and Dante Alighieri, the famed writer of The Divine Comedy. Set in two different centuries, Nick is tasked by black market trader Joe Black (John Malkovich) to acquire and verify Dante’s original manuscript, which was thought to have been lost at some point in time.
The film mixes fact with fiction as Nick, paired with the assassin Louie (Gerard Butler), looks for the manuscript in Italy. Meanwhile, in the 1400s, Dante searches for divine knowledge with his mentor Isaiah (Martin Scorsese). Jason Momoa makes a brief appearance — wearing a stylish hat and seeming like he belongs in an entirely different and more entertaining film — and it’s the only time the dullness begins to abate. Somewhere, buried very deeply in a mess of a plot and oscillating timelines, there is a much better film, but this isn’t it.
The film wants to be a lot of things, and that ambition actually works against it. The fantasy of acquiring Dante’s original manuscript could have been fascinating and entertaining, but Schnabel takes a self-serious approach to Nick’s journey, pushing the film into a dark void brought on by frustration and a sluggish detachment from its plot and characters. If there’s a message in here about art, it’s lost amid nonsensical dialogue and heavily uneven and even poor performances.
Most baffling of all is the film’s inclusion of Gemma, Dante’s wife, and Giulietta, Nick’s paramour (both played by Gal Gadot) in what can only be called the worst onscreen romance I’ve seen in a long time. Not only do Gadot and Isaac have no chemistry (he has more with Sabrina Impacciatore’s Dr. Susanna Pulice, who shares one passionate moment and two scenes total with Nick), but the love story is so atrociously executed that it feels tacked on to give the film something to hold onto. Nick’s intrigue with Dante and his manuscript isn’t enough, but the romance is laughably bad, and there’s no reason to attach viewers to something so lackadaisical.
It’s made worse by Gadot’s stiff acting and abysmal facial expressions, attempting to convey feelings that don’t register. Isaac fares better, but not by much. He’s certainly trying, but for an actor who typically gives a lot more in his performances, it’s as though he’s delivering his lines from a distance. There and not there, switching between passionate speech and hesitation. It’s sometimes grand and restrained, perhaps because he, too, is trying to make sense of the film like we are. Butler chews scenery but not in a good way, and when he appears as Pope Boniface VIII it’s practically comical. Everyone is operating on very different levels, and it speaks to the film’s overall incoherence.
I wish I could say that In the Hand of Dante is some sweeping romantic and historical epic, but it’s a boring, flat, and deeply unengaging film that is a waste of one’s time. Roman Vasyanov’s cinematography — a noir-ish black and white for the 2002 setting and crisp color for the 1400s — also leaves something to be desired. It’s doing more of the work than the script and performances are, that’s for sure, but none of these combined elements make for a riveting or enjoyable watch. Suffice it to say it might be one of the year’s biggest duds.
