THE STORY – Time and space collide in parallel lives spanning 700 years when author Nick Tosches is drawn into a violent quest to confirm the origins of a manuscript believed to be Dante’s “The Divine Comedy” written in the poet’s own hand. After the sudden death of his daughter, Nick is summoned from self-imposed exile by a mafia don for his expertise on the Italian writer. With the help of an unpredictable assassin named Louie, the pair embarks on a dark and murderous journey to steal and authenticate the priceless work.
THE CAST – Oscar Isaac, Gal Gadot, Gerard Butler, Al Pacino, John Malkovich, Martin Scorsese, Jason Momoa, Louis Cancelmi, Franco Nero, Sabrina Impacciatore & Benjamin Clementine
THE TEAM – Julian Schnabel (Director/Writer) & Louise Kugelberg (Writer)
THE RUNNING TIME – 153 Minutes
It’s fascinating the lengths that people will go to for personal gain. In a world fueled by the attainment and subsequent desperate hoarding of wealth, even some of the best of us have moments of ignoring our conscience for the sake of greedy aspiration. This dichotomy is explored in Julian Schnabel’s fascinatingly unwieldy new film “In the Hand of Dante.” Based on the book by Nick Tosches (who wrote a fictionalized version of himself as the story’s central figure, just as Dante Alighieri put himself into his masterwork “The Divine Comedy”), Schnabel’s epic is totally uncompromised in its vision, which is both its most admirable achievement and its most significant issue. It will undoubtedly provoke passionate debate, from defenders and detractors alike, which feels almost thematically correct for a story that concerns both the highest of supposedly spiritual inspiration and the basest, most cruel of human behavior. But it’s absolutely inarguable that Schnabel has crafted a fascinating film; whether it’s seen as a fascinating triumph or failure will vary by viewer. It’s the closest thing the 2025 Venice Film Festival has had to a “Megalopolis” – a piece of art that comes directly from the mind of a director who received seemingly little oversight or pesky notes from any sort of overseeing force. If that sounds curiously appealing to you, welcome! You’re not alone; this is a safe space for you.
The story covers a lot of ground with dual narratives that intersect and comment on each other in surprising ways. The primary plot is set in 2001, centered around Nick Tosches (Oscar Isaac). He’s seen as an expert on Dante and is recruited by criminal overlord Joe Black (John Malkovich), who claims to have discovered the location of the original manuscript of Dante’s “The Divine Comedy,“ previously thought to have been destroyed. In hopes of acquiring and selling the priceless artifact for incalculable riches, Black sends Tosches to Italy along with a brutal hitman named Lou (Gerard Butler). It’s Tosches’s job to authenticate the manuscript, while Lou is there to take care of any loose ends or witnesses (and judging by how many bullets are fired, there are quite a few of both). Simultaneously, the film utilizes the same cast of actors to tell the story of Dante himself in the fourteenth century, as he struggles to craft his famous poem.
The two narratives are captured in entirely different ways by Schnabel. Nick’s story features black-and-white, widescreen cinematography, whereas Dante’s storyline is shot in color with a more square aspect ratio. Dante’s world is one of much more painterly compositions, with a slower pace and generally a more typically beautiful look. Nick’s journey feels more chaotic in both shooting and editing style. And, perhaps obviously, the language used in the Dante half of the film is much more poetically minded, favoring long, flowery descriptions and intricate language. Nick’s compatriots are much more fond of four-letter words. Although wildly different, Schnabel’s parallel universes both feel fully realized and true to their own artistic mantras.
The Dante story feels less dramatically propulsive than Nick’s, which is perhaps unsurprising given the volatility of Nick’s world, whereas Dante’s life story feels more akin to a traditional historical biopic. Characters impart wisdom onto Dante, most notably Martin Scorsese – sporting a beard that makes him look like a lawn gnome – as a Jewish spiritual mentor. Scorsese is brilliant in his brief but memorable performance, feeling like a warm, wise oasis whenever the film returns to him from the frightening, unpleasant world that Nick occupies.
Nick’s dangerous mission is captivating and strangely entertaining (even if it stretches the runtime with unnecessary side stories and repetitive stops on his adventure). This is unquestionably due in large part to Oscar Isaac’s incredible performance. As Nick, Isaac plays both scared and scary, at times seeming to take himself by surprise by the lengths he’s willing to go to accomplish his mission. And yet, he remains pitiable and sympathetic throughout the film. Isaac has several stand-out scenes in which he gets to portray a man on the edge of hope and control, giving the talented actor plenty of chances to dominate the screen with wild energy. His Dante is Nick’s complete opposite: gentle, haunted, and sad, with a weighed-down spirit that effectively sells the idea that Dante may not even be able to finish his poem. Overall, it’s an extraordinary performance from one of our most talented contemporary actors.
He’s surrounded by a coterie of actors known for making unconventional choices, like Malkovich and Jason Momoa, and performers who’ve undoubtedly had rocky careers when it comes to delivering well-respected performances. Yes, I’m talking about Gerard Butler and Gal Gadot. Butler’s character is tricky. Lou is reprehensible, with his completely rotten personality and utter lack of morals evident in his first scene, which sees him dressing down a bartender he’s in the process of robbing with startling, extreme vulgarities. He revels in shocking others and murders with the casual nature of someone swatting a mosquito (viewers be warned: he even shoots a dog). But Butler is fully committed to his role, leaning into Lou’s nastiness with a conviction that some actors might shy away from. It can’t be easy to play such an awful human being, knowing that the audience will be actively rooting for your demise with every minute that you’re on-screen. Butler is apparently not afraid of this, just as Lou isn’t deterred by pesky things like ethics or sympathy for his fellow man.
Gadot fares less well, delivering yet another performance that stands out for all the wrong reasons. She’s not helped in the Dante storyline by Schnabel’s penchant for long takes, wherein her character Gemma – Dante’s love – must deliver lengthy stretches of dialogue with shifting emotions, which is clearly not a strength of Gadot’s. And in the 21st-century scenes, she plays Giulietta, Nick’s angelic love, and the more grounded energy of this half of the film similarly doesn’t suit her. She’s simply incapable of delivering a line casually; everything she says has the energy and import of an oracle dispatching mystical advice.
The connection between the two storylines feels tenuous and ambiguous until they suddenly slam together towards the film’s conclusion. The link between them subtly shows the grimly fascinating ways in which people can lose sight of why they do the things they do when monetary gain is the end goal. Namely, it’s highly ironic that Lou, his boss Joe Black, and a mysterious, menacing figure chasing Nick (Momoa) are willing to do any number of extremely violent acts to obtain Dante’s manuscript – a text essentially containing instructions for humans on how best to live a life for their spirit to remain as unblemished as possible. The film doesn’t explicitly draw attention to this. Still, the irony is a striking and resonant, if not overly dramatic, commentary on the poisoning effects that greed has on the soul.
However, this level of thematic exploration is overshadowed by the screenplay’s ridiculous turns. Indeed, some of the more dramatic developments later in the film feel like something out of a bad soap opera, which doesn’t seem to be Schnabel’s intention, given the utterly serious tone (one climactic sequence even inadvertently resembles the infamous “Mmm Whatcha Say“ SNL sketch that parodies “The OC”). And odd, idiosyncratic moments of dialogue throughout the film will test most audiences. There’s a camp quality to certain scenes that’s not likely what Schnabel was purposefully going for.
Again, this unpredictable energy assures that the film remains compelling throughout, even if not always for the right reasons. “In the Hand of Dante“ is a strange tour through the Hell that is the limits of human desperation and depravity, creating a modern-day version of Dante’s expedition into the underworld. Schnabel’s trademark dreamy filmmaking style helps to sell this at-times otherworldly story of spiritual inspiration and guidance, and anyone who travels its road straight through the Inferno is guaranteed to have a memorable experience – for better or worse.
