Netflix’s Star-Studded Dante Movie Is Infernal 51%

By Laura Miller59%

6/26/2026, 10:16:32 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 74.2% saturation with 595 hits. Analysis detected 1,803 faulty-reasoning hits from 802 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.5% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,871 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.30% of the article peer group.

In the Hand of Dante, Julian Schnabel’s new movie for Netflix, is a beautifully shot mess, with as many starry cameos as there are candied cherries in a fruitcake. 
Oscar Isaac, the lead, plays two roles, as does Gal Gadot, the love interest of both of Isaac’s characters, and as does Gerard Butler, who’s cast as both a brutal, grouchy hit man and Pope Boniface VIII. 
The supporting cast includes Al Pacino, Martin Scorsese, Jason Momoa (in a gigantic Panama hat and ice cream suit), and John Malkovich. 
Either someone cashed in a <em>lot</em> of favors to get these people on board or nobody bothers to read scripts these days. 
The premise (of both novel and movie) sounds like the makings of a Dan Brown–style thriller: A writer named Nick Tosches gets enlisted by some mobsters to authenticate a manuscript stolen from the Vatican archives that may be the original draft of <em>The Divine Comedy</em>, written by Dante Alighieri himself. 
Anyone expecting a fast-paced corker full of secret codes, hidden compartments, and chases down rain-slicked cobblestone streets, however, will be disappointed. 
The film, like the novel, jumps between 2001 and the 14<sup>th</sup> century, where it follows Dante’s life around the time that he began writing his masterpiece. 
Both the Nick Tosches character and Dante are played by Isaac, suggesting a bold comparison between the two writers that doesn’t hold much water. 
Tosches, for all his talent, subscribed to a vein of American culture I call the Anxious Masculine. 
In a society that idolizes pioneers, cowboys, and self-made tycoons, this mindset fears that creative pursuits like writing, acting, or painting are unmanly. 
It’s essential, therefore, for men who do this work to emphatically demonstrate how (as Depp puts it) “ballsy” they are by drinking a lot, getting into fistfights, and treating women in a cavalier fashion, as well as by writing about men who do the same. 
For his part, Tosches worshipped the Italian American gangsters he grew up among in Newark, New Jersey, and they often appear in his novels as stoic fatalists imparting nuggets of flinty wisdom. 
The film version of <em>In the Hand of Dante</em> features an operatic but unconvincing heterosexual love story, but the true heart of the story comes early on, when the Tosches character wins a nod of acceptance and approval from Butler’s sociopathic hit man for refusing to extinguish his cigarette during their private flight to Italy. 
This—does it even need to be said?—is not how Dante himself saw it. 
The movie follows the novel in trying to reimagine the epic poet, with his elaborately delineated categories of sin and very medieval desire to impose order on the chaos of the world, as a rebellious 19<sup>th</sup>-century Romantic poet, all unruly passion and pagan wildness. 
While the Tosches character in both novel and film rants about the inauthenticity of the publishing world, with its outrageous expectation that his work should be edited, the historical Dante played the game. 
He was an elected politician embroiled in a bitter sectarian power struggle who depended for his livelihood—after his side lost and he was driven into exile—on pleasing aristocratic patrons. 
Many of the individuals depicted suffering the torments of the damned in <em>Inferno</em> were people who, in Dante’s view, had done him dirty. 
Also—and this <em>really</em> shouldn’t need to be said—Dante was a devout enough Catholic to produce a 14,233-line exegesis on the Christian afterlife. 
Although his close friend Guido Cavalcanti got in trouble for his atheistic beliefs, there’s no evidence at all that Dante himself rejected the faith or the church’s authority. 
Similarly, Tosches (the fictional version, but apparently also the real-life writer) wanted to believe that the poet ended up feeling “caged” in by the terza rima form he chose for the verse in the <em>Divine Comedy</em>, because Tosches himself viewed constraining structures as oppressive. 
This amounts to a catastrophic failure at imagining himself into the hierarchy-obsessed mindset of the Middle Ages, a way of thinking about the world that Dante, with his numbered circles of Hell, as tidy as a wall of post-office boxes, clearly shared. 
The contemporary scenes in <em>In the Hand of Dante</em> are a shade more convincing, but it remains hard to believe that any gangster would launch a clearly expensive rare-document operation using some random writer as an authenticator. 
Isaac spouts a lot of impressive-sounding palaver about vellum types and radiocarbon dating, but he handles the presumably priceless pages with his bare hands instead of the de rigueur white cotton gloves required by archivists. 
By the time the movie resorts to a dream sequence in which Gadot appears naked on a clamshell hovering over the ocean à la Botticelli’s Venus, the entire film has become so silly that the only thing to do between yawns is laugh. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.5%Laura Miller: 3.8%Slate: 4.2%Confirmation Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 2.1%Slate: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.6%Laura Miller: 2.8%Slate: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic7.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.4%Slate: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 2.0%Slate: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Laura Miller: 6.7%Slate: 5.9%Framing Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.4%Slate: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.3%Slate: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.3%Slate: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.6%Slate: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Laura Miller: 2.4%Slate: 1.8%Pessimism Bias18.0%This article: 40.1%Laura Miller: 11.5%Slate: 9.8%Negativity Bias40.1%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.8%Slate: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 1.2%Slate: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.1%Laura Miller: 0.6%Slate: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias4.1%This article: 2.9%Laura Miller: 2.9%Slate: 1.5%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 2.3%Slate: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 2.1%Slate: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.7%Slate: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.6%Slate: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Laura Miller: 0.7%Slate: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.3%Slate: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.3%Slate: 1.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 1.6%Slate: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.2%Laura Miller: 2.0%Slate: 2.8%Appeal to Authority7.2%This article: 2.7%Laura Miller: 3.1%Slate: 1.7%False Dilemma2.7%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.3%Slate: 1.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.2%Laura Miller: 8.4%Slate: 7.8%Hasty Generalization12.2%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.1%Slate: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.4%Laura Miller: 3.1%Slate: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion5.4%This article: 5.1%Laura Miller: 0.6%Slate: 1.2%Begging the Question5.1%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 3.1%Slate: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.3%Slate: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.6%Slate: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 5.2%Slate: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 2.7%Laura Miller: 0.2%Slate: 0.1%No True Scotsman2.7%This article: 2.9%Laura Miller: 0.6%Slate: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.6%Laura Miller: 1.7%Slate: 0.2%Personal Incredulity4.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.5%Laura Miller: 0.8%Slate: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy5.5%This article: 11.1%Laura Miller: 4.0%Slate: 1.4%Unattributed Quote11.1%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.8%Slate: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 74.2%Laura Miller: 25.6%Slate: 19.6%Biased Writer Voice74.2%This article: 7.7%Laura Miller: 2.6%Slate: 2.4%Indoctrination7.7%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 2.5%Slate: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 0.3%Slate: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Miller: 1.2%Slate: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

802 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.