Movie Review: Assassin's Creed

Genre Action, Adventure
Director Justin Kurzel
Producer Jean-Julien Baronnet, Gérard Guillemot, Frank Marshall, Patrick Crowley, Michael Fassbender, Conor McCaughan, Arnon Milchan
Actors Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling,Michael K. Williams
Reviewed on Cinema (3D)
Air Date 2016-12-23

NiteFenix

Published December 19, 2016

It’s been a long time coming. Some would even say centuries. Just like the hassassin’s of old, Ubisoft brings one of their long-time fan-favourite franchises to the big screen. Free-running along the ramparts of the box office, silently jumping off the highest of heights. But can it land safely in the haybale below, alive and well, living to see a sequel. Let’s find out.

Assassin’s Creed has been one of Ubisoft’s longest running series, and also one of it’s most successful. For good reason. They have taken a concept and run with it, pumping out sequel after sequel, virtually improving on it as they have gone. There has been a few misses, but with the last few entries in the series, it has regained its footing, with Ubisoft opting to take a break from releasing Assassin’s Creed games for the last 2 years running in the hopes of regaining trust with their customers (nearly losing it with Assassin’s Creed Unity). The last game was a masterpiece as I indicated here , but I can understand why Ubisoft have decided to go the route they have. But this is a discussion for another day. For now, we are here to talk about their other big project, spearheaded by Magneto himself, Michael Fassbender.

What’s it about?

Using a fantastical piece of technology called The Animus, a Templar Organization called Abstergo has invented the means for them to tap into any living person’s DNA in order to access said individual’s ancestral memories to unlock secrets which may be dangerous in the wrong hands. Enter Callum Lynch, a criminal on death row who gets unwittingly drawn into the war between Assassins and Templars, the latter who wants to get their hands on an artifact known as the Apple of Eden, which will grant them unimaginable power.

What I thought about it

Put into simple terms. Assassin’s Creed is one of the best video game to movie adaptations I, personally, have ever seen. It is not however the best movie I have ever seen. Let me explain why. Ubisoft was quite obviously very deepy involved in the development of this movie, which is a good and a bad thing. On the good side, there are a LOT of subtle nods and let’s call them easter eggs which only a true fan would pick up on. One of these, the fact that at a certain point in the Assassins’ history they had to remove their ring fingers in order to use a wrist blade. Another, the bleeding effect. Both of these things are hinted at and maybe lightly mentioned, but not gone into in any sort of relevant detail, which I think for a non-fan might be a problem. Another problem I had with the movie was the fact that for a film about reliving the past, there is a severely little amount of Animus sequences.

The sequences that do happen are very rich in story and action and the most important aspect of the game does make an appearance. The free-running aka parkour. I must say that the mixture of fight sequences and parkour was very well executed and was very reminiscent of Hong Kong action movies I have watched and fits in very well with the setting, but then again, that sort of fighting/free-running would fit in with literally any time period in an Assassin’s Creed story.

A welcome change for me was the way the Animus was depicted. Gone are the hard slabs introduced in the first Assassin’s Creed game and in is the system which lets the user relive the action using an arm. A lot of the action sequences in the film are recreated step by step in the Animus, with Callum suspended from the ceiling-mounted arm and performed to great effect. From falling, to sliding to the ever-present fighting and parkour in the scenes. It added a more hands-on and visceral presence to an otherwise dead slab from the first game.

The acting in this film was superb, with industry heavyweight Jeremy Irons starring as the big bad, Alan Rikkin, CEO of Abstergo. Ariane Labed was outstanding as the 15th Century Assassin, Maria who is an accomplice of the lead character and Callum’s ancestor, Aguilar, who is also played by Fassbender. Other notable actors are Marion Cotilard as Rikkin’s daughter and lead scientist on the Animus project, Sophia Rikkin and Michael K. Williams as Moussa, who I assumed is being set up for a bigger role in future films, if there are any. One of my favourite casting choices however was Charlotte Rampling as what is assumed to be the leader of the Templar in the current-day setting.

Another major plus for me in the film was the use of music. It wasn’t overly in your face, but in essence made the setting feel like it is set in an Assassin’s Creed universe, which is great but I can’t really say that it made any sort of lasting impression. Not like say, a Star Wars film would make.

Ultimately though I feel that Assassin’s Creed, although action-packed and very much fan-orientated, could have gained more by exploring the depth of the established Assassin’s Creed universe. Connecting more to the established lore if you will. Unfortunately though, unless they are planning a sequel, which I sincerely hope they are, this movie on its own may ultimately fall flat in the grand scheme of things. For now though, I’ll say that Assassin’s Creed is a great adaptation that doesn’t rely on its source material too much to build its own, unique world. And that is a good thing.

It's been a long time coming. Some would even say centuries. Just like the hassassin's of old, Ubisoft brings one of their long-time fan-favourite franchises to the big screen. Free-running along the ramparts of the box office, silently jumping off the highest of heights. But can it land safely in the haybale below, alive and well, living to see a sequel. Let's find out. Assassin's Creed has been one of Ubisoft's longest running series, and also one of it's most successful. For good reason. They have taken a concept and run with it, pumping out sequel after sequel, virtually improving on it as they have gone. There has been a few misses, but with the last few entries in the series, it has regained its footing, with Ubisoft opting to take a break from releasing Assassin's Creed games for the last 2 years running in the hopes of regaining trust with their customers (nearly losing it with Assassin's Creed Unity). The last game was a masterpiece as I indicated here, but I can understand why Ubisoft have decided to go the route they have. But this is a discussion for another day. For now, we are here to talk about their other big project, spearheaded by Magneto himself, Michael Fassbender. What's it about? Using a fantastical piece of technology called The Animus, a Templar Organization called Abstergo has invented the means for them to tap into any living person's DNA in order to access said individual's ancestral memories to unlock secrets which may be dangerous in the wrong hands. Enter Callum Lynch, a criminal on death row who gets unwittingly drawn into the war between Assassins and Templars, the latter who wants to get their hands on an artifact known as the Apple of Eden, which will grant them unimaginable power. What I thought about it Put into simple terms. Assassin's Creed is one of the best video game to movie adaptations I, personally, have ever seen. It is not however the best movie I have ever seen. Let me explain why. Ubisoft was quite obviously very deepy involved in the development of this movie, which is a good and a bad thing. On the good side, there are a LOT of subtle nods and let's call them easter eggs which only a true fan would pick up on. One of these, the fact that at a certain point in the Assassins' history they had to remove their ring fingers in order to use a wrist blade. Another, the bleeding effect. Both of these things are hinted at and maybe lightly mentioned, but not gone into in any sort of relevant detail, which I think for a non-fan might be a problem. Another problem I had with the movie was the fact that for a film about reliving the past, there is a severely little amount of Animus sequences. The sequences that do happen are very rich in story and action and the most important aspect of the game does…

Movie Review: Assassin’s Creed

2016-12-19

NiteFenix

Total - 8.5

8.5

One of the few, solid, video game adaptations I have seen. It holds its own and relies very little on its source material to reach its inevitable heights. Highly recommended viewing for fans and non-fans alike.

User Rating: 4.6 ( 1 votes)

Second Opinion Fanaticit We have all the elements of the game and the purpose of the movie was not a copy but used the same “world” or experience from the game to make an entertaining watchable version for those without the time to play through one of the games. Looking hard at some of the elements leaves you satisfied that they included some items and people. If you are an Assassin’s Creed expert and want each person to be in the same identical place as in the game, you need to understand that a movie has less time to explain the background and takes short cuts. Do I recommend the movie? This is always a trick question for me as I feel that if a movie is very well recommended it sets an expectation. Then the movie needs to exceed this new bar to WOW you. It is a very good movie and should be watched on the Nu Metro big screen. A Blu-ray or standard DVD without a great setup at home will not do it justice. Recommended.

Check out Fanaticit’s full video review at their Facebook Page .

Article Tags: abstergo · Assassins · assassins creed · Creed · featured · jeremy irons · michael fassbender · Movie Reviews · ubisoft

Article Categories: Movie Reviews