Assassin's Creed

It's hard for me to know where to start with this film adaptation of Assassin's Creed, the wildly successful but recently lagging videogame franchise. So I'll just start with:

For f**k's sake. Is it that hard to just nail a videogame adaptation? Is there some secret formula that binds videogame movies to disappointment? 

Ah. Thank you. I feel better. Anyway, my ties to Assassin's Creed (the videogame series) are pretty immense. I've played all of the main console games except for the most previous, a feat consisting of many years. They are often wondrous games and some of the best iterations (ACII, Brotherhood, and especially Black Flag) are among my favorites games ever. They were once highly innovative all while telling a captivating story and providing some interesting dives into different times in history. Lately, the series has been struggling to cope with the changing console market and continue to make itself relevant. I won't turn this into a videogame review session here (for that, visit the Game Review tab at top) but suffice it to say that the developers of the next game would need to pull out some big stops to get me interested once more. 

When it comes to this movie however, I had high, but managed hopes. There was talent involved. Fassbender and Cotillard are no pair to ignore. Ubisoft also stepped in to make sure that those who created the film understood the Creed games and mythology. Aside from some atrocious musical decisions in the original trailers, they looked promising and I was excited. 

The horrendous creative decision of the music in the trailers should have been my first cue. 

The problem with the Assassin's Creed movie is not what many may think it is. The key problem is the want to dive right into the world, leaving practically everyone in the dust. I'm frankly shocked that with Ubisoft having creative control that this is the route they chose, but throughout my entire viewing of the overly long Holiday release I couldn't help but devise much better screenplays in my head. Ones that provide a superior combination of fan service, the best part of the games (the history and experience of past ages), and an introduction to those who've maybe never heard of a PlayStation or an Xbox. So I return to my original question: it can't be this hard. Can it?

I'd be mad too if I had action edited this poorly

There are some things Assassin's Creed does well and I hope that for the sake of a potential sequel, the director/producers/screenwriters listen up. Its moments in the past, while given almost no context, are thrilling (aside from some gripes I'll share below). The main conflict in this series between the Templars and Assassin's should feel far grander and more historical than it does in the film, but there is solid action to be had here (again, more on that in a bit). Additionally, Fassbender is perfectly fine in the role, as is Cotillard and literally none of the film's issues are with them. For explicit fans of the game -- ones who are familiar with the mythology and the function of everything -- this is a decent adaptation. It's nothing that will make you want to pop back in that AC disk that's been gathering dust, but it's enjoyable in a "Hey, that's nifty sort of way." 

"But I'm Magento! How can you detain me?!"

Now on to the issues and I'll roll straight from my previous point into my next one. While loyal fans may understand what's going on, I imagine that mainstream audiences will not. Either that or they just won't care because there seems to be no gravity to the film. This continues to be one of the main curses of videogame adaptations -- the film itself does almost nothing to invite new people into the franchise as they [wrongfully] assume that everyone is up to speed. Assassin's Creed has far too much talk about "free will" and "ending violence" but it doesn't explain it worth a damn. It doesn't relate that to what's going on around it hardly at all so it makes it really difficult to care about anything except watching cool action scenes. 

Which brings me to main point #2. The action would be awesome, if it hadn't been edited by someone with a severe case of ADD. It's not a joke and poor editing, specifically in action, is one of my absolute pet peeves and least favorite things in films today. There are moments of awesome choreography, but for every one of those there are three more moments where a character is taking a huge leap and then suddenly fighting with a sword. Aside from the shocking fact that not nearly enough time is spent in the past which is easily the most interesting part of the film, these edits hurt what could have been absolute highlight reels of the film and made up for many of its other shortcomings. What's so frustrating is that the action is there, it's just edited so poorly. Additionally, it's often marred by some shockingly bad special effects whenever free-running, a staple of the game, begins. Rather than paying some legit professionals, they decided to CGI recreate many stunts and the result is obvious and disappointing. The videogames are basically CGI. Why would I want to see the same exact thing in a film?

Easily the coolest part of the movie. You're welcome.

Assassin's Creed's final sin is it's alarmingly bad creative decisions. I get that, with the shift in mediums, some things have to change. That's fine. But, much like we saw with the initial trailers, some of them are just brain-scratching. Take the Animus for example. This is the device that the descendants use to access their assassin heritage memories (confused yet?). In the games, it's simply a chair that you lie back on. Simple, clean, and I think it still would have worked in the film. In the film however, it's a towering contraption that grabs the user and somehow shines fake light on them that replicates the memory in real time. It's utter nonsense and takes something that required suspension of your disbelief in the games and asks you to now just accept fake-looking devices that achieve the same exact thing. 

Despite all of my harping, I did enjoy my time with Assassin's Creed to a certain extent, but that's because I'm very familiar with the games, the world, and the mythology. This movie will only be enjoyed by those people. To everyone else it will likely come across as a confusing mess, which it pretty much is, and to us gamers, it's just another disappointment to add to the many notches of failed videogame adaptations. The talent was there. Until it wasn't. 

CONS:

• Incredibly frustrating
• Doesn't take the time to set up the world. The screenplay rushes everything and there are far better ways this film could have been approached
• The action is there, it's just pieced together horribly
• A handful of poor creative decisions similar to the bad music in the first couple trailers. The new Animus is the dumbest of the bunch 
• Over dependence on CGI, particularly when freerunning. It looks cheap and I think it could have been accomplished with stunt actors 
• Features a lot of grand talk about an age old war between Templars and Assassins and free will and violence but does very little with it
• Leaves mainstream audiences in the dust 
• Generic original score
• Should have been R, easily

PROS:

• Fassbender and Cotillard are good selections for their roles and they bring some professionalism to the film
• The time spent in the past is engaging and some of the action beats are awesome. There are remnants of a great movie scattered around here
• Some pretty visuals and set design
• Overall interesting premise and setup for a sequel, especially if you're into the games themselves

Rath's Review Score | 5.5/10