Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Assassin's Creed (2016)



"Assassin's Creed" gamers may be the only ones who truly appreciate the cinematic adaptation of Ubisoft's popular game franchise. No, I've never played "Assassin's Creed," but I've seen the movie and that's enough for me. While critics are being really, really hard on the film, the movie isn't good either.

You couldn't ask for a more prestigious cast. Michael Fassbender continues to defy typecasting, while Jeremy Irons indulges himself as a malevolent villain in a turtleneck. Marion Cotillard finds herself somewhere between Fassbender and Irons, but her character neglects to grasp the realities of her predicament. Her father and she suffer from a rift that neither want to admit until the climax. Charlotte Rampling and Brendan Gleeson lurk ominously on the periphery. Mind you, you won't find a bad performance. Just bad written characters



We start with Aguilar (Michael Fassbender) being initiated into the order of the Assassin's Creed. The year is 1492 and we're in Andalusia, Spain. The Spanish Inquisition is in full force and the city has been sacked. The ruler of the city remains in power but the Templars have kidnapped his son and plan to use him as a bargaining chip. It's part of their plan to recover the Apple of Eden, a mythical artifact that holds the genetic code to subverting free will. We then flash to California in 1986. Callum Lynch (later played as a grownup by Michael Fassbender) is just a kid and is killing time by trying to do tricks on his bike. He crashes but ends up okay and pedals home. He walks in and his mom has been stabbed to death. He freaks out and it turns out his dad is the murderer. He tells Cal to run and as Cal gets away, several black SUVs approach.

Like most video game movies, the plot is excessively complicated and pointless; who cares about any of it, except nerds with nothing better to do. Fassbender is dependably good in anything, and the rest of the cast is always reliably talented as well, but they're all wasted here. The movie is completely uninvolving, uninspiring and confusedly boring (maybe because  I haven't read the book and played the video?). Action is superb, well choreographed, at the same time raw and energetic. Not one actor is phoning it in, not even Gleeson who is more or less just standing there for a couple of seconds. Gleeson and Fassbender make those seconds count. Visual is amazing, but the plot and the characters just not well written.

It was a kind of very slow movie in first and second act. But suddenly the ending became a little bit rushy. It was not a short duration movie tho. Let's conclude then. Is Assassin's Creed a good movie? I don't think so, but it isn't either a bad one. It is amusing and is very close of being a good product. I recommend go watch it no matter what, if you are or if you aren't fans.

And anyway Michael Fassbender for your PG role



6.7/10 - IMDb
19%- Rotten Tomatoes
36% - Metacritic
7/10 - Me

No comments:

Post a Comment