Assassin's Creed (2016)

Assassin's Creed (2016)

Dir. Justin Kurzel

Besides the goal of making lorryloads of cash for its producers, game developer Ubisoft was probably hoping that the live action Ass Creed film would entice lorryloads more people to check out their long-running game series, which in turn would increase profits there, too. Anything is possible, I suppose, even when the movie they hoped would sway people is a 125 million dollar turd.

Given that it might be someone's introduction to the world, I'll mention how it presents itself, rather than how it translates its source to the screen. But in that respect, it's dire.

It begins in Spain, 1492. We meet Aguilar de Nerha (Michael Fassbender), a member of the Assassins Brotherhood, a secretive group who are collectively at war with the Templars. The Assassins fight for individual freedoms and expression, whereas the Templars seek to control society through imposed order.

So far, so good. In the present day (i.e., 2016), we meet convicted murder Callum Lynch (also Fassbender).We don't see the murder nor find out why he did it. We're told by the killer only that the victim was supposedly unlawful, so its unclear if we're required to support Callum's actions or feel that he deserves his incarceration. The ambiguity could've helped deepen his character, it could've offered us a doorway into his all-important psyche, but it's handled poorly; its primary function is to get him into a holding cell and establish his violent (but maybe moral?) side.

Conversely, while it's at least clear why Calum's rescuers want him freed from punishment, the blandness of their presentation, their individual personalities, and their working environment make the killer's supposed salvation seem as exciting as week-old bread. If it wasn't apparent beforehand, the flat cinematography is inescapable thereafter. Shooting scenes in silhouette can be stylistically dramatic (e.g., Citizen Kane), but when overused, like in the Ass film, it's boring to look at, which is the last thing you need when you have dialogue as bad as what's spoken between Marion Cotillard at her whispery worst and whatever male character happens to be useful to the lacklustre plot at any given time. The silver lining, if it's relevant to have one, is that the piss-poor illumination hides the lack of emotion or passion that anyone has for their role.

But back to plotting, the Templars are hunting for an artefact that'll enable them to achieve their goal, whereas the Assassins strive to keep it from them. The script does a decent job explaining what the artefact is without over-complicating it, but it fails to explore its origins. Who made it? For what purpose? Is its biblical naming to be taken literally, or is it metaphorical? Without proper context it's as baseless as a McGuffin with aspirations. Folks who've played the game may be able to fill in the blanks, but as mentioned above I'm judging only on what's in the film.

The dramatic irony wherein the captors unwittingly teach the captive the skills needed to escape his/her bonds is as good as it gets, and that's basic Fiction Writing 101.

The much-published 38 metres 'leap of faith' from on high by ballsy stuntman Damien Walters is ruined by too much post-production tinkering. Instead of being a stunning achievement preserved onscreen, it's an insult to the man and team that risked their lives to make it happen.

Assassin's Creed's failures were on par with Hollywood's adaptations of Ghost in the Shell (2017) and The Dark Tower (2017). All three movies made dumb as shit decisions regarding interpretation to live action from their source's original medium, which are Video Game; Anime; and English Language Novel, respectively. I didn't realise until I'd posted the links that the movies came out within a 12 month period. That was a crap year for adaptations.