Video game movies can be either terrible or mildly entertaining. Will FOX’s adaptation of the famous Ubisoft franchise manage to buck the trend?
“Assassin’s Creed” is the film adaptation of the popular game series created by Ubisoft. It stars Michael Fassbender as Callum Lynch, who is “executed” and presumed dead. But instead of sleeping his final sleep, Callum is taken to a secret facility controlled by Abstergo, which plans to use him to find what is known as the Apple of Eden. So, Abstergo’s lead scientist, Dr. Sofia Rikkin (Marion Cotillard), hooks Callum up to the Animus, which plays out the memories of his ancestors. Turns out Callum gets his fondness for killing from his ancestors, who were assassins. Callum relives the memories of Aguilar de Nerha, who lived during the Spanish Inquisition. With this newfound knowledge Callum must stop Abstergo from obtaining the Apple of Eden. And to answer the question Does this movie turn things around for video game movies? the answer is simple: no.
To be fair, there are some positives. Fassbender does good work in any movie he’s in, and “Assassin’s Creed” is no exception. Minus a couple of awkward scenes, he does a pretty good job. Same goes for Marion Cotillard and – the scene stealer – Jeremy Irons as Rikkin. Cotillard is as functional as Fassbender is, but Irons encapsulates a great villain. He’s not over-the-top, but cool, collected, and always thinking, while being unwavering in his efforts. The action is fun and exciting, especially when Callum enters the Animus.
The action feels right out of the game, which makes sense. And there are Easter Eggs galore for the avid gamer fans out there. Some of them are clever and some aren’t. No spoilers, but for the hardcore game fans, Arno from “Assassin’s Creed: Unity” has a cameo appearance if you can catch it.
The problems in this movie are huge, however. Its first big weakness is that it feels disjointed. The plot structure really solidifies that sentiment. It constantly shifts from Callum’s perspective to Aguilar’s and back. In theory, it sounds awesome. In practice, it’s sloppy and choppy, especially during action scenes. The more riveting action sequences get broken up due to the sudden cuts to real time, which takes a lot away from the film. In some instances, it’s fine. But for the big action set pieces in the film, to cut back and forth from 1942’s Spain to modern day detracts from the gravity of the situation. Also, any attempt at humor seems out-of-place and awkward. With a film that takes itself a bit too seriously, whenever someone tries to infuse comedy, it’s not funny.
And then there are the plot holes. I’m trying not to spoil the movie, but some scenes simply don’t connect to others at all. Even worse, some scenes contradict others and contradict some of the major characters. This might be a spoiler, but here’s a scene: Callum is confronted with other assassins from other time periods. Sophia is also in attendance, and she sees an assassin who looks like her. But, when the final set piece happens, she doesn’t help Callum, knowing what they’re doing is right, and afterwards, she’s … angry? At first, she wanted to help Callum, but now she hates him? Moments like that take away from the film and dumb it down. You walk out asking questions the movie should have answered.
In the end, if you’re a hardcore fan of “Assassin’s Creed,” you’ll be disappointed. If you like movies, you’ll be disappointed. “Assassin’s Creed” offers nothing new for the video game movie industry. There is some cool stuff in this film for sure, but nothing that can save it from mediocrity.