Assassin's Creed film

Critics never like this kind of movie. What, exactly, are their complaints?

I would imagine because despite the Inquisition era being heavily advertised it's mostly taking place in the present, outside the Animus.

The specific criticism is that the movie is just plain boring and the dialogue is dull.

So just like the games excluding AC 2 and Black Flag?

Clearly these reviewers aren't actual fans and can't see how on-point the film really is. I can't fault a director for capturing the tone of the source material.

What I've been reading is that it splits the runtime between the past and the present day. The games are usually 10 percent present day and the rest in the past, which is somewhat understandable for a movie because they don't have 30 hours to let you just live and explore the past but it does skew things in a different direction where the present day story is less of a Framing Device and more of Simultaneous Arcs.

I do get the feeling the fans will receive this better than regular critics same as Warcraft, but the general reception does paint a picture.

Indeed. I can imagine the technobabble and backstory might get on some people's nerves. No one wants to know how the Animus actually works, they just want to see a man from the present day go back to the Inquisition era.

For anyone who saw the movie, did anyone check to see if there were any familiar faces during Callum's "initiation" toward the end? There were a couple of Assassins wearing more traditional white robes instead of the darker ones of the movie and later games, but it moved too fast to see if said white robed Assassins might've resembled anyone from the games.

edited 20th Dec '16 10:18:52 PM by AkoSiKuya23

Here's a review from Eurogamer, i.e. by someone who has played all of the games, they're not exactly glowing either.

I fell asleep during the last few minutes. For the record, it wasn't because I found it boring, but it's because I just got out of a 10:00 show and I was pretty high. The last thing I remember seeing was when the modern day Assassins joined together, and then I saw Callum fire an arrow, but I blinked and the credits rolled. Did I miss a lot between that part and the credits? Or could someone just catch me up on the majority of the climax? I saw when Aguilar killed Torquemada and when he saw his mother as an Assassin. The reason I am desperate to know is because I write for a spoiler site and I need to write a detailed summary but I can't finish it without knowing the ending. I'd rather not pay to see it again, or have to wait for a bootleg to pop up or for Wikipedia to update its summary. SOMEONE HELP A BROTHER OUT. As for my opinion on the movie itself, I enjoyed it. Doesn't have the best script but it was still fun.

Basically...

The Rikkins recover the Apple, the higher ups in the Templar Order are pleased, and they hold a grand ceremony in London. Sophia finds out that her father is more concerned with eradicating the Assassins than the actual betterment of mankind and is quite upset over it (Alan comments that she's more scientist than Templar). Alan then takes center stage at the temple, but all throughout the proceedings, the Assassins have wormed their way into the temple. Callum and Sophia see each other again and she warns him that she could blow his cover at any time but he knows that she's not going to that and lets him go. He then stabs Alan and recovers the Apple.

Thank you!

I may just wait for this to be rentable before I watch it, if it's really that bad.

...well.

It really does sounds like they captured the first game perfectly. I mean, there's a reason Ezio's character exploded in popularity.

I actually enjoy the first game's more heavily philosophical and morally ambiguous storyline, as well as its more serious protagonist.

@Soble: Yeah, the modern day sections feels eerily similar to the first game's modern day section just with Rikkin being less of a Jerkass than Vidic (which is funny cuz his portrayal in the e-mails make him come off far less suave and patient than Rikkin here, but I guess that's what happens when you have Jeremy Iron playing him) and giving a little more character to Callum than Desmond (as well as allowing him to tap into the Bleeding Effect much more quickly.) Meanwhile the historical sections felt more like an extended version of the cinematic trailers, which does mean we get great action but not much is done with the characters they introduce. We never are given enough on Aguilar and Maria to really care much about them outside of their adherence to the Creed so when we do get a tense scene with them, it lacks the punch it could have.

So the impression I'm getting is that if you like Assassin's Creed, you'll probably like it, but if not you won't.

I'd say if you're an Assassin's Creed fan, you're more likely to appreciate the work put into giving the action scenes that Assassin's Creed feel, but I don't think it's enough for an Assassin's Creed fan to ignore the lacking narrative and characters. And I say that as an Assassin's Creed fan myself.

edited 21st Dec '16 9:53:22 PM by AkoSiKuya23

Cinema Snob seems to have a more positive view on the movie, which I can agree. I am happy that I saw the movie, When we get to the actions, it's a whole lot of fun, but definitely don't expect a good story out of it, especially the present day stuff. I know that's contradictory to what I just posted, but he did remind me of the few things I enjoyed the movie. The action, when its there, is fun to watch and there is definitely effort put into the bring the spirit of the game in.

edited 23rd Dec '16 2:19:59 PM by AkoSiKuya23

Yeah, we should be glad that they mainly went for a fairly simplistic story. The later ones get really detailed and convoluted, way too much than can be fit in one film.

Dan Olson saw the movie. He found it bizarrely awful, claims there's poor editing and basically no third act, and he loves the games. Also there's a kitten in this video.

Watched it with my brothers, who are big fans of the games (I've only played II). We found it filled with a lot of interesting things but the pacing was off. The coolest thing was the other patients also received the bleeding effect and they formed a new group of Assassin's by assimilating the knowledge of their ancestors.

Overall, fans of the series would appreciate the look and feel of the movie, but the story fizzles out on explaining what everyone wants from the Apple of Eden, the rivalry was depicted as a simple fight for free will and we just don't spend enough time in the past to get a clear understanding of who Angulier was.

I will say, the depiction of the Animus was very cool, and it's usefulness to the Templars was clear.

That's basically what the game is now, considering that the Pieces of Eden plot went nowhere after 3, so now we're back to "free will battle" (I think?) with Juno creeping around in the background.

Just saw it tonight (should tell you where my Christmas Eve went).

Its... pretty bad. The film doesn't understand what actually worked in the first Assassin's Creed game.

I want to start with the basics of what's wrong in terms of storytelling...

• The Film does little to explain what's going on. It tries early on and I thought they would slowly introduce concepts, but then they stopped.
• The characters have almost nothing to them personality or character development wise.
• The act structure falls flat a number of times. Namely, the climax has no fight to it for... almost no reason.
• There's almost no dialogue in this film. And I don't mean this from an 'artsy' or 'telling story through showing, not saying' way, but there's not enough dialogue. There are so many fight scenes where NO ONE will say anything and, considering the personality issues here, that could have helped a lot.
• The Historical sequences are given almost no context. We're told its the Inqusition. We have the burning at the stake with the King and Queen of Spain and the head of the Inquisition there, but... the film doesn't really fill us in on who is who and what's going on historically. Which it kind of needs to do. I may know the Inquisition because of a few history units in middle school, but that doesn't give me enough context to understand what's happening here.

Here are the more specific and franchise reasons the film falls flat.

• The characters have no personality. Sophia probably gets the most personality, and, ironically, Callum probably gets the least. But, overall, there really isn't much to either of their characters. Sophie's character conflict seemingly would be the relationship with her dad where he considers her the best scientist, but only when she's doing as he tells her. That could be a character growth point, but it never gets touched on. Rikkin as the Big Bad gets some, but the dialogue felt kind of flat and confusing to the point that I was confused by parts of his motivation as a Templar Grand Master.
• Related: Agular and Maria, the protagonists in the Inquisition era, have no personality AT ALL. They clearly have a romantic relationship and are assassins and... that's about it.
• The film doesn't explain much on what the Assassins are. They start to explain with a good scene early on showing Agular's induction, but then it stops.
• Same thing goes for the Templars. They throw around that they want to eradicate free will, but they don't really go into detail of why or how they plan to do so. Which is stupid considering the attempts that they had in the first three games.
• Sophie seemingly doesn't know what's fully going on, but she should since she's a Templar. This felt a bit contradictory towards the end.
• Its mentioned early on that Callum was executed because he killed a man. This never comes up again. Who this man was and why Callum murdered him is unimportant... apparently.
• Callum has a seizure because he's not degenerating (SYNCING) properly with Agular. They talk about how he's paralyzed from the issue and... this lasts for a single scene. They change shots from him in a wheelchair to him fighting 'Bleeding Effect' style in his cell with said wheelchair there. What was the point?
• Wierdly, they get A LOT of things about the series right in terms of making the fights feel like Assassin's Creed, the language is most of the time proper, and it gets the basic spirit and image of the series right... Then you have strange points where they plainly get things wrong, like referring to Cllum's synchronization with Agular as 'degeneration' several times. Theyalso don't explain WHAT sync and the Bleeding Effect are very well. They just say its a hallucination, but its kind of more than that.
• On top of that, the historical sequences have no arc to them. We're introduced to the Assassins having to protect a boy that we're told is the Prince. But the Prince isn't a character. He's a Living MacGuffin for the entire story. Then we have a scene where Agular and Maria's mentor is burned at the stake but... I didn't even know he was their mentor until a single line before he died, so I felt nothing for his death. Like the prince, I don't think he had a line before he died. Maria runs into a similar issue because she is killed in the third act for... reasons? There's even less reason for her to die than Elise in AC:Unity. She's captured and being used to bargain for the Apple and for the head of the Inquisition and Agular puts his blade away and then... the guys stabs Maria before getting either the guy or the apple for Agular. There was NO reason to stab her since he didn't yet have what he wanted and Agular could still stab the priest which.. he just doesn't. And, in a pointless death of a female character that SHOULD have pissed me off... I felt nothing. She had no personality for me to care about...
• Another issue with the history arc was it had no climax. Maria gets killed and Agular barely escapes with the Apple and... THAT's the climax. His Big Bad, the head of the Inquisition, never gets killed or taken down in any significant way. Agular just escapes. I thought we were still in the Second Act when this happened, but it was apparently the third act climax because the next scene is Agular's last and handing the Apple to Christopher Columbus. WHY he's giving it to him was never explained. I assumed that meant he took it to the 'New World' for protection, which would mean this was the Apple that Washington and Connor found, but then it turns out it remained in Spain. For reasons?
• Mid way through the film, one prisoner tries to strangle Callum so he can't reveal the Apple's location. This never gets brought up again. One would think it would turn him off to working for the Assasins in the climax but...
• I didn't quite understand why Callum's mother had to die. They say she died for the creed so it could continue but... I still don't get why his dad killed her.
• The climax with the other prisoners escaping was cool, but ran into more issues. The other captives don't get personality, so their rising up, saving Callum, and fighting Abstergo is undermined. I felt nothing when the assholish guy got axed because there was nothing to him besides him being an asshole.
• Related to this and the attempted murder, the other prisoners are TERRIBLE people. They harass Callum and tell him not to reveal to Abstergo where the Apple is. Even try to kill him over it. Seemingly, this would mean forcing Callum to not synchronize with Agular (they use the term degenerate a few times, but the series has always used the term 'Sync' so... lack of research?) and basically become brain dead. But, since none of them give him any answers as to WHY and he's only going into the Animus to get answers and because he has no choice, they're kind of assholes for them to expect him to die to protect things he doesn't understand... and then get pissed when he expectedly doesn't understand what's going on. Its even worse since, logically, they're there for the same reasons he is and sound like they're ACTUAL assassins and either gave up their secrets to Abstergo and should realize that Callum doesn't entirely have a choice here.
• On top of this, while the scene of Callum's ancestors inducting him into the Assassins was cool, I'm not sure why it happened. The Animus also 'broke', but it just happens.
• There's no climax to the third act. The escaped Assassins of which we know nothing about Infiltrate the Templar Grand Temple in London and... just assassinate Rikkin. That's it. Its odd that the Templar iconography is displayed so... predominantly even though the games show they're still hiding behind some masks these days. Second, Agular sneaks in and just slits his throat... on stage. NO ONE stops him. And all the Templars run out screaming. Agular just walks out of the Temple. Considering there are HUNDREDS of Templars in that room, this makes no sense.
• The other Assassins are there in the infiltration scene but... don't do anything when assassinating Rikkin. They were seemingly of no help.
• What Rikkin was going to do with the Apple on that stage is never explained. It just starts doing 'glowy powerful thing'.
• What the Apple of Eden IS doesn't get explained. They repeat several times that it was 'the seed of man's first rebellion' or something (word they used began with a d, but I can't remember) but they never say WHAT it does. Considering the First Civilization never gets really mentioned, the idea that its 'magic' or 'supernatural' doesn't get discussed until it randomly starts doing a glowy thing at the end. WHY Abstergo wants it doesn't get a mention either. Presumably, its the Satellite plan they had back in the first games, but its not said. What Rikkin was doing on the stage at the end isn't said either. They keep saying that they can end the sin of free will and violence, but its not said HOW. Considering this ties into why we're supposed to be against them as hero/villains, we're not given enough information.

The film doesn't get what worked about the first game.

Assassin's Creed 1, for all its failings in gameplay, had a good plot set up. The entire game is built around teaching us the founding ideals of the Assassins and Templars. They have long winded speech about it every 10 mins. By the end of the game, they have successfully rounded out the ideals of both sides and the premise of the entire franchise. All the groundwork is laid out. The latter sequels feel more full my comparison because they expand on the basics established in AC 1. Desmond also works as an Audience Surrogate because he's being introduced to everything at the same time. The film version should, to an extent, retread the same points. But it just doesn't.

I could go on, but I think I'll stop there on why this fails as both a film and an adaptation.

edited 25th Dec '16 1:10:37 AM by InkDagger

I've just got back from seeing the film and I must say that it wasn't as bad as I had heard it was going to be. The film was entertaining enough that I don't mind taking the time to see it and I enjoyed the action scenes. The only real criticism I personally have with the film is that it feels a little incomplete and insubstantial, but this is par for the course for computer game adaptions.