The Sunday Mail
Tinashe Kusema The Big & Small Screen—
| DEPENDING on which end of the spectrum you are standing on, “Assassin’s Creed” is either the worst movie of 2016 or a sublime piece of art. |
On one end, as far as video game adaptations go, the movie lives up to the 20-year-old reputation of the genre in producing trashy, lazy pieces of theatre. The CGI is all over the place, the dictation, while commendable, adds very little to the story and the plot is confusing.
The decision to sign on accomplished actors like Michael Fassbender and the incomparable Jeremy Irons was genius but writers Michael Lesslie and company ultimately fail to give the two enough material to sink their teeth in.
The sub-par plots and lousy theatricals all contribute to make one of the worst films of any calendar year in recent movie history.
Given that films like “Zoolander 2” and “Batman v Superman — Dawn of Justice” were both produced in the same year, it speaks volumes of how much I totally distaste the movie.
However, like Robert DeNiro said in that 1995 classic “Heat”, just like a coin, there are two sides to every story and “Assassin’s Creed” is best served as an origins story.
More on that later.
“Assassin’s Creed” is a 2016 action adventure film based on the video game franchise of the same name. The film is directed by Justin Kurzel, written by Michael Lesslie, Adam Cooper and Bill Collage, and stars Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling and Michael K. Williams.
The film is set in the same universe as the video games but features an original story that expands the series’ mythology, taking place during the Spanish Inquisition.
Convicted criminal Callum Lynch is rescued from his own execution by a mysterious organisation Abstergo Industries, the modern-day incarnation of the Templar Order, and learns that they are searching for the apple of Eden.
The object is the last remains from the Garden of Eden and is alleged to being the last remains of the first sin or mankind.
It also has the power to eradicate free will.
In order to subjugate the human race to a common way of thinking, and end its perceived corruption, the company’s head scientist, Dr Sophia Rikkin (Cotillard), reveals that Callum is a descendant of Aguilar de Nerha who happens to be the last person to be in possession of the object or know its last whereabouts.
A machine, known as Animus, has been created and is able to trace Lynch’s lineage right up to Nerha. Cullum is then tasked with retrieving this information. Unfortunately, not everything about Abstergo Industries, their work or Lynch’s history, is as black or white as the film wants us to believe and for two hours we are subjected to numerous twists, turns and action sequences.
Now as far as video game adaptations go, “Assassin’s Creed” is as elementary as it gets. It falls nothing short of the clichéd perception that has been created by its predecessors like “Super Mario Brothers, “Street Fighter”, “Double Dragons” the numerous “Mortal Combat” movies and l dare to say last year’s “Pixels” movie.
How all the movies above managed to sign actors like Bob Hoskins (Super Mario), Jean Claude Van Damme (Street Fighter) and Peter Dinklage (Pixels) remains a mystery to me.
Nothing about them is entertaining, fun or has a piece of nostalgia about them.
Like the aforementioned movies, “Assassin’s Creed” has lousy CGI, a poor script and sub-par performances. The only thing that saves this movie from falling victim to its predecessors’ mistakes is that it could act as an excellent origins story.
Spoiler alert here. Now for the larger part of the two-hour movie, we are led to believe that Cotillard’s Rikkin character is an innocent scientist who has mankind’s best interests at heart.
While there is that foreboding element about her company’s interest and most importantly her father’s work, which in this case is Jeremy Iron’s character, we still feel for her. The film’s ending is both predictable and tragic as Irons dies, the Creed saves the day.
What is left is an open ending that sets up Rikkin’s venture into the dark side and if the movies spurns sequels, we could get a refreshing movie with a believable villain.
What 2016 lacked, in terms of movies, was a credible antagonist with a proper backstory and motivation.
Cotillard puts up commendable performance in this movie and should she sign up for future instalments, she has the makings of a formidable villain, much in the same built of what Thanos is to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
One should never underestimate the power of a slow, well-constructed build to a character.
It is a lesson movie makers need to learn and master. This was my biggest take from this otherwise disappointing movie.
If the slow is the ultimate plan then kudos, but if it is a one-off take then shame on the movie makers.
