With the official release of Assassin’s Creed on New Year’s Day, the latest tranche of video games adapted into films has come to an end, and with it we can all breathe a sigh of relief that we won’t have to see another attempt at combining the two mediums, for a little while at least.
Assassin’s Creed is certainly one of the better adaptations, but when you compare it to some of the other offerings out there, that’s not saying much, especially when the overall plot of the film is so lifeless. Michael Fassbender plays death row inmate Cal Lynch, a descendant of an assassin who lived in Andalusia of 1492 and is dragged into a centuries old war between the Assassins and the Templars, who wish to free and control the world’s population respectively. After discovering he is in a brand new prison, he is subjected to reliving his ancestor’s memories through the Animus, a machine which allows users to relive the lives of their ancestors, in order to discover the Apple of Eden, an ancient artefact which supposedly contains the DNA of Free Will.
The plot is very “bare bones”, with all the exposition being delivered in between the action sequences in fairly substantial info-dumps. Interestingly, the film manages to explain everything and nothing at the same time, once the hunt for the Apple is established, it gets retold by various characters, almost in fear that the audience will have forgotten what’s going on. The story itself is also clearly demarcated between the story and action sequences, a handy hint for those of you going to see the film; present day = plot, ancestry = ass-kicking. This is the content of the film in its entirety.
There is very little characterisation for anyone outside of the three lead roles, resulting in a lot of random actors waltzing into a shot, delivering a few lines, then disappearing into the background again until they are needed to say something quasi-philosophical or help explain some random bit of story. It’s a real shame, as the lack of focus on these characters leaves some great actors such as Brendan Gleeson (who has a screen time of approximately two minutes,) and Michael K. Williams lingering in the background of shots with nothing much to do.
That being said, Fassbender, Cotillard and Irons are all able to pull off some wonderful acting and action sequences when they are called upon to do so, though Fassbender trails behind the other two when they share scenes. Part of the reason is that his character, Lynch, is not interesting to watch, he is a blank slate for the much more enigmatic Aguilar, who performs numerous action sequences through ancient Andalusia.
The fighting and action sequences of this film save it from being a total failure. The free-running chase sequence is incredibly impressive, whilst the numerous battles between Aguilar and several Templar soldiers are masterpieces of battle choreography. These scenes also help to show how the Animus works within the film with Fassbender’s character strapped in, fighting illusory projections of enemies. It shows of a wonderful bit of cinematography and visual FX.
Unfortunately, the flashback sequences are always accompanied with a long, sweeping establishing shot over the top of the city. Normally, this would not be a bad thing, but when it is continually applied, it can get rather wearisome. However, it is by far one of the lesser problems with this film.
Assassin’s Creed has plenty of potential to be a good film, and with any luck, the sequels will build upon this shaky start to create something much more enticing. As it currently stands though, it’s not quite worth a watch.
Assassin’s Creed is out in cinemas now!
