Since the beginning, "Assassin's Creed" caught my attention, as well as attention of many, by the amount of talent attracted to it. Michael Fassbender, Justin Kurzel and Marion Cotillard, alongside director of photography Adam Arkapaw and composer Jed Kurzel, had the infinite credit of trust after the terrific Macbeth.
The goal was enormous: to destroy the wall created by a great lot of mediocre adaptations of video games, and punch the way to the heart of the audience. This mission was made up by the critics and the audience, while the "mountain of talent" was just trying to create a great movie. So what happened after all?
At the output we get the picture that caused a lot of debate, but I certainly loved it. I believe that many criticize it simply because it doesn't meet their personal taste. And so in this review I will try to describe not just an opinion, but also to find objective pros to the film.
It has one huge advantage, which, for some reason, is overlooked by many viewers, critics and bloggers. But I always appreciate this item in any picture. Thing which is called artistry. An attempt to create art. Trying to create something original, without following an established formula of blockbuster productions (hello, Disney). Trying to "decorate" your movie, bring it its own flavor, the atmosphere. And this is where this film fully succeeds. But some people, accustomed to the standard "stamped" blockbusters (just try to give McDonald's patrons something from Italian or French cuisine), are not ready to accept particular vision of Kurzel, But I do not think it hurts it in any way. Conversely, this is kind of advantage. Kurzel once said that he created his own film, not a video game adaptation. His goal was to make a movie that would not depend on the success of the video game, establishing itself in the field of cinema as an independent work, although happening in the universe of the game and having it referenced, including some of the characters. Is this bad? Of course no. But the fans are people who sometimes don't lend themselves to a logical description, so many of them cries about the movie not having the standard Animus, the standard characters likewise Desmond, Ezio or Altair, and everything else. The film features only the original music, a very impressive one, by the way, if you listen to it. It may not seem so memorable at first, but personally I can't forget several motives after a couple of days after watching the film.
Unfortunately, as many have noticed, the script really leaves much to be desired. But it is not as bad as many says. The film is set in our days, in our world. In order to understand it, you need to know what kind of world we live in. And then the words about violence and control won't seem so meaningless. The problem of violence and control are, perhaps, the most important issues which mankind is facing today. Turn on the news and check for yourself, and then maybe the idea that a senior scientist in one of the largest corporations in the world, not limited in any resources, possessing the idea of the search for "cure for violence" will not seem such a fantastic thing. Has someone a doubt that the people of "higher tier" trying to control the "inferior"? Well, maybe the quality of education, the intellectual level of mass cultural products and career opportunities really fall from year to year by pure coincidence indeed. Of course, it is easier to dismiss the word "nonsense" than think about what is not on the surface. But is it really your choice?
Kurzel withdrew the auteur blockbuster, and it is shown not only in the breathtaking visuals created with the help of the DP and visual effects studios (though at the absolute majority the film was shot on camera), but also in the atmosphere. Actors very harmoniously complement his vision as well. Michael Fassbender is good in the dual role of Callum and Aguilar, and convincing in a variety of scenes with his character. Marion Cotillard played very convincingly a challenging role for any actor, a role of a character who is neither a hero nor the villain. Jeremy Irons opened his villainous potential to the full, just like Charlotte Rampling, although she has, on a par with Brendan Gleeson, only a couple of scenes, but both actors have coped with their roles, and I hope to see the character of Charlotte in potential sequels. All the other actors also can be commended, especially the unique Ariana Labed. In many respects thanks to them the script looks better on screen.
Although, I admit, there are some disadvantages in the movie. In some places, it lacks logic, but it's still a sci-fi film, and something can be forgiven. Fortunately, the plot holes and mistakes are not so conspicuous. But the main drawback is the run-time, and the consequent rush. I hoped that the film will be more lasting, like 140 minutes which was reported before. Unfortunately, it feels kind of confusion when the events occurring on screen, the characters move too quickly from location to location, the characters do not all have time to open up, even though the actors are trying as hard as they can.
"Assassin's Creed" is a film which requires a certain mindset on it. It is darker than most blockbusters, and maybe it features too much authorship, the vision is too strong for an ordinary moviegoer chewing popcorn. But is it bad? In our age when it is so rare to meet a blockbuster with a director's hand on it, so rare to see a different thing? For me it is clear: I liked this movie, and I hope that someday we will see the sequel.
Thank you, Justin Kurzel and all the incredible team working on it, for such an immersive experience.
The goal was enormous: to destroy the wall created by a great lot of mediocre adaptations of video games, and punch the way to the heart of the audience. This mission was made up by the critics and the audience, while the "mountain of talent" was just trying to create a great movie. So what happened after all?
At the output we get the picture that caused a lot of debate, but I certainly loved it. I believe that many criticize it simply because it doesn't meet their personal taste. And so in this review I will try to describe not just an opinion, but also to find objective pros to the film.
It has one huge advantage, which, for some reason, is overlooked by many viewers, critics and bloggers. But I always appreciate this item in any picture. Thing which is called artistry. An attempt to create art. Trying to create something original, without following an established formula of blockbuster productions (hello, Disney). Trying to "decorate" your movie, bring it its own flavor, the atmosphere. And this is where this film fully succeeds. But some people, accustomed to the standard "stamped" blockbusters (just try to give McDonald's patrons something from Italian or French cuisine), are not ready to accept particular vision of Kurzel, But I do not think it hurts it in any way. Conversely, this is kind of advantage. Kurzel once said that he created his own film, not a video game adaptation. His goal was to make a movie that would not depend on the success of the video game, establishing itself in the field of cinema as an independent work, although happening in the universe of the game and having it referenced, including some of the characters. Is this bad? Of course no. But the fans are people who sometimes don't lend themselves to a logical description, so many of them cries about the movie not having the standard Animus, the standard characters likewise Desmond, Ezio or Altair, and everything else. The film features only the original music, a very impressive one, by the way, if you listen to it. It may not seem so memorable at first, but personally I can't forget several motives after a couple of days after watching the film.
Unfortunately, as many have noticed, the script really leaves much to be desired. But it is not as bad as many says. The film is set in our days, in our world. In order to understand it, you need to know what kind of world we live in. And then the words about violence and control won't seem so meaningless. The problem of violence and control are, perhaps, the most important issues which mankind is facing today. Turn on the news and check for yourself, and then maybe the idea that a senior scientist in one of the largest corporations in the world, not limited in any resources, possessing the idea of the search for "cure for violence" will not seem such a fantastic thing. Has someone a doubt that the people of "higher tier" trying to control the "inferior"? Well, maybe the quality of education, the intellectual level of mass cultural products and career opportunities really fall from year to year by pure coincidence indeed. Of course, it is easier to dismiss the word "nonsense" than think about what is not on the surface. But is it really your choice?
Kurzel withdrew the auteur blockbuster, and it is shown not only in the breathtaking visuals created with the help of the DP and visual effects studios (though at the absolute majority the film was shot on camera), but also in the atmosphere. Actors very harmoniously complement his vision as well. Michael Fassbender is good in the dual role of Callum and Aguilar, and convincing in a variety of scenes with his character. Marion Cotillard played very convincingly a challenging role for any actor, a role of a character who is neither a hero nor the villain. Jeremy Irons opened his villainous potential to the full, just like Charlotte Rampling, although she has, on a par with Brendan Gleeson, only a couple of scenes, but both actors have coped with their roles, and I hope to see the character of Charlotte in potential sequels. All the other actors also can be commended, especially the unique Ariana Labed. In many respects thanks to them the script looks better on screen.
Although, I admit, there are some disadvantages in the movie. In some places, it lacks logic, but it's still a sci-fi film, and something can be forgiven. Fortunately, the plot holes and mistakes are not so conspicuous. But the main drawback is the run-time, and the consequent rush. I hoped that the film will be more lasting, like 140 minutes which was reported before. Unfortunately, it feels kind of confusion when the events occurring on screen, the characters move too quickly from location to location, the characters do not all have time to open up, even though the actors are trying as hard as they can.
"Assassin's Creed" is a film which requires a certain mindset on it. It is darker than most blockbusters, and maybe it features too much authorship, the vision is too strong for an ordinary moviegoer chewing popcorn. But is it bad? In our age when it is so rare to meet a blockbuster with a director's hand on it, so rare to see a different thing? For me it is clear: I liked this movie, and I hope that someday we will see the sequel.
Thank you, Justin Kurzel and all the incredible team working on it, for such an immersive experience.