Assassin's Creed (2016) User Reviews

An Oversimplified Story Leads to an Uninteresting Experience

[NDbportmanfan · 5/10 · 27 December 2016]

Assassin's Creed is about a corporation who wants to unlock history's dark secrets. They plan on achieving it by using a device called the animus that uses the blood of the target's descendant to create a virtual environment of the ancestor's memory. The corporation is run by the Templars and their counterpart are called the Assassins.

Having played most of the games in the video game series, I felt this was a pretty lack luster attempt at capturing the story. Nothing is really explained in great detail like in the games, which was unfortunate but I can give it a pass since I shouldn't expect a movie that is only two hours long to explain too many of the secrets. What I can't forgive is the fact they continually addressed the apple over and over again but never explained its full significance. The scenes that took place in the past almost felt unnecessary as it never really furthered the plot.

All of the characters seemed pretty uninteresting... well at least compared to their video game counterparts. I honestly can't go into detail about them as most of their dialogue was just short sentences. They never became good three dimensional characters but instead cardboard cut outs of Desmond, Lucy, and Warren. The movie was just one long trailer for the games which granted was Ubisoft's intention and they didn't hide that fact. They pretty much even said before the movie was released that Assassin's Creed will not be a great film. The main goal is to get more people into the game series. That is my take away from this movie, Assassin's Creed is so vague in the story and characters that casual movie goers will be thinking "you know what, I didn't learn anything from this movie but I want to. Maybe I should try the game."

If you are a fan of the series, especially if you enjoyed the events that took place in the present. I expect you will be disappointed in the movie. If I were to put the movie on the video game scale, I would say it was better than Unity (by far) and would be even with Syndicate.

Assassin's Creed is definitely not a movie that you need to see in the theaters. It is more of a movie that should be rented but even that I am unsure about as I type this.

Would like to see more

[sout-63306 · 7/10 · 23 December 2018]

I enjoyed this film and would like to see a sequel. I'm not familiar with the game, but the plot was easy to follow and it had good action sequences.

Although somewhat predictable, it had its moments where we were kept guessing. A follow-up could develop some of the minor characters more.

Assassins Creed Falls Short of its Potential.

[erkucz00 · 5/10 · 23 December 2016]

Assassins creed is a pretty straightforward franchise. Its about historical conflicts, and cool dudes that run around taking out major targets whilst doing awesome parkour. I'm not a huge fan of the games (I've only ever played IV) but as someone who is into history, I was pretty stoked for this movie. On top of that, Assassins Creed is also a reunion For Justin Kurzel, Michael Fassbender, and Marion Cotillard; who all worked on the most recent version of Macbeth, which I absolutely loved. My expectations for this movie were high. So high, in fact, that I disregarded the overwhelming onslaught of hate that came in the wake of the movie's early screenings. Boy, was I wrong.

Justin Kurzel is a great director. He has a gift in his manipulation of fog, dust, and light. He did great things in Macbeth, especially with the final confrontation, and he does similarly great things here...at least when the screenplay permits it. The setting that I had most looked forward to; fifteenth century Spain, at the height of the inquisition, barely gets 30 minutes of screen time, if that. The ferocious beauty that Kurzel's visual style brings to the table is never given time to become the prepossessing masterpiece I know it could have become. The epic acrobatics, tense sequences of martial arts combat, and exotic weaponry scarcely sink in before the viewers, just like Callum Lynch, are jerked back to a monotone and boring laboratory, that serves as the setting for most of the movie.

At one point in the film, when the villainous Templar priest finally lays his oppressive hands on the apple of Eden, the movie's sought after artifact, Aguilar, and his Assassin partner leap down into a cloud of grey smoke, emerging from the shadows here, and there, laying absolute waste to the Templar. This is a moment of cinematic triumph, and Kurzel ought to be pleased. Next however, as Aguilar seizes the priest, he looks across the room, and sees his partner just as she is murdered by a Templar enforcer. An epic duel ensues. Climactic combat is Fassbender's forte. The man shows his emotions so well with his facial expressions. This woman is his wife, presumably, or his lover perhaps. However, I have no idea who she is; heck, i don't even know what her name is. The movies plot prevents you from being emotionally invested in the most adrenaline pumping part of the story, because the script focuses on what has to be the most positively tedious plot device in Assassins Creed.

This movie was Ubisoft's chance to disconnect the Assassins Creed franchise from the half-baked convoluted sci-fi plot devices that are part and parcel of the games. Instead, the film chooses to be a movie that is almost solely, a half baked-convoluted plot device, with a dash of fantastic stunt work on the side.

I am usually pretty optimistic after a movie. It takes very little to please me. My rating scale tends to peak at "perfect", and reach its low at "just good". I'm sad to say that I wanted Assassin's Creed to end. Once I realized that there were no more animus sequences coming my way, I had no reason to care anymore. This was not, sitting on the edge of my seat, or wishing the film would hurry up and get to the climax. I legitimately wanted the movie to be over, so the credits would roll, and I could get up and leave.

Assassin's Creed is a tragedy. So much talent was involved, and clearly, plenty of hard work went into it. A few times, Kurzel's pictorial virtuosity is allowed to shine through the weary and trite plot, but for the most part, it is suppressed by how vapid and incomplete everything else is. It is a pity. Assassins Creed was chock full of potential, but it couldn't have fallen more short.

All in all pretty good

[nathaniel-niko · 7/10 · 21 December 2016]

Assassins Creed is by no means perfect, but I did enjoy it. The film has the classic setting from Assassins Creed games, a modern day protagonist enters the Animus to relive the memories of his ancestor. The film does a pretty good job explaining the series mythos to those unfamiliar with the games. Sadly, we don't spend as much time with the ancestor Aquilar as we do with the present day Cal, and Aquilar feels under developed as a character. The movie also felt a bit short. It really could have benefited from a longer run time, to give more character development to the ancestors, and explain some of the characters motivations better. The action in this movie is great, the story is solid, and the characters (that are properly developed) are interesting. Both Fassbender and Irons play their roles well. Overall a decent movie any Assassins Creed fan would enjoy. The critics like to bash it because it's a video game movie, and it's cool to hate video game movies, but it's not bad at all. 8/10

Don't listen to the haters/critics!

[sier-85276 · 7/10 · 22 December 2016]

Following a somewhat parallel story to the original game, I do wish they would've stuck with original characters. Despite that, the film remains a fun and intriguing watch. The change of the Animus from a bed-like system to the VR style arm was something I originally disliked, but that change ends up playing well into the film visually and aids in parts of the story. The action scenes are well choreographed and exciting, countered with what may be a few too many close up facial expressions and dialogue that might easily confuse someone less familiar with the base plot of the franchise. As far as movie adaptations of video games, this is a far better rendition than many other attempts. As a standalone film it needs some work. But I know they intended to produce a trilogy so I'd like to believe the opportunity to release sequels will give the audience more of what they're looking for, while this movie may have been a bit too much set up rather than development. Personally I generously offer it 7/10, and would recommend seeing it. I hope it is successful enough for them to finish the intended trilogy.

Annoyingly Confusing

[Sir_Greedo · 2/10 · 28 December 2016]

This film was like walking down the street and someone walks up to you and starts having a conversation but, they start the conversation in the middle and you don't know what the hell they are talking about because they never stop to explain what they are saying.

This movie has no character or story development. Newcomers to the story are left confused because the movie relies too much on assuming the audience knows the video game lore that they take no time to explain any of the concepts like the machine, Why going back in time and killing people for an apple will stop violence?, or why did the three team up at the end despite knowing nothing about each other? There was no development between these characters and all of the sudden they are a team now? The creed is barely explained as well.

The action scenes are terrible. Due to the shaky cam, its hard to tell what the hell is going on.

A Good movie let down by critics

[bobbybuffalo30 · 7/10 · 18 March 2017]

I rarely write reviews and this is my first one I've written on IMDb. There was a reason why I did not go to see this movie the opening week because the reviews coming in were ranging from mediocre to bad. Apart from this there were other instances were I regretted watching a movie based and reviews as when I watched it myself I enjoyed them thoroughly(Warcraft).

Such is the case with Assassins Creed. Throughout the movie I was waiting for the instance where it would slow down or start to get me bored as was stated by a YouTube reviewer who I watched for this movie and surprisingly enough I was in on the journey till the end. I feel after watching this movie that some of the critics are indeed paid off or are in power to destroy a movie unless the studios give in on their demands or just biased.

This movie was enjoyable for what it was. The cast/acting, Screenplay, Sound etc. and I really liked and appreciate the filmmakers for keeping the language Spanish in the memories/flashback scenes. It was a good choice.

The only complaint I did have was the quick cuts and closeups of the fight and chase scenes.

Movie was overall a good watch.

Tremendously and astonishingly boring

[NpMoviez · 3/10 · 10 September 2017]

(Some spoiler free views about the movie)

Yet another addition to the long list of whacky video game adaptations. In short, almost 20 minutes of English + shabby script + dust sequences (I don't know what you call that) + ripped off action sequences of Prince of Persia + confusing direction + boring performances = this movie. It was literally vague and shallow. Total waste of time. On my personal scale, I'd give it a "3.1/10" score. On the usual A+ to F scale, it gets a sort of "E+".

(Discussion about how I felt about the film .... minor spoilers)

Good : Somewhere around the middle of the movie, Fassbender says "what the f**k is going on?" which summarizes the entire film.

Mixed : Michael Fassbender in a movie is an interesting thing. He was the only reason I watched this boredom. Even though it was probably his worst performance, he kept me glued throughout the movie, and at least gave a false hope that everything will get better.

Bad : Michael Fassbender is taken in a quest of revisiting the memories of his great (raised to power 18) grandfather using the weirdest and the most absurd things, which are too absurd even for the needlessly absurd movies like this. Plus, after all that dance offs or action sequences or whatever there is a least interesting build up to the least interesting twist. Probably, the makers thought the best way to utilize the CGI was to create dust sequences and that annoying bird. The action sequences were too boring. It tried to be a "historical epic" of some kind and failed every bit. And, those spirits crossing over were something that the movie didn't try to explain. And whatever happens towards the end is plain vague. The most nonsensical part. It feels like as if Michael Fassbender did this movie because he (as Magneto) couldn't travel back in time in X-Men: Days of Future Past. This is the one of the worst "quest for something", epic and sort of time travel film ever made.

Good, but not as good as it could've been

[roderick_stout · 7/10 · 7 January 2017]

As a fan of the game series, my expectations were quite high. I was therefore pleased to see that a lot of the movie can be related back to the games. The story features are similar as well as the historic atmosphere. The fighting scenes are nicely shown, but are a bit to dominant throughout the entire movie. The depth of the story can be better as well.

The actors do a good job, but there isn't much time to really get to know them.

All in all, a movie that did not disappoint me as an Assassins Creed fan, but not the best movie of the year either.

Impressive cast deserves a movie with more substance

[grantss · 3/10 · 1 October 2017]

As a young boy Callum Lynch witnessed his father murder his mother. Now, 30 years later, he is being executed for murder. However, the execution is faked and, instead of dying, he is transported to a special facility. It turns out that he is descended from a 15th century master-assassin, Aguilar, a member of the Assassin's Brotherhood. The plan is to train him in the ways of his forefather. This will enable him to fight the arch-enemy of his forefather, the Templars.

Great cast, very weak script. Plot is very basic and much of the movie consists of predictable, well-choreographed fight scenes. The writers try to throw in some intrigue and purpose by introducing the Apple of Eden but it is a fairly weak plot device.

Great cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling - but these talents are all wasted due to the action-driven, no-substance script. Michael Fassbender can only blame himself for appearing in such a piece of crap - he co-produced the movie.

I enjoyed this movie and I don't play video games

[kyltinlo · 9/10 · 21 December 2016]

I watched this movie with apprehension because of the bad reviews by critics. But I did enjoy the movie and I don't even play video games. And the reasons why I liked this movie is because: 1. Action scenes and chase scenes are very good and fast paced. 2. Acting by the cast was superb - Fassbender, Cotillard and co. 3. Visual effects are good.

Now, for the critic's beef - 1. The story line was bad? No, it is not. It is comprehensible and with intelligent ideas and uses characters from history. 2. It is boring? This coming from people who think "Manchester by the Sea" is exciting.

Assassins Creed is not comparable to and way better than Warcraft. But it looks like the critics have just lumped all video game adaptations as bad, perhaps because they don't like this genre.

Assassin's Creed

[0U · 19 February 2020]

It's a movie based on a game so it will never be good anyway. In that respect then, it features a cast that is too good, and a thoroughly confusing plot. Given Ubi Soft and their involvement, a broken and unfinished product is something they are fantastic at giving us and this film doesn't disappoint in that regard.

Very Enjoyable

[Rinette · 7/10 · 6 January 2017]

I have not played the Assassin's Creed games. However, this movie did not make me feel as though I needed to have played them in order to understand or enjoy the film.

The cinematography was great, and there were some magnificent aerial views of 15th century Spain along with modern day. Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard both gave excellent performances, managing to deliver the occasional corny, melodramatic dialogue with poise, and the supporting cast were equally great in their roles. Despite the occasional cheese, this film had some excellent dialogue that were thoughtful and poignant - unexpected in a fantasy action movie! Speaking of action - this was the best part of the movie. Gorgeous choreography, and I loved all the various weaponry and free running.

This is by no means an award winning film, but overall it was incredibly enjoyable, and I don't think it quite deserves the negativity critics and fans of the games are giving it.

Poor outcome with dreadful script

[Jordanandreou · 1/10 · 6 January 2017]

As many others I played the Assassins Creed games and was looking forward to this film however it is safe to say that I was extremely disappointed. No matter if you have played the games or not this film was awful. First things first the script is poor. If I hadn't played the games I would have struggled to understand many of the references. The script is vague and confusing in parts which led to a man who sat in front of me leaving half way through (I wish I did the same). Although I am a fan of Michael Fassbender the quality of the writing meant he was wasted in this film. When it comes to the special effects the use of CGI was average. The fighting sequences weren't as good as I expected as it wasn't clear what was happening. The overall story was disappointing and the fact that there will be a sequel made it even more disappointing. I hate to compare but the games were good and the film was rubbish. I would not advise wasting time watching this. Please. For your sake.

Not great

[neutredlum · 6/10 · 3 August 2021]

A movie with a lame plot I whould like it more if it is actually in the time where the assassins live and not in present day with a machine.

Everything is permitted, but just really fast with not much explanation

[one9eighty · 7/10 · 10 July 2018]

Based on the hugely popular video game franchise, "Assassin's Creed" is the first time an attempt has been made to transfer the concept to the big screen. Transferring video games to the big-screen is a very tricky dark art, not many have been successfully or even enjoyed cult status - so from the get-go, making an AC film was always going to come under scrutiny from games fans.

So, Assassins Creed - I had to try and explain it to my girlfriend as best as I could so I think that explanation will probably work here. A secret society's science division has worked out a way to immerse distant blood relatives of long dead historical figures, into the memories and experiences they had when they were alive. Say what? It's like if, say, if Christopher Columbus's great, great, great, great, great, grandchild (or another distant relative) could put on a virtual reality headset and see and experience everything that Columbus saw and experienced. By doing this to people, the secret society hopes to learn things from the past, to shape the future. That's the techie part done with. Throw into the mix a secret struggle between two opposing factions, the Templars and the Assassins Creed. The Templar's, throughout history, have wanted to control society and dictate their rule. The Creed on the other hand, opposes them and wants people to live free. Still with me? So, in a nutshell - Michael Fassbender's character is rescued and put to work in this techie VR, to experience something that his distant relative experienced, to help the secret society who owns the VR kit. He has to figure out who he's working for, what they want, and who he is.

Did I enjoy the film? From purely a film fan stand point, yeah it was ok. From a fan of the games, well, it wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible enough to sully the reputation the games have created. In my opinion there is a lot of good source material available - but let's not forget, this is an introduction to the situation on film, something more in depth may have been off-putting. The pace of the film was good; it was constantly on the move, which owed itself well to the pace of the games sequences. In moving at a good pace though it didn't allow much for character development or depth. So while everything was going on, I didn't really care if people were going to be killed off. In regards to the cast, Fassbender was OK, but I didn't find him that believable as an ex-con, especially not one that has to grow a conscience by the end of the film. I don't think he fitted that well for the parts of the film set back in time in central Europe. Saying that though, he wasn't terrible - but I don't think this is one of his strongest rolls. Marion Cotillard doesn't ignite things enough to be a thrill-a-minute, but she's adequate for the fairly emotionless scientist she's meant to portray. Jeremy Irons on the other hand, well he does know how to play a villain quite well, and he absolutely fitted his role. Nice locations, with some nice action and some exciting parkour sequences. I'd give this a 7 out of 10.

How could a film with so much talent and potential fall so flat?

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 29 May 2017]

Just for the record, to anybody saying that critics and fans watched 'Assassin's Creed' wanting to hate it that is an unfounded accusation and to me has very little truth to it.

Saying that says more about the person saying it, further proof that many people on this site have the inability to know the difference between fact and opinion and have to resort to personal attacks and conspiracy theories, which is not just childish but incredibly ignorant too. The "hate" actually comes from people who saw a lot of potential with the premise, which was a very interesting one, and was drawn in by the talent. It is the same as saying that it is cool to hate on films based on video games, people have acknowledged that not all of them are bad and there are decent ones out there, but there are some very bad ones too that it is understandable why they have a bad reputation.

'Assassin's Creed' is not quite down there with the worst films based on arcade/video games. It's better than the likes of 'House of the Dead', 'Doom' and 'Street Fighter', but considering the potential and talent it was a huge waste. Have not played the video games in a while but there is a recollection of them being a lot of fun and having a lot of intrigue value, the film doesn't come close to recreating that or immersing the viewer into the richly textured world or make one care for the characters.

There are strengths here. On the most part, 'Assassin's Creed' looks great, it's often beautifully and atmospherically shot and the scenery is magnificently majestic. Some of the action is dynamic and exciting, as well as efficiently choreographed. The cast generally are not well used and all have done much better.

However, Michael Fassbender is an enigmatic lead and Jeremy Irons makes much of relatively little and it shows his adeptness at playing villains (a prime example being Scar in 'The Lion King', one of the best voiced villains in the whole Disney canon).

Marion Cotillard has very little to do with poor dialogue and a severely underwritten character with no depth whatsoever, and she struggles to do anything with them. A waste of a very good actress. Charlotte Rampling and Brendan Gleeson are woefully underused, particularly Gleeson whose character is basically a plot device that could easily have been written out and nobody would have noticed.

In all fairness, it is hard to do much with what little they were given when the characters are so sketchily written and developed (little more than shallow clichés) and the script being the complete mess it turned out to be with so much being so vague and over-complicated it comes over as confused.

Story is not much better. It is both thin and tries to do far too much, also taking itself too seriously with a dark and bleak tone that just doesn't gel often. Pacing issues are abound, with scenes suffering from real tedium. Some of the editing in the action sequences is so shoddy it's almost incoherent. The music is monotone and intrusive and the direction is all over the place.

In conclusion, falls completely flat and does very little with its talent and potential which is one of the worst things a film can commit. 3/10 Bethany Cox

pleasantly surprised

[keenansean-69856 · 7/10 · 21 December 2016]

this movie was pretty good.. i enjoy assassins creed, and in fact, this is possibly the closest video game movie to the source material. it felt like a true assassins creed game/movie tie in. not loosely based like others. the movie has 2 storyteller in the present and past. do not go into this expecting a full assassins creed past time line. its split 50/50 in the two time lines. they intertwine over time and its not jarring. while i can say yes there are some issues, it was very faithful to the name of the game. i would say see it in theaters. don't trust critic reviews! its a good adaption of the game. not just some movie with a brand title slapped on (ehum...doom)

Oh dear what a mess

[RomeoKnight · 4/10 · 31 December 2016]

I don't even know where to start but if I would have to choose a single word to describe this movie, "mess" would do just fine. Shortly, for lovers of mindless kung-fu action, this movie is watchable but gives viewer very little satisfaction. Don't let the good cast and well known game franchise fool you. This is not a good movie. Sitting for the whole two hours was a painful experience and at around 1:30 mark, I prayed that the movie would just finish.

Overall the plot seemed complicated but actually, it's paper-thin chase of an mythical "apple" and "good" vs "evil" in a very stupid context. The complicated stuff comes from the fact that nothing gets explained to audience, things just happen while camera is shaking. Perhaps the gamers know a bit better what is happening, but I'm sure most of them are not content with this crappy movie anyways. Essentially, we have some fancy "virtual reality" gizmo that allows the user to jump in and "live the past" of a guy who died 500 years ago in Spain. I don't see how that could be technically possible even after a 1000 years but fine, at least its not super used concept. Actually that apparatus was the only even remotely original idea in the whole film. Fassbender gets lured to that device quite easily considering things, goes back in time and starts killing people to "stop the violence", as the bug eyed female doctor explains so seriously. Now that is ludicrous. Actually, the line between good and evil in this movie is non-existent and I didn't root the "good guys" at all.

When Fassbender is in the machine, he kills a lot of people in action sequences we have seen 100 times. We have some parkour stuff and saber swinging in ancient Spain in scenes stolen straight from Prince of Persia (video game too with movie adaptation that is 10 times better) and plenty of other films. Our hero is a super human killing machine that can take more bad guys out than Spiderman without breaking a sweat. Of course this is a game movie but still, I'm getting numb of this bs. And again, since its the year 2010+, we need to have EQUALLY strong female side kick that can easily take men double of her size down like flies, can jump as high as the male counterpart and can do all the same tricks. Sorry, but women just don't match men in any type of physical action no matter what year we are living. But surely, Hollywood needs to carter the feminist audience too.

This movie has no character development, no deep moral story, has mostly crappy dialogue, its unimaginative, incoherent and bloated. What the movie has is over-the-top action and "dramatic" orchestral music booming all the time, while still managing to be boring. Fassbender does what he can with the material, Jeremy Irons is there for nothing (just to getting mocked by some inferior actress), never before heard or cared Marion Cotillard who has too much screen time and is completely wooden and emotionless, Brendan Gleeson has about 5 minutes of screen time, wow, and still listed fourth in the credits. I don't know why these great actors went to this crap-fest of a game movie. Are they short on cash? At least the visuals for the movie look good but don't they always in modern movies. Really hard to find positive points here.

This is honestly the worst movie I've seen in theaters. Yesterday this movie had a 6.8 rating here. Today, 6,6 and I'm expecting it goes down even further since generally people (even gamer kids) are not that stupid.

Great! but needs a sequel!

[tarektouni · 7/10 · 30 December 2016]

From an AC gamer, I would say the movie was great, I was a little disappointed that the story doesn't 100% match the game's one but as a whole, I enjoyed it very much, the combat scenes and how they imitate the assassin's moves in the game show how a great effort was exerted during the making of this movie, the music, the cinematography, the visual effects, the acting and directing were all perfect. The movie definitely needs a sequel to introduce more characters specially from the game and tie them to the story and to continue the historic fierce combat between the Assassins and the Templar's around the Apple of Eden and many other which cannot be covered in a single part. Again, the movie worth watching and doesn't have a single moment of boredom and it will be great to see Altair or the great Ezio Auditore in the next parts :) 7/10 from me ..

Assassin's Greed For A Good Movie

[Oneirosophos · 1/10 · 12 January 2017]

OK, I love AC games and the whole AC universe. The first game was a bit boring but thanks to Ezio's trilogy I learnt this wonderful world and have been experiencing till today, in AC comics.

And I found this movie such a generic borefest.

This movie just took some tropes of AC universe, served 'em as a mediocre fan service, through generic action scenes full of crappy CGI, in a Madrid like AC 1's desert for some reason, and that's it. There was no mystery, no interesting characters -except the black guy who I do not even remember his name!- and the ost WAS TERRIBLE. This movie even had three top actors and still, could not use'em well! Probably that's why Fassbender went all out "crazy" in the only scene I memorize from this crapfest. The script was so bad that came back & forth to past & future without leaving room for characterization.

I honestly have no reason to suggest this movie to anyone. Not even to AC fans... The worst AC game or comic has more interesting story than this... Let's just forget this snoozefest and hope that, if a sequel will occur, will be with different characters, script and such.

AAAvoid!/10

Equally disappointing to WoW movie...

Thoroughly enjoyed it!

[dmalanczuk · 9/10 · 21 December 2016]

There is a reason I don't pay attention to reviewers before seeing a movie; seems most of them have lost the ability to view a movie without preconceived notions. Too much over-analyzing. Very little of what is put out these days is in any way realistic. I'm not looking for realistic when I go see a movie; I'm looking for an escape from the daily grind. I'm not a gamer and decided to see the movie since I'm familiar with Michael Fassbender and I like his work. I chose to see the 3D version, which I rarely do, and am glad I did. It was a thoroughly enjoyable movie! Kudos to Damien Walters for the stunt work--great to watch.

This is not just kids stuff, this is seriously impressive.

[imseeg · 7/10 · 23 July 2018]

I often get bored beyond belief by those dumb action movies. I would rather stare at my wallpaper, then watch those mindnumbing stories about action heroes that arent for a second connected to anything remotely true to life. But "Assassin's Creed" is not just kids stuff, this is seriously impressive. Adults and arthouse movie geeks could appreciate this frenetic, mindtwisting story as well.

I really was so surprised by the impressively, frightening undertones of this movie that I wanted to find out more about who directed this movie. Justin Kurzel is the director's name.And then I immediatedly understood why this movie aint nowhere near any other ordinary hollywood action movie. This director has in his young carreer already achieved worldwide acclaim with "Snowtown". Just check out the trailer on Imdb, that is seriously heavy stuff. No kids stuff at all, although kids have leading roles in it. Afterwards he made "MacBeth". Another hardhitting gritty action movie.

Michael Fassbender produced this adaptation of this action game himself. That means he must have had a lot of control over the end result. And that shows, because "Assassin's Creed" has got terrific acting in it and no hollywood ending, which I applaud. I immediatedly want to praise the soundtrack as well, which is one of the best ones I have heard in a long time. Chilling, powerful music that went under my skin. So did this movie.

"Assassin's Creed" is a story about timetravel. The goal of going back in time is to save a symbol that preserves men's free will. Will they be able to destroy this symbol of men's own free will or will it be protected for future mankind? That 's the suspense of the story in a nutshell. I know, this sounds childish and bizarre. When I would read such a synopsis of the story myself I would immediatedly disregard this picture. But please give it a try, because when I started to watch it, with a lot of negative expectations, I soon noticed the enormous acting and direction qualities. For example, I was so pleased to see Jeremy Irons and Charlotte Rampling acting again. Those are masters at their skills and although they only play supporting roles, their emotional impact is very powerful. "Assassin's Creed" is one of those few exceptions in which a game truly has become a very impressive movie.

"Assassin's Creed" is ofcourse not a cinematic masterpiece, because it is still catered to the youth, hence the boring action sequences that go on for too long, but that's the only flaw of this movie though, the rest is truly impressive. In it's own action hero genre I would say this is one of the best I have seen in years. "Logan" comes to mind as an equally powerful action hero movie, which can be enjoyed by adults and arthouse moviegeeks as well...

Disappointed

[ianstleon · 1/10 · 7 January 2017]

So the new year has kicked off and many were hyped to see the video game turned movie.

Let me just say save your money this flat movie is designed to get the gamers' to the movies and then be bored for the entire time.

Save your money for something else that won't have you checking for the exits within 30 minutes and kicking yourself at 50 minutes for not running to the nearest exit.

The actors and director have done well with a script that should have been better and is more about trying to set up a franchise rather than providing the movie goers with a action packed movie.

Those who have played the game will love it

[angelic_wounds · 7/10 · 6 January 2017]

WARNING: For those who haven't played a single minute of the franchise, do not waste your, and our, time watching this movie. You will not understand or appreciate it, just like the critics who have probably never played it either.

WARNING TWO: This review contains no spoilers

I went into the cinema waiting for two things: for this movie to appreciate the material it was taken from, and for it to present it in an adequate way. I was not disappointed from either.

The basic plot is that Callum Lynch is taken into custody by a company by the name of Abstergo, and is used by them in order to access his ancestor's memories, so they can find the location of an Apple of Eden. Basically, what every original AC story (before III) was all about. The questions you will pose are if this movie did justice to the game and its fans. I will answer positively.

Acting: Not a single flaw. Fassbender, for his age and collection of award winning movies, gets quite comfortably into both Callum and Aquilar's shoes, while clearly differentiating from both. His emotions are, as always, clearly visible and he moves through the movie without any issue. Marion Cotillard is excellent in her role as well, a great representation of the middle ground between Templars and Assassins, although I wish she could have been used more. Jeremy Irons is ideal in his Grand Templar role, portraying a character that many of the game players will recognise. The female Assassin was also amazing in her role and played alongside Fassbender beautifully.

Music: I'll just say this. Nothing like the trailers' garbage. It pairs greatly to each scene and drags you further into the movie. A great and highly attraction point to the movie, if you ask me.

Action scenes + Animus representation: Ugh. UGH. Flawless again. They actually made the Animus and the Bleeding Effect look amazingly cool. You'll certainly appreciate each past scene and how it connects to Callum learning through it.

Story: The typical Assassin's Creed story. Now, this is where things get a bit lower in standard. While the transfer from the games was really good, ultimately, the movie lacked a climax. Also, several characters were not utilised properly, and it could have used more scenes to delve people further into Aguilar's life. You might feel like the movie is missing something, and the above things will probably be it. I have trust in Ubisoft though, that, quite like the first AC game, it'll learn from its mistakes.

Overall: A great action film, definitely the best of its genre (video game adaption), but nothing that will earn Oscars. And it doesn't have to. It's a great homage to the franchise, with superb actors and the correct aesthetic. I'd gladly watch it again.

As I said: those who haven't played the games will probably not appreciate it. Do not let their limited reviews stop you from watching it if you have played it yourself.