[rating=7.00]
Given the cinematic nature of today’s video games, it feels unlikely that Hollywood has yet to hit upon the proper way to translate them to screen. These days, all one would really need to do is follow the beats of the game they’re adapting and the genre should sort itself out. And yet, even with the readymade stories just waiting in the wings, Hollywood continues to struggle, churning out one piece of shit after the other and ensuring that the stink infects the very idea of the genre.
Were I a conspiracy-minded man, I’d surely think this is intentional. As video games have grown in popularity, Hollywood has seen interest decline. Every year, it seems, we see end-of-year think pieces about the sorry economic state of the movie industry, and much is made about the increase in competition for asses in seats, with gaming often pointed to as a culprit. That makes sense, in a way—with ticket prices and concessions soaring, it makes less and less sense to spend $30 for a two-hour night out when you can spend $50 to get 100 hours or more of entertainment. Could it be that a bitter Hollywood intentionally makes bombs as a backhanded fuck you to the gaming industry?
Well, no. Given the money they continue to drop on their attempts, there are certainly cheaper and easier ways to tell the gaming industry to go fuck themselves. Rather, it seems more indicative of a clash of narrative form—it’s difficult to pare down those 100 hours into a satisfying two-hour format, and the results are typically uneven. Still, it’s hard to get over the idea that all it would take is a single movie to revitalize the genre or, at the very least, prove it can be done. Assassin’s Creed is very nearly that movie.
Admittedly, the bar for video game movies is so low that one needs only to step over it to surpass. When I say that Assassin’s Creed meets the bar, I’m not exactly saying much. Still, when a simple step would’ve done, Assassin’s Creed gives a solid hop which, in context, is sort of the very definition of “above and beyond.” It’s not without its problems but I’d be lying to you—and to myself—if I didn’t concede that nothing here is half-assed. No, it’s whole-assed all the way.
Like the game series that inspired it, Assassin’s Creed follows a convicted murderer, Cal (Michael Fassbender), who is sentenced to death. After his sentence is carried out, he’s shocked to discover he has not, in fact, died. Rather, he’s been taken to a distant facility where a doctor, Sofia (Marion Cotillard) explains that he is needed for a great cause. Cal, it seems, is the descendent of an assassin, who was one of a group of assassins, knowing collectively as The Assassins, who once did battle with the Templars over the fate of mankind. The Assassins, it seems, are guardians of an ancient secret, the Apple of Eden, which holds the key to controlling mankind’s free will, which is desperately sought after by the Templars even to this day. Sofia and her father (Jeremy Irons) have a device, the Animus, which allows currently living people to experience the memories of their ancestors, which they intend to use on Cal to gain insight into Aguilar (also Fassbender) in order to locate the artifact.
Convoluted? Yeah. The movie shoves about three games worth of exposition into a single movie, overloading the uninitiated with information and confusing the entire story. Of course, this was also a problem with the game series. Though stretched over several games, the story of the Animus was always kind of, well, dumb. As a device, it was distracting from the ultimate fun of the game—playing an assassin at various points in history. As much as it was cool to connect the conspiracy to the present day, it was overall a clunky, pointless detraction. And so it is, here.
In this case, however, that might be good for fans of the game. I have to wonder whether it’s telling that the same narrative problems I had, personally, with the game were the same problems I had with the movie. Fans of the game—and there are many—will probably be pleased with the faithful execution of storyline to the big screen. Outsiders, however, will probably be confused. Narratively, it’s hard to get on board if you’re not already, and it’s hard to justify the framework as it exists.
That being said, everything about Assassin’s Creed is impressive. Director Justin Kurzel (Macbeth) brings his singular eye and style to the film with remarkable effect. The look and feel of Assassin’s Creed is about as close to cinematic poetry as one can get. At all points, the screen is alive and cinematographer Adam Arkapaw penchant for muted pallets and motion brings the same beautiful look here as he also brought to Macbeth.
Stylistically, it’s difficult not to draw comparisons to last year’s adaptation of the Bard’s famous story. Between the writer, director, cinematographer, and stars, you’re dealing with the same core group of people. In a sense, Assassin’s Creed can almost be called a thematic sequel to Macbeth, with one building off of the scope of the other to create a sort of cinematic manifesto.
In that sense, it’s worth seeing, even if you aren’t a fan. The scope of Assassin’s Creed is breathtaking, with stunning shots and sweeping bird’s eyes that captivate and enthrall. For fans of the games, it’s probably must see, with tiny nods and Easter eggs planted throughout the film which pay homage to the source material. Even the scenes involving the Animus directly are largely more interesting than they ever were in the games.
Overall, Assassin’s Creed is a monumental leap forward to the legitimization of video game movies. It’s a lot to digest in a two-hour timeframe, and the narrative kinks have yet to be worked out of the adaptation process, but the bar has now been raised significantly. In a decade or so, if the bar keeps being pushed to new heights, we’ll probably look back and reflect upon Assassin’s Creed genius. It’s difficult to know whether that will translate into the success today, but a new standard has definitely been set.
Assassin’s Creed is now playing in theaters everywhere.
