Film of the Week: Assassin’s Creed

Film adaptations of video games have built up a reputation of being terrible. Converting a story that’s deliberately made to take several hours to complete into a 1hr 40mins is not easy, and for the most part, hasn’t been achieved to the degree that fans of the series of games can equally enjoy.

When the first game of the series was released, it offered a unique experience that took off and became a global success that spawned many sequels. Over the years, the series has been met with gradually increasing criticism regarding the necessity of the sequel, and how well made the game actually is. Ubisoft has fallen into the hole that 99.9% of companies do, and that’s milk it because it makes money. When the announcement of the film came along, there was a collective groan. By then, people weren’t enjoying the series as much, and the majority of the fans agreed the film shouldn’t be made, and the series should be put to bed.

The film was made anyway, and it came out near the end of the last year, and I just never got around to watching it. I wanted to give it a chance. The trailers looked as if it would be one of the biggest video game adaptations yet, and for the most part, it is. There were epic fights, tense moments, futuristic technology and science, all coming together and working as a team – except that team forgot to add some members, such as explaining what the heck is going on and a good ending. This film is only made for the fans of the games – it struggles to stand alone for those who haven’t played the games.

I have to say that the worst part about this film is how long it stays in the past. The entire concept of the game was to study the past, live the memories of the main character’s ancestor. We do get a decent chunk, but all we see when we are transported into the past is fighting, and not much else. Whilst we know the reason for why they are fighting, it did feel as if the story took a back seat during the fight scenes, and for that it can get a bit boring, and subsequently give the impression of unnecessity. That’s a real shame, because the fights were choreographed well, and Jed Kurzel’s roaring score increased the tension tenfold, sucking me into their world, forcing me to sit on the edge of my seat.

Michael Fassbender’s performance felt limited. The film tried to cram so much into – compared to the game – such a short amount of time, I truly believe there’s so much they could have added. They need to extend the running time to at least three hours, but unfortunately, that wouldn’t have made the film any better, but instead make it boring.

I can understand why Hollywood wants to adapt games into films – because the franchise makes a lot of money and adapting a game increases the spectrum of the audience – but is there really any need, when the story in the game is clearly created specifically for the game. Assassin’s Creed does, for the most part, give the impression that it would adapt well onto the big screen, better than Tetris would, probably. It does have that cinematic feel, except, it’s still a game, not a film.

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)