Having stretched a little brain, we can come to the conclusion that good movies on video games, perhaps, not made. Good not in terms of the quality of this or that component, but in terms of a strong synthesis of these components, giving rise to a truly exciting spectacle. Perhaps I have not seen much in these matters and will be glad to be mistaken, let those who know correct them. One way or another, the crisis of ideas forces large companies to look for more and more literary, comic or gaming sources to invest money with any chance to return it. Or squeeze dry the idea of films sequels and increasingly frequent reboots. The company Ubisoft at least until recently and was far from cinema, but in its line of games faced a similar problem. While the plot of the next game is getting closer to the present, and the games themselves come out more and more often, shooting a film based on the first parts of the popular line of computer games could seem to bosses not so bad decision. The viewer, who saw the result, will probably have a different opinion.
Starting even more or less tolerably and passing through definitely its best scene with the execution of the main character, the picture begins to sink further and further into the impassable jungles of narrative confusion and excessive visual delights, eventually turning into one big question mark: how could such indistinct nonsense ever be released on the big screen? And it is not even clear what is the main problem here - in choosing a director or as a script basis.
“Assassin’s Creed” in terms of artistic solutions is very similar to Justin Kurzel’s previous film “Macbeth”. “Macbeth” was also not without certain problems, but thanks to a strong literary basis and stunning performance of actors in combination with a visual style acquired a strange, but still epic breath. The director tried to go the same way in this film, but without the proper foundation of the script, all his decisions turned the film into something cold and completely detached, where even jokes seem to sound at rest.
One can understand the producers of the film (one of whom was Michael Fassbender) in their desire to unfold the story as widely as possible, to show both the past with battles of assassins and jumping on roofs, and the present with the cold corridors of research laboratories and the patients-descendants of those assassins. You can understand, but accept the result of their work does not work. After all, in an effort to tell as much as possible, they seemed to forget that the material should be for one film, and not several hour-long series of the series. Indeed, it seems that the picture was significantly cut and shortened in timekeeping: all the motives of the characters are thrown out as unnecessary, as well as the beginning with the development of conflicts. And this is so noticeable that the question of the motivation of some characters arises by itself, preventing you from taking what is happening seriously.
And the characters themselves look too cardboard, too artificial. It’s as if an inept screenwriter is driving them from one situation to another, like pieces on a chessboard. Here the hero decides to betray the ideals of his brotherhood (which he did not know about two days ago), here he became a real member of it; here the heroine is disappointed in her father, in a minute she changes her position to the opposite; here one patient suspects the other so much that he attacks him to kill, and after a couple of hours they fight on one side. Needless to say, actors in such conditions simply have nothing to act out (in the words of one critic). They make well-calibrated movements, utter one profound phrase after another with a face so serious that by the end it all makes fun.
As a result, the idea comes to mind that everything that is happening is some too conventional fairy tale, invented by a person as serious as far from real life. A fairy tale where the heroes jump all roofs and kill all the enemies because they are the main characters. A fairy tale about how a bunch of conventionally good guys protect an extremely powerful artifact from the conditionally bad who want to enslave the world and surpass the good in everything except acrobatics. It sounds like the Lord of the Rings, doesn’t it? That’s just the story about the journey of the hobbit to the Doomsday Mountain could boast a riot of colors, strong characters and the deepest atmosphere, and “Assassin’s Creed” puts on the table too serious and detached image of the confrontation between two incomprehensible societies, where the action is tightly compressed in four scenes and seems too long, and the finale looks very ridiculously simple.
4 out of 10
Let’s start with the fact that I myself have long been a fan of the series of games ' Assassin’s Creed' I will now call it that to shorten it (Killers’ Creed is too Russified). And learning about the upcoming project strained, seeing that the creators of the film as the lead actor take Michael Fassbender. Yeah, he's not a bad actor, he's not bad. But objectively speaking, he is already too old for the role of Assassin. Why not me? Why not any other young person who loves this atmosphere? Why is it approved 40-year-old man, who also did not play in any of the games of the series ' Creed Assassin'?
As for the collaboration with Ubisoft: it seems that the company did not influence the creation of the film, did not make any criticism. The only thing they did together was license characters, objects, and characters from the original series of games.
I will immediately note the main pluses of the film , so that they do not return. Operational work - nice, color reproduction is good, a little far plans due to shooting with drones, which is not very. Well, I wanted to note as a plus, and minuses still find ! 'Ruptured' the shooting looks like due to editing. Yeah, it's when you watch a movie, and plans change every second, sometimes faster. This strains the eyes, the brain does not rest, you try to catch with your eye what is happening, and try not to miss some detail, because this detail can be very important in the end!
Music! That's what I think it was about! Soundtrack! But to be honest, only in the film itself, not in the opening and final credits ... there is music not suitable, not in the style .
The involvement of world-renowned actors played no role in the success of the film, as well as in the communication. This is something the film could have done without. The actors didn't play like that. No fish, no meat. No impression at all, just like the film itself. Of all the actors, Marion Cotillard, in my opinion, tried a little more than the others. In one of the scenes with Marion Cotillard, I drew attention to a joint of editing - first the eyes are weeping, a tear is about to flow, then the eyes are without moisture, and then again the eyes are weeping: this is a moment that is impossible not to notice. After all, if the emotions of the character are put in the foreground, then you need to take them more carefully.
But absolutely no criticism does not withstand plot, script. (It’s not easy, but I’ll try to get around spoilers.) Oh, it's just something! At the very beginning of the film, we are faced with the situation that the main character is not being tried, but executed for murder (30 years after the events in the film described earlier). Where he committed the murder. But when did he kill, why did he kill, and in general, did he really kill anyone? So many questions, all unanswered. Really, why?! Why would the audience? Let him eat his popcorn!
The animus does not look like in the series of games, its technology and concept change. How does it work? I don't know, even though I played the game. And to ordinary viewers, the writer and director did not bother to explain how this thing works, on what principle. What is 'Synchronization' and 'Synchronization' Well, ridiculously - who are the Assisins really, who are the Templars, what they do, what they differ from and why they feud, and what is important, where it all began. The filmmakers decided to answer these questions superficially.
And at the end of the review, I will write about the end of the film, and only so as to avoid the notorious spoilers: I didn't understand why the film ended on such a note, bringing a sense of incompleteness. Will there be a sequel? God, it doesn't! Not that! Get rid of it!
These pathetic smooth dialogues, devoid of any meaning.
Actors who mostly stand still and do nothing, but only watch something happening somewhere in the air. Something in the fog.
There is so much fog in the film that it feels like you are in a swamp.
What kind of device supports the main character and how does he manage to do a flip with this thing on his back? This is against the laws of physics - you can not make a circle if you have a holder attached to your back.
Orders given by mysterious characters to someone in the dark are also the height of empty talk and meaninglessness. Why are they doing this? Are these super smart orders? I think the technicians themselves could do it without any orders.
Sophia, who moved most in a scene where she is dragged away by one of the philosophical guards.
Ghosts in the fog is another oddity in the film.
I understand it's based on a game. What to expect from a game movie. But, for example, in Doum, at least everything was filmed more honestly and evoked emotions. It's a bit of a viewing experience.
The main character speaks with such a breath that it feels like he is reading Shakespeare. But it's not him. You don't need so much pathetic.
What kind of place is this? What are all these slow patients doing? Waiting? Just standing?
Well, the goal - an apple containing information about the control of the will - is also, khe-khe, banal.
If the film is designed for a certain age, you should specify it and write that it is a childish, although I did not really understand what children can take out of this film. So much fighting, swords, blood. It seems that for a children's fairy tale he is too cruel. For an adult film there are no emotions, no meaning, no plot, no touching scenes.
I'd say it's a complete fiasco.
Like so much in today’s consumer world, this film is extremely narcissistic.
When I started posting a review on the portal, I saw what fees and budget it has. A nightmare. Couldn’t the money have been spent more wisely? Well, the fees are something wrong in this world.
To begin with, when I downloaded the film, I did not know about the cast, I only knew that the film was based on a game I am not an ardent fan of.
So the movie. Obviously, the film crew hoped to bribe the viewer with the cast, the stigma of the famous game and the expectation of the release of this opus of the film industry. The plot, damn it, is clear - the eternal battle of a beaver with a donkey, and the script is so inconsistent, incomprehensible and leaves many stupid questions that begins to resemble independent slashers, simply put, there is no clear beginning, key part and end in it.
If we talk about the very perception of the film, I would not notice the difference if Michael Fassbender played the role of a bum-alcoholic in some sub-intake drama. . .
Maybe I’m wrong, but do not consider me a bore: the budget did not save the plot, but hit the most painful places of the audience, but apparently somewhere did not try, but most likely thought that it would roll.
Not recommended.
What was and is good about the game? Old towns, fights and acrobatics.
What was wrong with the game? Some talk, animus-not animus, future, etc. I never liked it and it was always the worst part of the game.
What I saw in the film was very little fighting, very little epicity and ancient cities. But a lot of abstergoes, offices, chatter (my goodness, how much chatter there is), walking, just walking, looking at the camera and other nonsense. Why else was he climbing the walls when he was in the animus? It was not in the game and it is not necessary.
As a result, somewhere in the middle of the film, I began to actively use rewinding and realized that the film is terrible, there will be no miracle, there will still be a lot of chatter.
Instead of taking good ideas from a whole series of games and showing them here, we had to take the bad things in the game little and make a movie out of it.
3 out of 10
What I want to say, the film in my opinion was well shot, some special effects made even very high quality and sometimes brought to goosebumps. Personally, I played in the first 3 parts of the game Assassin Creed, and I can say that they managed to transfer everything to the film as it was presented in the games.
What exactly did not like, is that it was brazenly changed the name of the car, to what was the abbreviation of the main name – is not clear. The design of entering the ananimus was changed, which also seemed superfluous to me, an ordinary white table with screens, as in the game, would be quite enough. Here, I think they overdid the scenery.
By changing the plot in the film, they will have to just invent the next part, if they are going to draw one, as for me - this is their mistake, for which they may well pay negative assessments.
I got to the movie after 4 months and it’s not the result of not hearing about it and finally he came to hand, no. About Assassin's Creed known since 2007, since the first game, the game itself did not play, because such a genre is not very like, but reviews, atmosphere, feedback from players left a pleasant feeling.
And on New Year's Eve (after almost 10 years - funny) I learn about the film, I think: ' Excellent, gorgeous spectacle for the New Year!' However, the first doubt was caused by the translation of the title 'The Assassin's Creed'. I think that barbarism in the Russian language has no place, but in this case the translation is repellent, because all the same words 'Killer' and 'Assassin' are somewhat different concepts, 'Killer' - this is a very, very rude and again repulsive simplification, and the brand itself 'Assassin's Creed' quite popular, and 'Killercred'... Really?
The second doubt gave birth to the trailer, the content of which is beautiful, but, frankly, it seems that the viewer is being held for mentally retarded: ' Where am I? What is it? What do you want?' - and, of course, the catchphrase at the end of the trailer 'We serve the light, we are murderers'. At this point, Captain Piccard asked for an extra pair of hands because his two were not enough for a decent facepalm.
And, of course, low ratings did their job and the idea of watching the film was safely removed in the dustiest box.
And finally, when I got to the movie, I was very pleasantly surprised:
- the atmosphere is conveyed very qualitatively, the camera work is excellent, the scenes are juicy, the transitions between the technological world and the world of the past are beyond praise;
The actor’s play was essentially only one character, the character of Michael Fassbender: fear, denial, rage, anger and hatred, awareness, forgiveness and calm. The rest of the cast is mostly not emotional, but probably it should, yet the professions of the characters are required.
The plot is simple, but fascinating: we saved you, now you resist, but then help, and for now travel through very real memories of your ancestor.
Yes, the dialogue is kept to a minimum, but the phrase of the chief guard ' amateur to watch from above' very atmospheric: ' They were not taken seriously ... and in vain, behind their bad reputation, they concealed such fidelity to principles that their strongest enemies did not dream. For this I admire them & #39;
As a result, if you want to watch a beautiful, atmospheric, adventure action movie, I recommend this picture.
8 out of 10
More boring, superficial and incomprehensible plot I have not seen for a long time.
The film was chosen for viewing only because of the cast, but the presence of star names did not help the film. Talented actors look like dummies who say lines and perform prescribed tricks. Despite the fact that the film is based on a computer game, in addition to tricks and large-scale fight scenes, it still has to carry something, reflect at least some thought, attract the attention of the viewer.
When watching the film, it seems that the script consists of a set of replica statuses that actors with a deep-minded look throw to the audience. The very idea of violence as a curable disease is interesting, but at the same time at least some deep content or its development is absent. The viewer is immersed in an incomprehensible battle between the Templars and Assassins. An unprepared viewer, who is far from the game, from this story, will wander, trying to understand the origins of this confrontation, which is carried forward to this day, but it is difficult to do this, because the creators of the film did not try to explain anything to us. The only thing that keeps you watching the movie is the hope that at the end it will reveal what it was created for. But after watching the movie, only one answer comes to mind – it was created only for money.
Operating work also looks rather inconclusive, especially because of the rapidly changing frames. The eye does not have time to catch what is happening on the screen during battles, who is chasing whom, who is killing whom. And here's the bird flight, the only thing that's perfectly done. The film shows two epochs – the present and the past. It should be noted that Michael Fassbender looks much more interesting in the scenery of Andalusia. And in general, the atmosphere of Spain of the XV century was created by artists perfectly.
+ cast, graphics
Oh, I love movies like that. No, seriously, if you suffer from insomnia - this is the best medicine.
“Assassin’s Creed” could become a point of view in history, with intrigues around the Templar Order, the intensity of feelings from the realization that the main character is about to be revealed, and then – chases, leaps of faith, etc. But none of that. Boring.
The characters of the film are so gray that it is not that 50, at least a couple of shades of this color to see.
However, the main mistake in my opinion was the setting of key scenes and dialogues. I think if the creators refer to the Order of Assassins from the beginning by taking their name from history, then their behavior should be at least remotely reminiscent of history. But no, assassins here stand out from the crowd in a split second, but they are completely covered with weapons, no one is embarrassed by this?! Fly into the crowd of Templars and start fighting. Oh, well, call them, then somehow different: the order of headless shirts or lovers of running on roofs. Oh, it's a game movie. That’s probably what they expected, and they will gather their audience. Speaking of roofs. What is the need to climb to the top and then jump? I wish I had some kind of paraglider or a way to survive a fall. Yeah, it's a game. We will violate the laws of physics and common sense just to look spectacular.
It is also surprising how everyone now likes to simplify, if there is an ancient artifact "Apple of Eden", so it must necessarily glow and show with all its appearance what an incredibly cool artifact it is. And even the fact that it was created centuries ago and can not look so futuristic seems to bother no one.
As a result, it turned out frankly weak work, which can only please the eye, although personally my eyelids stuck.
Clearly not for me, an ignorant man. I know the game of the same name only in the stories of friends.
What I knew about Assassin's Creed before watching the movie: This is a game about high jumping dudes in the Middle Ages.
What I know about Assassin's Creed after watching the movie: is a movie about high-jumping dudes in the Middle Ages and modern times. Oh, well, who they jump from, the Templars.
Free quote from the film:
We have to stop him! He will betray the brotherhood again!
What do you mean, he'll betray again? When did he betray? Why did he betray? How do you know that? Who are you anyway? Who are all these people in this superhero rehab center?
For me personally, the whole film consisted of illogical actions of the characters to surprisingly illogical soundtracks. As if the film sponsored redbull, God forbid, the same music I heard in advertising energy.
B) For the fans of the game?
Well, I doubt that true fans of the game were happy with such a gift. Compressed to primitiveness, the plot is hardly what fans are waiting for.
It's a mystery movie. Actions evolved, questions arose, indignation grew, and then bam, and the credits. I don’t know who the movie is for, why was it made? I wanted action - got an apple of Edem with poppy.
To conclude, I would like to quote a poem:
The movie's over. What was in it?
I don’t know, flew like a bird (by the way, the essence of the eagle I learned only from a friend).
A common fighter,
But it will not happen again. (the story about the assassins is interesting, well, just unlucky)
Questions without answers 20 minutes of the movie, 30... it’s coming to a climax, and I look at the screen and I wonder, who are all these people, and what’s going on?! Although I've been through a series of games and should be in the topic. The film struggles to catch up with mystery, to create a tense atmosphere. The plot one by one makes riddles, and the characters communicate in incomprehensible incoherent dialogues. However, no one is going to answer these riddles and explain strange dialogues, and therefore, instead of interest, passion and empathy, the film causes only questions and irritation from the fact that there are no answers to them. What kind of apple are the heroes trying to get, why is it needed, who are the assassins and how they differ from the Templars? For those who don’t play, it will be a dark forest. Players may wonder how the plot of the film is related to the plot of the games, why there are so many inconsistencies in it and why they watch it at all. They won't get an answer. Attempts to enlighten the viewer who is not familiar with the game will certainly be, but they will look like this or that third-rate character, like a security guard, suddenly begins to read a help from Wikipedia. Suddenly, without any connection to what is happening around you, just reading information. Which, however, does not clarify the turbidity of the plot. The main part of the plot, unfortunately, does not consist of medieval battles and spectacular parkour on the roofs of temples, but of a very boring modern reality, consisting of walking along the corridors and pathetic conversations. The few battles in 15th-century Spain look vivid against the background of walks and dialogues, but it is better not to compare them with the battles in other historical and other films where there are battles - the local swordsman will lose hopelessly in entertainment. The characters of the film can not even be called clichéd – they are simply nothing. What a hero, that villains are boring and expressionless. Motivation is like a straw house of Nif-nif – deflated at the first impulses of logic. And in general, something is wrong with the logic of what is happening in the film - people armed with pistols lose to people with arrows and bows; the leaders of the experiment are going to stop it just when it begins to bring tangible results; dangerous criminals and professional killers are allowed to walk almost free among their ideological enemies, and then they are surprised that they staged a massacre ... Question ' Why?' too often unanswered. Of the actors, it is worth mentioning Cotillard, for she was most annoying. Not only the lack of meaning in actions and empty mystery in dialogues, but also the fact that in the Russian voiceover every phrase (including “I will avenge you!!!”) she pronounces in such a tone as if she confessed love during an erotic scene. Well, the emotionlessness of her face can envy Kristen Stewart herself. I expected more from Fassbender in terms of acting. It is as if he did not try - played a pathetic brick somehow to quickly get a fee and do another project. The source itself does not shine with a complex plot, and it is long time to get used to the fact that the adaptation of games at best turn out to be average. This film borrowed a considerable budget, attracted decent actors and quite a good director, but still did not pull even to the level of the average, which is worth spending time. 2 out of 10 Original
Violence and man. Can a person live in harmony with himself and never think of violence against himself or others?
Filming a film adaptation of a popular video game, and simultaneously trying to rethink it, Justin Kurzel again plunges into the problems of violence and its impact on a person typical of his paintings. However, unlike the previous "Snow City" and "Macbeth", in "Killer's Creed" the director tries to approach the problem somewhat from the other side and thinks about the question: can a person live without cruelty and where do the origins of this violence begin?
However, there is another difference between this film and other works of the director. The adaptation of the popular game "Assassin's Creed" is a studio project organized jointly with the authors of the video game. Here there is a contradiction, which in the end promises the project a complete failure of the audience. The studio needed a box office film, after watching which, people without tension will leave the halls and want to see its continuation. Justin Kurzel, however, is the director of his own art house projects rather than studio action films.
Having agreed to shoot a film based on a video game, he tries to show the audience his personal vision of the world displayed in the game, while raising his favorite philosophical questions. However, the fact that the project belongs to the studio clearly interferes with the implementation of all his plans. Going to the concessions of the studio, Kurzel removes a certain philosophical action movie, immersed in the world of killers and Templars.
Perhaps this is the main problem of the whole film – the wrong choice of the studio director. You can think about what the project would be, if someone else did it, a person not from a number of artists-directors, or vice versa – if the studio allowed Justin Kurzel to shoot what he considers necessary, and as he sees fit. I think in one case we would get a pretty good entertaining movie, in another, maybe a very complicated philosophical drama about assassins. But, alas, we just got the director’s attempt to please both himself and the studio.
However, it cannot be said that the authors did not achieve anything. The huge budget of the film helped them hire the best stuntmen and special effects specialists, which naturally paid off. All the stunts shot without using the “green screen” are fascinating, and in combination with the graphic component of the picture and stunning costumes, you can enjoy a magnificent picture throughout the film. Worth mentioning and music written by the brother of the director Jed Kurzel.
But all this, unfortunately, is completely crossed out by a vague plot, which in some places seems very predictable, like most of the dialogue of the film. Rethinking the canons of the game, looks very bold, but still, very, very controversial, and the philosophical questions raised by the director at the beginning of the film – by its end and do not find an answer.
As a result, after watching the film, the viewer does not understand what he has just watched – a philosophical parable or an action movie based on a famous video game? And neither one nor the other option seems to him complete.
And yet the end of the picture gives us hope for future sequels. One can only hope that if they do, they will look complete, rather than balancing between the desires of the studio and the director.
I’m a big fan of the series and I’ve been waiting for the movie since the beginning. The film met most of my expectations, unlike most of my friends who did not appreciate the game.
In the film lies the iron logic of everything that happens, every step and every word of the characters. If you know who the Templars are, their goals and means, if you understand what the Assassins are fighting for, their creed and their sacrifice, then the film was a success. But, in the film it is not revealed, in any way. And so the film disappoints viewers unfamiliar with the history of assassins. If you do not understand it, then the actions of the characters of the film will be unreasonable, strained and not logical.
I do not want to go into the visual part, it is at a very high level, with its own memorable style. The only painfully stupid moment is a mechanical crane that mimics Aguilar’s movements. It's very unrealistic. Why? All sensations can be transmitted directly to the brain.
While the film gave me great aesthetic pleasure, it also disappointed me. I believe that any film should be an independent work, not an addition to another work. Unfortunately, this is exactly the addition for the sophisticated and is 'Killer's Creed'
I did not play the game itself, so, only I watched pictures on the monitor screen, and a couple of videos on YouTube, so I can be considered the most impartial viewer.
I’ll tell you right away – I liked the movie! The plot jumps cheerfully, like a decent trotter, despite the fact that he limps on all 4 legs. But who from a movie based on a computer game requires iron logic? The main thing here is entertainment, and it cannot be taken from the tape. Again, the “informal” logic of the narrative leaves the groundwork for the continuation, and possibly the construction of the entire franchise.
Now a little bit about the "flaws" of the picture.
Previous colleagues-reviewers pretty much trampled on the film: it’s not so, it’s not so... But, by and large, the whole point of claims boils down to one thing - this is not a game. Dear ones, you are right – this is not a game that you play in person, sitting at the computer, it is a film and it should be interesting to as many viewers as possible. Modern viewers buy entertainment, and it just is!
Full and well-deserved
Greetings to movie fans, gamers and screen players! In this review, I will describe my feelings, and the reader will understand what kind of film.
Description of yourself.
1. I love the Assassin play universe. He played the first and the black flag.
2. I believe in film adaptations of games, but I don’t really believe in film production.
3. I always watch only rating films from Kinopoisk and almost 90% agree with the general opinion (+/- 10%).
4. I love all genres of cinema.
Now to the movie!
1. For a lasting experience, I bought a BluRay version of the film in 3D, as I once again believed in this film. Don't trust me yet when I say I am ' bought '.
2. In order not to distort the sincerity of my criticism, I watched this film exactly 6 times.
3. 6 times not at first and until the end, 6 times precisely because I dullly constantly fell asleep while watching.
4. 6 evenings, I sat comfortably on the couch, 6 times I cooked a snack for viewing, 6 times rubbed 3D glasses. And only - 5 times, 5 times Carl! I only remember 5 times when I fell asleep last night.
5. I didn’t watch the movie at 12 a.m., or at 11 p.m. or even 9 p.m., I watched it at 8 p.m., after getting a good night’s sleep in the morning. But no, every time at a new and twice at the old moment of the movie, I fell asleep. Like 25 frames or instead of the sofa An-us (abbreviated Animus). The joke was just born: If you cut the muscles of the Animus, you get An-us. This is probably the best description of the movie!
6. In fact, such delusional dialogues, catastrophically filled with mistakes. Such delusional scenes, fights, acting games should be found only in Animus. Is that a clip? No! For the clip is a big timekeeping, then why did I watch 6 times what segments, and not a solid, at least slightly connected line? It feels like writers don’t know what the game is about. Apple, honestly! Like talking about a Bocce ball! The whole world is watching the film and no one has ever realized that your mother is behind the apple, or maybe this is the artifact that the main characters of Pulp Fiction saw in the plague? Animus, what the hell are you? I have a question: how did he climb huge towers with the help of Animus? That is, logically, this device should have pushed him 80 meters in height, and how is he? Pull down to get up again or what? Why imitate movements (allegedly for the vestibular system) when you end up confined to some kind of dome under the circus? We have a circus dome in the city more than 6 times! Magic number 6! HM!
7. Total! The guys who went to the movies for this movie, I’m really sorry!
I'll tell you right away, a one-time movie. In general, it turned out not bad, but it is not related to the game Assasin Creed. The plot was invented from scratch.
A little disappointed scenes of battles, the camera jumps as stung and it is not always clear who is who.
If you evaluate the film as an outsider, it will come down to 7 out of 10, the questions only cause scenes of battles, a couple of plot inconsistencies and a little boring and long swinging plot.
But if you evaluate it from the point of view of a gamer, then please! What the hell is the leap of faith?!? He jumped and immediately started another scene, interconnected with the game only an idea, the end clearly hints at the second part, which is likely to be called: The creed of the murderer: revenge of the enemy, or some nonsense like that.
In general, the idea with the apple has not been disclosed, they could tell you what and how, because the ordinary viewer will not understand what it has to do with it and what it is in general. Where is the promised blood after all?! They're assassins!!! For a gamer, the film will go only 4 out of 10, too many misunderstandings, flaws.
Marion Cotillard and Michael Fassbender pulled this film, without them it would have gone out and gone out like a candle in the rain.
I am waiting for the second part, I hope the authors will hear the audience, make the right conclusions and the second part will break the box office!
6 out of 10
After scrolling through a huge amount of negative reviews, I decided to go against the general opinion again and watched the film. While watching, I was tormented by the question - what, in fact, do you all dislike?
I didn’t watch the movie as a computer game adaptation (perhaps that’s bad). For me, it was just a movie I wanted to see after watching a thrilling trailer.
The plot is interesting, built logically and develops, with a share of unpredictability and dynamism.
As for caste, there are no questions at all. Everyone can get acquainted with the composition, I would like to note Marion Cotillard - very convincing in the role of a scientist who believes in what he is fighting for. Well, besides, she is incredibly beautiful in the picture, she just can not look away. There are no complaints about Fassbender, as good as Lynch (insanity and insanity in him as much as necessary), and as Aguilar (and from him too can not look away). Completely different in two roles, which confirms that he is a great actor. The rest of the actors play convincingly and well, no one sags or raises doubts.
I don’t remember dialogue, sometimes it was boring and stupid.
There are downsides and downsides to the film, but the overall dynamic is exciting and you don’t pay attention to them. I recommend watching the film for fantasy lovers, action fans and fans of Michael Fassbender:
8 out of 10
Probably one of the most anticipated movies on computer games. ' Advertising, Assassins, Fassbender!' - was on every corner and in every comment on the topic of this film. What happened next? And then the movie went nowhere.
There was so much work on the costumes, and in the end, almost the most primitive ones were used, they were not even paid proper attention. The number of extras is amazing, but... But what good is it if they showed it for a few seconds?
In the same way, the whole atmosphere of the film is spoiled by unsuccessful inserts ' our time-past', constant changes in the picture cause pain in the head, not proper satisfaction with the shots.
Everything that happened in the film, the excessive and unexplained angularity of the plot in which a deep meaning was supposed to be preserved, only added illogicality to what was happening. In the course of the film, I constantly had questions: ' what is the author trying to convey? Does he even understand? '.
Fights, battles, blades and the same variety of weapons that assassins know how to use in the same game were not really revealed and minimized. Interestingly, it was the same in the same 'prison' where, for some reason, no firearms were used (as in the whole film, surprisingly, for the 21st century). )
The only joy was in the production of the chase with elements of parkour and the play of the main actors, because they showed how hard they were trying to portray ' deep plot & #39; which they were told to act out.
In general, to say that the impressions of the film are unpleasant - I will not say, but the fact that I, like many, expected more - obvious.
4 out of 10
When I found out that the universe of “credo” will also be a film, I already decided that the movie will not go to it, so honestly waited for it to come out of the box office. I’m very familiar with the Assassin’s Creed series, and I remember exactly where the idea went. This happened after the third part of the game. However, the developers continued to “finish” the project, and apparently decided to squeeze everything out of it to the last cent. They even made a movie.
Oh. The film is so good if you evaluate it properly. Events on the screen are sometimes difficult to connect with each other and it is not quite clear what is happening there. Despite the colorful images of the characters, their character does not reveal at all ... and some moments personally seemed completely stupid and inappropriate to me.
And, you know, I liked it. Despite all the above disadvantages, the picture is very well immersed in the universe that I loved so much in the game. I’ve never been bored watching this film because that dynamism, that music, that atmosphere of mystery and intrigue has replaced the missing elements 100%.
That is why I recommend the film to those who are familiar with the world of the game.
My eyes don't fool me: Murderer's Creed is a very beautiful movie. Very much.
8 out of 10
The Assassins Creed series deserves a better film adaptation
It seems in the cinema has developed ' tradition' - film on the game = anti-profits. But attempts to film the games are underway, which can not but please. Most modern films, which are adaptations of games, were not successful, and some without excessive modesty are poor. So what is it? I think that everyone understands everything for a long time, so I don’t see any point in going deeper, but in short, everything is on the surface. The creators simply don’t understand the depth of the games, their philosophy, and that’s why games movies are almost all empty. And that's why, because they don't play much or maybe not at all. So why take on the adaptation of the game if you do not understand half of what the game contains. A priori angering fans of this game and naturally losing profits. It's a mystery to me. Well, it was a lyrical retreat, let’s go directly to the film Assassins Creed.
You know, in this case, I can’t say for sure that the writers or the director aren’t familiar with the Assassin games at all. Because there is an effort to make the movie look like a game! This is clearly visible in the setting, in many of the scenery of Abstergo, especially pleased the room where the hero of Fassbender rests. So there was a certain amount of effort. But the atmosphere in general, in my opinion, did not work. I am not an expert in this series. I've only played a couple of times, but I know the game is incredibly exciting and profound. In the film, there is virtually nothing of the beauty and depth that is in the games. Take an example when it is banal to get close to the victim by stealth mode. How much you need to do, think, analyze. This is just one example, there are a lot of interesting missions in the game. There's nothing in the movie again. I understand that it is difficult to show everything in the framework of a roughly two-hour film, but it was not worth it to make it so empty.
In fact, we are shown only action, or the assassins should attack someone and there will be a massacre, or they need to escape from somewhere and the same will happen. That's it. I didn’t see the atmosphere or depth in the film. The action in the film is not bad, here is definitely plus the picture, but I would not say that directly ' wow'. I was glad that the creators of this picture did not make the main character a bartender, but showed their vision. I did not like the disastrous dialogues, completely incomprehensible and mysterious, or completely simple, so simple that again I want to find fault with the depth of the picture, which I have already mentioned more than once. From acting, I want to note Michael Fassbender, it felt that the actor is trying to show the charisma of his character (both in reality and in the past). I also note Marion Cotillard, who in one of the interviews directly said that she did not play games, but she managed to create a character that ' as if he escaped from the game'.
The bottom line is we got a movie that's very empty, like a Christmas tree in the summer. Screenwriters, director and other people simply did not feel the game and on the output we get a blanket, and not particularly atmospheric. If the writers and the director worked on dialogue, atmosphere, philosophy, if they showed more scenes of action from the animus, it would be in my opinion just wonderful.
5 out of 10
unimpressed, undisclosed the underlying essence of the game
The genre of the game, as they write adventure action movie, but is it true?
The film is completely recreated according to the general plot of the game:
'The plot of the game is based on the centuries-old war between the Templars and Assassins. The main character is Desmond Miles, a descendant of assassins. With the help of the Animus, a machine that reads ancestral memories from DNA, he relives events from the distant past. His goal is to find out where his ancestors hid the Particles of Eden, and get them out before the Templars, as well as prevent the end of the world. Assassin's Creed III was the last game in the series in which the main character was Desmond Miles.'
In the game, in addition to the story, there are elements of a detective (with the help of eagle vision, he finds traces and objects, and not just a bird flying in the sky, as in the film), the hero robs the Templars, helps the residents (such as Robin Hood), search for traces and prints, locks ... there is a base of assassins, he finds a chest in which lies a suit, valuable items.
It was supposed to be like Sherlock Holmes (2009), but it didn’t work.
About the Templars too, somehow little is told, in the game there is a detailed dossier.
I especially did not like the variation of language transmission, he also gets used to it, and can speak normally and hear everything in his own language.
I think the director did not play this game, just read the general story.
The credoThe killer was a real long-term construction. There were a lot of rumors that the film was about to start shooting, but that didn’t happen. Despite constantly changing directors and screenwriters, Justin Kurzel (Macbeth) was found for the film, very famous and respected actors took the title roles, and filming began. This picture was very big bets, because the studio FOX is very much in need of another profitable franchise. Well, for the franchise, it was a little weak. . .
Plot. After Calluma Lynch (Michael Fassbender) is kidnapped by a powerful corporation, he learns that his ancestor was an assassin who lived in the 15th century. Callum lives the adventures of his ancestor, and then, having learned the terrible the truth (even ridiculous), enters into confrontation with the Templars.
Let’s make a reservation at once that the film adaptation tried to take all the best from the game, but instead of correctly adapting it all, it lied and raised to the absolute idiocy. 'The animus' instead of the usual capsule turned into a very strange device, the main action of the movie takes place not in Spain (which, by the way, the creators turned out great), but in the present, where you will see stone Irons and Cotillard (they just have nothing to play), explaining to you the plot convoy of the film. And Fassbender? Well, he's not bad. The plot does not sew white threads, but what happens on the screen clearly lacks integrity. And some scenes, such as the gathering of Templars and Assassins, standing on the roof of the building in the center of London, cause laughter, because, oddly enough, everything in the game is extremely mundane and logical.
In the film adaptation there are unambiguous advantages: Spain of the 15th century fascinates with its atmosphere, you can see that the creators tried. The fighting scenes are spectacular, but unfortunately overly protracted. Fassbender is not the worst option for the main role, and the music of Jed Kurzel escalated tension exactly where it was needed.
'Creedkillers' - this is a rare case when nothing needed to be changed in the original source, the creators needed only a good adaptation to the film format. Unfortunately, we got an extremely average film, which can boast nothing but a perfectly recreated medieval Spain. One can only ask the question 'What here is happening?'. And Fassbender's hero confirms this, only more eloquent .
Assassin's Creed is a film based on a series of games of the same name that have a huge fan base, and I am one of them. We’ve been waiting for this movie for eight years, and with every year of expectation, it became clear that something bad would come out. A lot of things have changed, but Michael Fassbender has been with the project since the beginning, and it gave me hope that it could work out. It didn't work. . .
What is Assassin's Creed for fans? This is a game in every changing setting, which is worked out to the slightest detail, interesting, deep characters, historical personalities, colorful murders, the right combination of the present and the past.
Let's go through the points: (1) Setting. Spain is magnificently recreated, I did not pay attention to the dust. But what is happening in Spain? Action. And only action! All! We don't know who Aguilar is, and we don't care. This has never happened in games! There the main character in the past was always interesting, charismatic, he always wanted to empathize. Aguilar is just a dummy, the viewer has no attachment to him. There are almost no dialogues in Spain, and those that do not carry any semantic information. To be honest, the dialogue in the film is generally poor, regardless of time, sometimes you just grab your heads and think ' How could you write such stupidity?!'. How much time do we spend in Spain? I think it's less than half an hour and it's the wrong decision! The film was supposed to be about Aguilar, and only occasionally would we be brought back to Cal.
2) The characters are neither interesting nor deep. Especially the main characters Kal and Aguilar. We’ve been following Cal Lynch for the vast majority of the film, but we still don’t know much about him, and as a result, we can’t empathize with the character. We know 2 things about his past: his Assassin father killed his mother, and Cal killed the pimp, and he was executed. That's it! New information to promote the personality of the feces will not give us. Of course, the great Michael Fassbender plays this empty character so well that you start to believe him. About Aguilar I said above - the character is worse than Cal, you know nothing about him at all, and we don't care about him. Marion Cotillard is probably the only good character, but how can she not know that Apple is an evil mystery to me? Jeremy Irons has nothing to play at all - his character is boring and empty, and he is also a villain.
(3) Historical games were an integral part of Assassin's Creed, and sometimes played a role there. They're not in this movie! And that's one of the big drawbacks. Historic characters could make the film a little more interesting.
(4) There's a lot of murder in the movie. But there are no truly colorful and memorable. Why is that? Because there are no normal villains in the game. I've had trouble in the past. There must be charismatic historical figures, whom Aguilar had to cunningly and colorfully kill. But it's not. In the present, yes, the murder at the end is generally not bad, but it could have been much better.
(5) A combination of present and past... We made a huge mistake in the film - we watched Kahl in the present almost the entire film, and in the past we went to Aguilar very rarely. It was different in the games and it was better! Agree that it is much more interesting to be in Spain of the past, and watch the assassins there.
It's a shame. There's actually no plot in this movie. I had the feeling that we were shown glued series from the middle of the series. There are probably three things well done in this film: music, directing, and fighting. I just fell in love with music, and immediately uploaded all the songs to my phone. Thanks to the music, you are interested in watching the action. My last complaint to ' seepage effect' - well, that's not how it works, it's not clear why it was to change it. Many fans scolded the new 'Animus' but I liked it - it would not be interesting to watch the hero who just lies.
Assassin's Creed is a disappointment to the fan. A film without a plot, with uninteresting characters, but beautifully recreated Spain (but recreated completely in vain). No positive thing can get the film out of mediocrity.
It is no secret that the greedy company 'Ubisoft' has long been interested only in the profit from products, and not its quality. This, apparently, applies to both games and movies based on their games. 'Killer's Creed' - a real gold mine in the world of computer games. Long-term, profitable, still has no serious analogues. And although he did not scold it for its similarity to the conveyor and parasitism on past merits only lazy, but sales of each new part are consistently good, and the development team rivets series after series. The movie was more interesting. First of all, this is another long-term construction that everyone did not dare to remove. Accordingly, the producers had time to ponder and weigh everything ' for' and ' vs.' thereby setting the franchise in the right direction and rhythm. Secondly, when the shooting was officially announced, a pleasant guarantor and a positive sign was attached to the post of producer and lead actor Michael Fassbender (according to him, never played the game), who, in the future, pulled Marion Cotillard into the ranks of the acting ensemble, and Justin Kurzel to the post of director. In addition, the trailers, although they looked a little confused and pop, but in moderation spectacular and even had a couple of pleasant visual references to the game. My hopes were weak, but they were. Unfortunately, nothing happened to the guys. The first pancake.
It's actually simple. The film adaptation does not have a coherent and integral history. There are scattered fragments that have forgotten to complete. No matter how much action, expensive scenery, costumes, complex names are in the film - all this is just a husk without a storyline that must bind them tightly and develop them. Remembering the games, it is worth saying that there the gameplay took dozens of hours, and not a couple, as in the case of the film. So we needed a different approach to storytelling. Kurzel and the writers went down the path of failure. Namely, the scenes with ' Abstergo' and the Animus in the present time are inflated into obscenity, literally making the viewer sit them under torture, watching monotonous sterile rooms and people in identical hoods, dreary listening to monotonous dialogues and waiting for synchronization, and 15th-century Spain was touched only casually, in the form of three short inserts, where you and all the action, and all the architecture, and the whole, apparently, the main budget of the tape. If so, then I have vague doubts. For its 125 million dollars, 'Credo' looks miserable, torn, ineptly mounted and even some kind of chamber.
The answer, perhaps, lies in the fact that Kurzel, who recently shot the atmospheric and stylish “Macbeth” & #39; in which the role of paranoid was greedily revelling in the same Fassbender, simply – simply climbed into the territory where he does not understand anything. Still, independent filmmakers and big-budget Hollywood blockbusters are different things. There was a need for a craftsman who stuffed his hand on such projects, not a beginner who first received large money at his disposal.
In general, visually the picture turned gray and fresh. Of the three above-mentioned action scenes in Spain, only one should be noted - in the middle, where a pair of assassins briskly, technically and energetically walk away from the pursuers on the roofs, using parkour and hand-to-hand combat techniques. This is definitely the juiciest, longest and most memorable scene for the entire two hours. Even a shame that the efforts of stuntmen, in the end, still do not affect the overall impression of viewing. And it's disappointing.
It is also disappointing that the good actor Fassbender has nothing to do in this production other than to look at the camera with an offended look and wave his hands. Both his characters - Callum and Aguilar - are just faded silhouettes, not much different from each other. Their characters are not revealed in any way, the plot does not provide for their special transformation, we are not even really acquainted with them in the entire two hours. There is nothing to say about the other characters. It's furniture. Gray, dull, lifeless. Damn it, there are actors like Cotillard, Irons, Gleason who can't be called untalented dummy. Unfortunately, this project does not suit them. The script is not interested in them. Also disappointing is the sluggish musical accompaniment, with which, as far as I remember, there was always order in the games. In addition, the music was written by Jed Kurzel, who worked on ' Macbeth' where his expressive compositions literally chilled the blood in places.
' Killer's Creed' is a murky, boring and unable to gather in something whole, an action that initially squandered all its meager potential. The work of the picture, its style, rhythm resemble a draft version of the film, which did not have time to refine and polish. A pilot that was never finished. Kurzel was clearly not ready for this story, for this budget, did not have an understanding of how, what and why to do it. Perhaps that is why 'Credo' and resembles some tasteless concentrate 'Macbeth' with filmed and screwed here tricks and fights that doubtfully fit into the viewing. As well as sounding slogans like ' Nothing is true - everything is allowed'. Neither the flight of the eagle, which we are repeatedly shown, nor the leap of Vera, which was only a marketing ploy, nor Michael Fassbender, whose overgrown gloomy face hides behind the hood, nor even periodically slipping from the sleeve of blades, alas, are not able to bring this film to its proper state so that it can be called the well-positioned beginning of a new film saga. The so-called ‘39’, the curse of video game adaptations, seems to continue to destroy all attempts to turn game universes into movie universes. Moreover, in this case, the result can disappoint both fans of the game series and ordinary viewers unfamiliar with the mate. part of the games.
3 out of 10
When I started watching Killer’s Creed, I didn’t know it was based on a computer game. I was not familiar with the plot, so I was very interested in the ancient artifact “the apple of Eden” and the battle that began because of it between the Assassins and the Templars. Probably, video game fans are much more intrigued by this: they already know everything.
To begin with, the combination of the latest technologies and the medieval atmosphere has not yet bothered the audience, it amazes the imagination and does not let you get bored either from the constant gloomy pictures of the past or from the glittering metallic brilliance elements of the future (the same effect was achieved in the fantastic series “Westworld”). The scientist-puppet is played by the luxurious Marion Cotillard, and the role of the main character also went to the famous actor Michael Fassbender. Excellent acting saved this film, which still has a number of shortcomings and, above all, in the script.
First, Lynch’s biography remained covered with white spots until the end of the film. I was curious about the murder he was sentenced to death for and why he killed an innocent man, but the director kept it a secret. Is it possible that Lynch is not a hero? Although he is fighting for a kind of noble goal: so that people will not be enslaved by the Templars.
Secondly, how does the apple of Eden work, that it must be pressed or bitten to suddenly deprive all mankind of free will? Why does the apple turn green at the end? What does this mean, maybe some kind of dangerous radiation?
Thirdly, how is it that the girl lived for so many years and did not realize until the critical moment that her father belongs to the Order of the Templars? And if her father managed to hide this fact from her for so many years, then perhaps he should have invented another trick and not invited her to the solemn event in honor of the discovery of the artifact? But this plot still does not violate the general impression, so you can forgive the sneaky hero his strange illogicality.
Fourth, since the philosophical notion of free will is the cornerstone of the film, it is not clear why all the arguments on this subject are omitted. Or did the writers think that moviegoers already understand what is good and what is bad? I would love to hear Lynch argue his position with anything but fists and knives.
What I liked about the film: the cast, soundtracks, camera work, the quality of the performance of stunts (although sometimes I wanted to fight less), constant action. So you have a great chance to enjoy watching.
Few people will argue with the huge impact on modern pop culture gaming franchise Assassin's Creed. Originally conceived as a continuation of the Prince of Persia game series, but quickly transformed into an independent product, for almost 10 years has gladly pleased gamers around the world. There is a great number of fans and a great army of fans. Given all this, initially on the shoulders of the creators of the tape fell absolutely unbearable and heavy burden. Hence, it is not surprising that the path of the picture to the wide screens was very thorny and almost never withered in the bud. Whatever it was, the picture saw the light of day and in my opinion was perhaps the most controversial work of the year.
Contrary to the opinion of most, I personally liked that the creators of the film did not retell the long-known story of Desmond Miles and his ancestors in the person of Altair and Ezio, and decided to tell the story of a new character in the framework of the already known world. Moreover, the first 5 games of the series have already revealed the character of the characters and the story is nowhere better. However, to come up with something really competitive creators of the tape alas could not.
Perhaps very many fans of the game will agree that the most exciting in the game was just immersion in the past, and the game for the present tiresome and only unnerved. The creators of this film tried to do the opposite. Wanting to implant as much as possible in the already known game world, the creators of the tape gave great preference to the present, not the past. Hence, it is not surprising that as a character, Aguilar suffered very much, and his story did not impress at all. What can not be said about Callum Lynch himself, whose long journey towards self-awareness and the credo of brotherhood is perhaps the central theme of the picture. Surprisingly having such an emotional and dramatic layer. Happily pleased and a fresh look at the Animus, which impressed the originality of the ideas and finally gave a reasonable explanation of the training of combat skills of the main characters.
In my opinion, the topic of blurring the boundaries between good and evil has not burned out. What would allow us to perceive the Assassins and the Templars as equal to each other ' in the degree of corruption' as it was in the game ' Rogue' To reach such depth, the creators of the tape failed and who are the good guys and who are the bad, obviously from the very beginning. Repulsed by the fact that ' Fate' Eden apple causes considerable inconsistencies with its fate in the game series.
Appointment to the post of director Justin Kurzel in my opinion is the best that could be with the picture. Inspired by his experience of staging 'Macbeth', Kurzel perfectly transferred it here. Having created on the screen a rather gloomy, heavy, fascinating and incredibly attractive atmosphere of some depth and integrity. Naturally, behind a beautifully and stylishly shot picture. Disappointing only a few scenes from the past. Since all these great tricks, parkour elements and action component is the best that was in the picture. Thus, turning the picture into another victim ' not quite right' a script that did not allow the picture to get better.
A rather controversial game was given in my opinion by Michael Fassbender. As Callum Lynch, Fassbender really shows a deep immersion in the image and a great reflection of the emotional and spiritual growth of his character. However, as Aguilar game Fassbender want to wish the best and the character turned out to be frankly boring and boring. A rather interesting image was embodied by Marion Cotillard, whose character becomes even more interesting to the finale and lays a magnificent gap for a possible continuation. All the other actors were completely sterile. Just enough to praise or criticize their game.
6 out of 10
Assassin's creed is an obvious example of how wanting to do better (Ubisoft's desire to take creative control after failing ' Prince of Persia') can only make things worse. A great game with huge potential, but a picture that lacked the skills and strength to realize this very potential to the fullest. Creating a rather gray and passable film, which pulls only a stylish picture and inexplicable appeal of the picture. Not enough to watch the movie again.
Screening of computer games rarely come out good. Apparently, many people do not understand how to transfer the game to the screen, because the things that can make a good shooter can no longer make a good film - so it is very difficult for the creators to find a way out of the situation, and since it is difficult to try, they give us extremely stupid creations. . .
The film 'The Creed of Assassins' based on the Ubisoft game series had potential. The cast was very promising - the people working on the film were famous for the selection of good films, what could go wrong? However, the curse of the adaptations of games did not bypass this picture. Yes, the film failed and to convince you not to watch this tape, I have collected five of its main drawbacks:
1: Feeding the story.
Cinema is an independent work that does not depend on anything. It also means that if I want to watch a movie based on a computer game, I don’t have to play that game to understand the intricacies of the plot. However, the creators do not think about the fact that some things should be better described and explained - this creates holes in the plot and everything goes to the point that we do not know anything about the main artifact, which almost all the characters seek to get! However, players are unlikely to win much in this situation, because the film often focuses on unnecessary details and causes boredom, and the story itself does not seem to be based on one of the games - this takes us to the next point. . .
2: Simplicity of story.
Not only the pitch is lame - the plot itself is simple, very simple. Yes, we are watered with different new titles and descriptions, perhaps the shell itself seems new (it is rather the merit of the game), but the main plot, everything that happens in this film will not be surprising. The movie follows the scheme of “do this, bring this, go there, etc.” I’m sure the writers who say they wrote their own script could have come up with more than just chasing an artifact (which we won’t know much about).
3: Ending.
According to the idea, the finale should become the highest point of the plot, the most interesting and dramatic. The ending is important for any movie - it really didn't care. There is no growing tension closer to the final, you do not feel how the situation changes - the ending here does not feel like a real ending - there is nothing, not a large-scale final battle, not something else. History seems to have been cut off and this does not leave the best impressions. . .
4: Character motivation.
Let's move away from history - with heroes no less problems. Their actions and motivations are a mystery. The main character does not know what he wants - he can be on one side, then abruptly switch to the other. At first, he is tormented by the question “what the hell is going on here?”, and then he just has heroic feelings. Marion Cotillard’s character says he wants to cure the world of violence, and we don’t hear more. This is a very vague statement and it is not enough! And the details of her undertaking we will never hear. And Jeremy Irons... Well, he doesn't like the Assassins, and also ... and nothing else! So the heroes have problems with motivation. . .
5: The protagonist.
Yes, I decided to highlight this miscalculation, because it is, in my opinion, significant. Michael Fassbender is a talented actor and you can see that he is trying to give a good performance, but the character is not saved. We know little about him, the motivation, as I said, is weak, and the information we have about him is rather repulsive. Why worry about him? In the end, we don’t really care if he’s going to survive, if he’s going to get there, and the movie gets boring. . .
Okay, 'Killers Creed' you can praise for a good picture and interesting action in medieval Spain. But this is where its main advantages end. This movie doesn't explain to the audience, who didn't play, things that are important to the plot, give us a weak story, which is also boring. The ending seems wrong, you don’t care about the fate of the characters because they haven’t been sufficiently revealed. After watching, there are a lot of questions and even fans of the game are unlikely to appreciate it, because the story written by the scriptwriters is too dull. I don’t know if this will stop the most loyal fans of the original, but don’t watch this movie – all the important aspects for a good picture have been lost, only disappointment remains. Everyone has an opinion, don’t forget. . .
4 out of 10
I wonder if there is another chance for this genre?
I will immediately say that I am a fan of a series of games about assassins and Templars for the ability to cognitively entertain. I really hoped for a decent adaptation or at least just a good one, but this film turned out to be terrible not just as a film adaptation of the game, but as a representative of cinema. It is illogical, illogical, pathetic.
But the ground for a series of films about the confrontation of the two orders is more than fertile - various historical epochs, chic costumes, unusual weapons and battles, could turn out just a candy. But to bond all these goodies you need a strong backbone - the main character with a soul that you empathize with and his story, which excites, delights, sadness. This is not the case in the film.
The main character makes such a serious evil face that he looks stupid, and sometimes funny. His personal history remains vague, so you do not empathize with this emotionless cyborg, it is difficult to call him a person.
The story is the most embarassed, once again discarded the logical scenario of the game and invented some Hollywood tracing, and a piece of this, nothing new and whole. Historical figures, entourage thrown away completely. Here is not the real, but supposedly Spain from a parallel universe, there are no real historical figures at all. The meaning of the Assassins is a quiet murder in the style of Rambo and Robin Hood, but in the film the Glavger climbs ahead and fights with entire armies. Why then quiet gait, dark hoods and sets of weapons for inconspicuous murder.
The dumbest moments of the film are the constant posing of the characters in a template Hollywood stand during battles, in which they stand up to show off and show their coolness, and the enemies at this time apparently arrange a smoke break or freeze in admiration as in front of a cat from ' Shrek 2' well, then the slaughter continues. In these pretentious poses put every Marvel character, Piterjackson's elf and secret agents, well, not tired?
As a result, the film is not interesting to anyone - neither spitting fans of the game, nor the perplexed viewer, who will not understand in this compote from a combination of peaches and herring. Even as an entertaining attraction, the film failed.
P.S. And how infuriating this constantly soaring eagle!
Unfortunately, the cinema could not get, waited for the release of the film on discs! To be honest, I read a lot of reviews, and prepared to watch the film as if I was waiting for something terrible, from which many people almost vomited in the cinema from this spectacle, and the vomiting bag was held by Uwe Ball himself! But, with the first minutes of the film, I began to like more and more, even though I wanted to sleep at that time and was almost asleep, but after a few minutes, sleep went away! I’m not going to tell the story, I like the movie, I don’t understand those outrages. I would say that the film looks very decent, but probably on the wave of negativity to the films on games caused such a violent reaction! I really liked how the creators presented the animus, great actors, great tricks, costumes are just super, and maybe there were shortcomings, but not significant! Like Ubisoft is planning to release two more films, I would be very happy if they come out, despite the box office and reviews of critics who are used to children’s films from Marvel with stupid jokes! Yes, of course, I wanted to see more time in the past, I hope in the next films the creators will take into account all the wishes and do something incredibly cool! And so, comrades, we are eaten!
8 out of 10
Legendary killers from the Middle East became even more legendary after appearing in the game Assasins Creed. And, if the game series smoothly introduced the player to the history of the confrontation between the assassins and the Templars, without forcing events (the good duration of the game is much more than a full-length film), then the film starts immediately without swinging and the rapid leap of faith rushes upside down into the bottomless scenario abyss.
This is not the original problem of this project only - it is a disease of all adaptations of game worlds. The creators are shy about taking storylines or even the basis for a video game movie. What explains this is difficult to say, because the film adaptations of comics are often based on any graphic novel and no one is confused. In addition, if the history of the game liked the game, it does not mean that it will not be to the liking of the mass audience. However, directors and screenwriters think differently and ruthlessly cut the working canvas, then making up a bright but meaningless mosaic of borrowing various moments and “chips” from the original. So you get flat heroes, undisclosed plots, a crumpled and hasty narrative, as well as hints of building a whole franchise, which ends at the first film due to its box office failure and unflattering reviews of critics and viewers.
The film tells the story of an assassin named Callum Lynch and his distant ancestor Aguilar who did not appear in any of the games. And to completely break the connection with the game series, the action takes place not in the Middle East, not in Italy or even in France during the revolution – Spain has become a new platform for confrontation of ancient orders.
Nothing is true and everything is permitted, is the motto of the Order of Assassins, and, despite these words, the members of the Order have a rarity in their worldview and actions. They prefer to act not from the shadows, destroying their enemies quickly and imperceptibly, but in the bright light of the sun, killing opponents in packs and simultaneously causing damage to the city itself.
From their competitors do not lag behind and Templiers - whose pride and arrogance of their own belonging to the organization, overshadows the ingenuity and cruelty - the invariable features present in the game. In addition, in the game, the Templars were not so clearly vilified than in the film and were more a controversial organization than a clearly evil corporation. Like all more or less decent villains, the order has a clearly set abstract goal - to rid people of free thought (What????), and along the way to take over the whole world. In order to succeed in this noble endeavor, the Templars need an ancient artifact, the Apple of Eden, which contains a change of primary disobedience (WHAT???). And to establish the location of this “wonderwafly” need memories of Aguilar who died more than five hundred years ago. To draw out these memories, today in the dungeons of the corporation Abstergo languishes in captivity Callum Leach - a descendant of the assassin of the Spanish Inquisition. In order to see the past, clever scientists use an ultramodern and ridiculous-looking device - "Animus", to which the main character is attached without unnecessary movements. The main feature of this device is the so-called "leakage effect" - attached to the "Animus" begins to gain the experience and skills of its ancestors. In all this, it immediately becomes clear the ridiculous plot, absolutely not catching its structure of the narrative.
A little bit about how the other test subjects are guarded in the Abstergo building. People who, through the trickle-down effect, have become the deadliest killers in history, and who wield mostly cold weapons, are guarded by weaklings with batons and one crossbow for all. There is no gunshot, no tranquilizer weapon, no sedative gas. With Child — theater of the absurd.
It is impossible to say much about the plot - it is so crumpled. In addition to an interesting story, was flushed down the toilet and a powerful cast. Jeremy Irons Here plays the ordinary plain and gray director of the villainous organization. Marion Cotillard is his daughter and, concurrently, the head of a scientific project, whose motives are vague, and whose actions defy logic. Brendan Gleeson was given three minutes of screen time and it makes no sense to talk about it. But Michael Fassbender is not able to pull out a sluggish narrative and absurd actions, including his character. You'll be sorry that it's written so sparingly about acting, but you can't get more out of there with ticks.
Of the whole picture, only the staging of battles and the parkour scene deserve praise. But this does not outweigh the total failure on all other fronts - boring and lifeless dialogue, ragged narrative, faded acting and clumsy directing - all this makes you "absent" even during tense action scenes.
5 out of 10