Assassin’s Creed BEFORE THE FILM Discussion

Well then, the review are out for my most anticipated film of the year and well… they aren’t great… they’re terrible actually. But, what can I do about that. The thing is all the reviews I have read and watched don’t mention the actual film making. They don’t mention the sound or editing. I don’t even think I can call them reviews, they’re more roasts than reviews. To me it seems no one has actually thought about how the film was made but just focussed on the characters, the action and how we didn’t get enough of it. To be fare I had looked into this when the first trailer came out and found out that only 1/4 of the film is spent in the past. I have had time to come to these terms and with a run time of 2 hours & 20 minutes, we will have around 30 minutes in the past. I also know that most of the action takes place in the past and we have three scenes in the past which comes to about 10 minutes of action every scene. To me that sounds great and I genuinely am interested in what is going to happen in the present.

Taking a step back and thinking about the plot of the film, it makes sense why they only go back three times. The plot is to find the Apple of Eden and researching to find certain points in time where Aguilar (Fassbender’s ancestor) might have information of the location of the apple and sending back Callum (Fassbender) to those times and those times only makes more sense rather than sending him back to re-live the whole life of his ancestor. It works for games but when translating it to the big screen, I can see why Kurzel (Director) made this decision. I’m glad Fassbender is in this film as he is my favourite actor. However, after re-watching the trailers, some clips and looking through the eyes of someone other than myself (an Assassin’s Creed fan boy), I have come across a few issues. I’m not sure Fassbender made the wisest decision for the Director in Kurzel. He has only made one film before this (Macbeth) and it is very dark and artistic. Dark and artistic is something that Assassin’s Creed is not.

Assassin’s Creed is a fun adventure with likeable characters and according to the reviews, likeable characters are something this film lacks. The main character is a criminal so that’s not good and the general view on the others is that they are bland and boring. Being myself I was thinking about other Directors that could have done it instead of Kurzel and I came to the decision of Guy Ritchie. If he did these films in the same kind of style as his Sherlock Holmes films, I really think it could have worked. He handles action well and does good characters and all his films are shot beautifully and good fun. He could have done this instead of his upcoming King Arthur film which doesn’t look that great. He also does great dialogue which is something this film also (apparently) lacks. I’m still anticipating this film but not as much. I hope it’s great and because my expectations are now low, maybe my opinion will be different to everyone else’s. Also, apparently Fassbender is taking a break from acting. Has Assassin’s Creed broke Michael Fassbender? Something else to load onto the de-hype train!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s