I thought this was a brilliant effort. It captured what made the games so exciting and playable yet still managed to be a strong story enough on its own. The action was great. I was on the edge of my seat with the Aguilar parts! The acting was great. The ending had me smiling. Best video game adaptation yet. I really hope there's a sequel!
shareI agree. I just recently just finished Assassin's Creed: Syndicate so I was still on a Assassin's Creed high going into the film. I saw quite a few reviews saying it wasn't good so my hopes were kinda brought back down to Earth. After watching the film my Assassin's Creed high was in outer space due to how awesome the film was. I can't wait for DVD. If there's one thing I've learned is NEVER trust critics, be your own critic. 9/10
Look at the night sky, where does it end?
Because critics hate videogames and by extension, videogame based movies.
The Silent Hill movie received like the minimum score possible from almost all critics. It wasn't a great movie, but c'mon, it should have given credit at least for the aesthetics, which were very well done. One of the main complaints was "I didn't understand anything, that was probably because I haven't played the game", despite the movie being stand alone and pretty much having a whole scene explaining the whole thing (which the game the movie was based on didn't, and gamers actually liked it like that).
I think Roger Ebert once tried playing Final Fantasy 7 and said videogames would never be able to tell a story that could make you feel anything (or something like that).
Agreed, except Silent Hill was great, I think. And I have not played that game.
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
I'm a but confused by the hate myself. Do people want video game movies to portray the video games as they are, which is some story with awesome visuals (as this movie is) or do they want the movies to improve on the games all together? Either way I enjoyed the film too.
Trying to create a channel based on interpreting, reviewing, and even giving you something to laugh about film. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance.
Review of the film here-https://youtu.be/Um2-B6Gs_QU
I liked the movie too, and I could see a lot similarity between the movie and the games so I realy hope this movie gets a sequel.
shareI just saw it in a good 3d cinema. OMFG! I would go see it again only for the scenes happening in the past. The cinematography was breathtaking! I don t understand what the ppl expect from such a movie. It was 100 x more than I expected.
shareI just saw it in a good 3d cinema. OMFG! I will go see it again only for the scenes happening in the past. The cinematography was breathtaking! I don t understand what the ppl expect from such a movie. It was 100 x more than I expected.
shareI was going to start a new thread on this, but I'll reply to you to vent my frustration. I can't understand why the hate too.
The movie is pretty good from the point of view of someone who hasn't played the game, but read the books. It is a shame that we may not see anymore of that universe in the big screen thanks to critics.
The critics are saying the movie has no story and is a mess. What? Did they watch the movie?
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
The movie starts in Spain with Aguilar being initiated in the assassins, who have to get a sultan boy back to his father before he is forced to give an apple to the Templars (in catholic church), which will make them control humanity.
In present day, Aguilar's descendent Cal is "killed" in jail under the death penaulty for killing a pimp. He is revived in a Templar organization that uses him to travel back in time through Aguilar memory, using Animus, a genetic machine, so Cal can divulge where the apple is for the Templar to use it to take our free will. All under Sofia and her father Rikkin leadership.
Sofia is a crazy scientist obsessed with curing violence and for that she wants to take our free will. Her father wants the glory that come with it.
Call travel through times and experiences his great-great-great-something memories many times. The fight scenes where in the past, but Cal was also reliving them in the present (pretty cool effects). He is tempted by Rikkin into going freely to the machine in turn for killing his father, which he doesn't (and there goes another mommy issue character. Stark and Wayne got company). His father and other assassin's are held in the compound too.
He goes freely in the machine and has two experiences. One in the past and he discovers where the Apple is, which is passed on to the organization heads, Sofia and Rikkin, because Call speaks again what Aguilar is saying. Sofia and Rikkin leave to get the Apple, while a fight is started in the compound by the Assassin's there.
The other one is that he has visions even after he disconnects himself from Animus. Pretty cool scene remanescent of Harry Potter and his quidch ball that open before he is killed by Voldemort in the final movie/book and he sees his parents.
Call decides to fight for the good, joins the rebelious Assassin's in the compound, goes to the Templar event held to show off the Apple, kill Rikkin and takes the Apple back.
END SPOILER
THERE! I got the movie! And I am not an English native speaker. Why the critics couldn't understand the story?
There are faults? Yes. Soundtrack is too loud (but so good). It is said that Cal is the only one because he is the only descedent of the Assassin's that lived around the time Aguilar got the Apple. And the Church inquisitor/bishop/pope said that the Assasin's where extinct (he burned them). But in the present day, there were many in the compound. Cal was comndemed to death because he killed a pimp? Must have been a helof a death.l
Nowhere 17% is AC.
I can break down the reasons why people didn't like it. Not many people have given a concise reason.
1. Non-gamer viewers: The editing, pacing and cinematography weren't up to AAA standards, but besides the technical aspect the story itself presented a few issues. First, Cotillard thinks violence is a disease that can be eradicated through use of a Biblical artifact, despite having zero evidence to support it having this ability and literally everyone else around her knowing exactly what it actually does. Second, both Templars and Cotillard think Assassins are somehow responsible for all dissent and violence today. Third, the characters were very flat and pretty much consisted of expositional dialogue. Lastly, it was hard to gauge what exactly was at stake; everyone only thinks they know what the relic does, but there's no evidence of it ever being used. Even the Templars themselves are sort of non-chalant about the relic. As far as we can tell, they already have immense power over everything in our world, so what does it matter if they have that much more? You can extrapolate yourself, but without anything tying you to the consequences of failure, it's hard to get invested.
2. Gamer viewers: I admit, there were a lot of visual cues in the movie that I applauded because it was clear someone on the crew had actually played the game before. This was mostly the parkour segments in the past. Fassbinder's character was arguably one of the biggest problems, as Desmond from the game is neither a murderer nor a gruff bad-boy. This means that between Fassbinder's two personas, there's no difference at all, while Desmond and Altair are very different people who slowly merge as the memories surface. Again, Cotillard's goals seem pretty ridiculous compared to her game equivalent and the animus itself was insanely overblown compared to the original pod. Most people will agree that the historical stories are the most interesting element to the games plot-wise, but the present was the main focus in the movie.
In summary: The plot for the Assassin's Creed series is, in my opinion, a bit silly to begin with, but it's easy to overlook its problems when you are immersed in the beautiful historical settings and enjoying the gameplay. The movie did what it could, but I just don't think the story lends itself that well to film.
Recommendations: Less imposing lead to make his transition into Aguiler more dynamic; different goals for Cotillard besides 'ending the genetic disease of violence'; more time in the past so we can appreciate the Assassin guild; remove lead's backstory and put more time into present character development; cut out the other Assassins in the facility; more instances of actual assassinations, maybe showcasing Aguiler doing something he has to that causes a moral quandry or something.
Good breakdown.
I think too there is another challenge: When playing a game we are in constant suspense as we want to get to the next level. Even if the game is more or less set in stone, the gamer is at the edge of his seat. In the movie we were viewing what had already happened from afar. No suspense, and we were merely bystanders. Our hero was never in any real danger, and not until the last 10 minutes did any of his actions matter.
Fitting for a theme about free will, but when translated on to the Silver Screen then suspense is pivotal for the experience to truly dig in, I think. Here I was just sort of waiting for the apple to be found, it never felt as an "if" ... to put it more edgy; most of the movie was us looking at someone reading a history book, albeit in an advanced way.
So perhaps the biggest difference between the game experience and the movie experience is that in the game, the hero's actions (gamers actions) mattered.
___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **
I agree with you. I found this film similar in a way to the Prince of Persia adaptation, as it was another instance where player agency was necessary to really enjoy/appreciate the whole package.
Even games that are inherently cinematic like Spec Ops:The Line or Uncharted would be deceptively challenging for the reasons you stated. Not sure what the solution to that would be, though.