MovieChat Forums > Assassin's Creed (2016) Discussion > 18% critic 77% audience - so is it good?

18% critic 77% audience - so is it good?


Why such a divide between critics and audience? Is it good or not?

reply

Saw this Dec 27 and liked it. Never heard of Assassin's Creed video game, and could care less. What critics? Full-price paying customers are the best critics, not those who get to see a movie for free because they work at a theater or work in the media.

reply

I disagree with full paying fans being better critics; they're the ones who flock to see movies like Transformers and 50 Shades.

I will say you should look at both critics and audience opinion then make your own decision.

1. BVS 2. TWS 3. Avengers

reply

Critics have never taken a video game movie seriously, bottom line. Personally, this wasn't a great movie but wasn't horrible. I was bored until they went back to the 1492 scenes, which I thought were fun.

Always remember to read the small print, it helps avoid confusion.

reply

With a cast like this the scoring must start at 5/10 hehehe, I'd see Fass, Rampling and Jeremy reading the phone book any day :) Not such a fan of Cotillard though: she stole an Oscar from Meryl once upon a time (kind of - as Meryl was not even nominated that year, aaah the waste of ballot space) and played Lady Macbeth as if she was Mother Theresa).
Cast aside, the plot was weak, some pleasant moments though, still better than a lot of brrrrr things out there. Entertaining with limitations, 6/10.

Detail: never played the game or knew much about it, not more than it existed, "arrived" to the movie because of the Cast

reply

It was meh... I personally think they spent too much time in the present and not enough in the past, and that was the most interesting part of the movie.

Usagi-chan

reply

They spent too much time sucking cock.

WeDidntBurnHim = OOOOOhPrecious = tigerfish50 = Umbraqom

reply

Whatever you say :-)

Usagi-chan

reply

RT is undeniable, kid. Not to mention the crap BO. What, is that 25% from China gonna save it. Nope.

WeDidntBurnHim = OOOOOhPrecious = tigerfish50 = Goodbye_Dave

reply

Ha ha, so true, kid!

WeDidntBurnHim = OOOOOhPrecious = tigerfish50 = Umbraqom

reply

Love ya!

WeDidntBurnHim = OOOOOhPrecious = tigerfish50 = Umbraqom

reply

Is it good or not?


No.

reply

Just watched it. I can give you and others some points. If you like them then you like the movie:

- lots of bashing people using kung-fu and some knives (like in games: one guy can take 100 guys easily)
- running and jumping around with "dramatic" but generic orchestra music playing loud
- shaky cam and lots of added "dusty" filters to add some artsy feel
- over the top and serious cheesy plot to chase magical apple with 0 added humor
- no character development whatsoever
- 50kg women beating 100kg trained men soldiers like they were paper-dolls
- a movie that feels like its 3 hours even if its 2 hours long

reply

I think the audience may be vowed by action and effects more than by logic and good storytelling. I thought this film was pretty bad with high production values. The pacing in the final scene was terrible. When I expected some elegant plot come into play to retrieve the "item" it was just a bunch of nonsense, like people swallowing their assasin's blades to pass through a metal detector unnoticed. Also - how did they get to Europe without passports and being officially dead? The movie has tons of small things like that, which didn't add up to me, but the biggest disappointment is that it doesn't have a single original idea. Probably the scene where they are supposed to be burned was the highlight for me; at least it made an effort.

Yes, it had all the sillyness from the games, like running over washing lines and carriage chases towards some kind of Spanish Grand Canyon. It's full of clichees and hastily written, bad dialog. Also there is single to no explanation to the assassins we meet and none of them came across as particularly likeable. People complain about the same thing in Rogue One, yet I think the characters there felt a million times more integrated with the plot than in AC.

I went to check out another movie, which I thought was a much better game2film adaptation, namely Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. It had a story that made sense and much better character development, yet it stands at the same rating as AC, currently. I can only presume the rating will go down over time and hit a 5.0 or below. There certainly isn't much to read into this movie and if you can stomach the ridiculous idea behind the AC franchise, you must realize that there was potential for a much more interesting story than this rather boring and listless heist movie that tries to cite and capitalize on the game, until every fan is satisfied. I'm not sure why they are still making these movies, but I'd expect them to come up with better screenplays, considering the money they sink into these type of flicks.

reply

if this is worse than Prince of Persia, thats sad, I've watched that in a theater and still dont remember shít from it.. something something sand, something something time travel, that one bald guy playing the villain who always plays either villains or someone with wisdom.. and thats it. and I think there was one big CGI scene involving sand.

figure I wouldnt be able to recall anything from AC in a year or so if I watch it.

reply

I gave it a 7 out of 10. I think it could have been better but I have seen a lot worse video game movies.

reply

I saw it last night and I say it is above average, 5 or a 6.5. The special effects moved too fast for me to get a real good grasp on them but the story of 1492 was very intriguing. I liked the story of the modern day assassins but found Cal's parents unnecessary.

1. BVS 2. TWS 3. Avengers

reply