Christmas 2016 was one of
the hardest I’ve had in my life. While everyone else enjoyed dinner with their
families and partied their socks off, I had to deal with a broken oven, a party
being cancelled, and a family fight. It would’ve been the worst if it hadn’t
been for one gift to myself, which I had to wait until last Friday for. It was,
of course, the Assassin’s Creed film.
After showing for three weeks in America, the film finally came out in the UK.
While many people hope it’ll break the so called “video-game curse”, my own
hopes for the film were personal. Like any fan, I wanted it to be true to the
games - but most importantly, I wanted it to rekindle my love for a series I
nearly turned my back on. Did the film succeed?
Read on to find out.
(SPOILER WARNING)
In 1988, nine-year-old
Callum Lynch (played by Michael Fassbender) witnesses the death of his mother
at the hands of his father. Cut to the present, and Cal is
now a criminal about to be executed for murder. On the night of his death,
agents from Abstergo Industries - the modern front of the Knights Templar -
abduct Cal and take him to their headquarters in Madrid. There he meets Dr
Sofia Rikkin (Marion Cotillard) and her father, Abstergo’s CEO Alan Rikkin
(Jeremy Irons), who force him to use a machine called the Animus to experience
the memories of his ancestors. Cal steps into the boots of Aguilar de Nerha
(also played by Michael); an Assassin in 14th-century Spain and a
sworn enemy of the Templars. Through the Animus, Cal inherits Aguilar’s
fighting skills and plans to use them to escape from Abstergo. However, Sofia
and Alan have their own plans - and they’re not all as noble as they claim to be.
I managed to catch the
film last Friday, when cinemas started to show it during the day. However, it
was moved to a different screen without my knowledge and I missed the opening
scene (a prologue with Aguilar). I was lucky enough to get in the right screen
just as the story began in earnest - and I’m glad to report my experience didn’t
suffer for it. The film isn’t perfect, but I can honestly tell you it’s far better
than every game-based film we’ve seen before. It’s true to the games - a given
since it’s produced by Ubisoft itself - but it’s also brave enough to take
risks to give us something different. Instead of re-telling the story of, say,
Desmond or Ezio, Assassin’s Creed
tells its own story with a new set of characters living in the games’ universe.
It’s a bold move for Fassbender, who also produced the film, and his director
Justin Kurzel, with whom he worked on 2015’s adaptation of Macbeth. Together, they take the best qualities of that film and
put them into a larger budget: gritty visuals, fast-paced battle scenes, and a
preference for physical effects. They go surprisingly well with the series,
resulting in battles across time which are both brutal and beautiful. That
said, the film isn’t without its flaws, some of which had nothing to do with
the Creed’s transition to the big screen.
Whether you’re familiar
with the series or not, the first thing you’ll love or hate is the protagonist,
Callum Lynch. Despite his connection to the Assassins, Cal is a much darker
character than Desmond, having been a criminal since his mother died. He also
spends much of his time hating his father - even wanting to kill him - for it,
so for many people, the fact that Fassbender is playing the role may be the only thing keeping them from hating him. After all, a criminal protagonist is
harder to relate to than a bartender. But as the film progressed, and the reasons
for Cal’s situation became clear, I began to like him. By the end, I was more
invested in him than in any modern character from the games. It was a harder
sell with the other Assassins Callum meets at Abstergo: Moussa (Michael K.
Williams), Nathan (Callum Turner), Emir (Matias Varela), and Lin (Michelle H.
Lin). Despite being part of the series’ nominal protagonists, Moussa and his
friends go to extreme lengths to find out whether Cal is a friend or not. If
you haven’t played the games, you’d be forgiven for thinking they’re
antagonists. This moral ambiguity is both a strength and a weakness - it makes
the Assassins feel more human, but you won’t know who to root for until the
end. It doesn’t help that Nathan, Emir, and Lin go unnamed in the film; I had to learn their names in the credits.
Another element of the film
that will divide opinion is Aguilar’s story. In the games, you spend more time
in the past than you do in the present, but here the focus is switched. Cal
enters the Animus three times in the film, and these scenes - called “regressions”
by Sofia - make up a third of its length. That means over half an hour is
dedicated to Aguilar’s battle with the Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada and
his right-hand man Ojeda. It may seem disappointing, but the quality of Aguilar’s
scenes more than makes up for it. Justin Kurzel could’ve taken the easy route
and filmed them all on green screen, but instead he went on location and used
as many real effects as possible. Better yet, the actors speak entirely in
Spanish and perform most of their own stunts. It’s amazing to watch because
Aguilar and his friends do a lot of fighting, running, and jumping over
rooftops without stopping to breathe - and unlike their modern descendants,
their goals and motives are undoubtedly clear. The problem is you’ll need to pay
attention when the hidden blades are drawn. Like in Macbeth, Assassin’s Creed’s
battles are fast and furious, and if you’re not careful, you could miss an
important moment. Some people may find them harder to follow, thanks to the
film cutting back and forth between Aguilar and Callum in the Animus. Unlike in
the games, where the Animus was a VR chair, the film’s model is a giant,
robotic arm that forces Cal to re-enact Aguilar’s fights as he relives them. It’s
an idea that’s well suited to film - even Ubisoft love it - but not everyone
will like watching it in action. Finally, some knowledge of the Spanish
Inquisition may be needed to fully enjoy Aguilar’s scenes. Unless you know your
history on Torquemada, you will be disappointed.
Despite it being canon, the main thing that will bother fans
and newcomers alike will be the way the film handles the games’ deeper
elements. In the games, the Templars hunt for artefacts called Pieces of Eden,
which allow them to control the minds of other people. The full story behind
them was too complicated to keep in the film, so Ubisoft decided to narrow it down
to reach a wider audience - the Rikkins are searching for one artefact, the
Apple, and its history is simplified. It was the right thing to do, but the way
the Apple was explained could’ve been clearer. Sofia and Alan refer to it as “the
cure for violence”; a line newcomers will find confusing. Sadly, it’s one of
many lines from Sofia which either baffled me or fell flat. Cottilard’s
performance, and her caring attitude towards Cal, kept me invested in her.
Sofia’s interactions with the Assassins not only made me question her role in
the film, but also created conflict with her oppressive father. Alan Rikkin is
one of only two characters appearing from the games, but whether you know him or
not, Jeremy Irons’ performance won’t disappoint. Just bear in mind that
the Rikkins aren’t your typical villains. In the world of Assassin’s Creed,
typical villains don’t exist.
Assassin's Creed won't be the one to "break the curse", but it makes a huge effort to be better than every game-based film that has come before. It strikes a balance between being true to the series and walking its own path - and most importantly, it brought me back to the Brotherhood. I urge you to see it and judge for yourself. Safety and peace be upon you.
