IN THE AUTUMN OF 2007, WHILE CALL OF DUTY 4: MODERN WARFARE WAS PAVING THE WAY FOR ACTIVISION TO LEAD THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY WITH THEIR NOW INFAMOUS PERENNIAL FRANCHISE, UBISOFT DEBUTED A NEW FRANCHISE WHICH, ROUGHLY 9.1 YEARS LATER, BECAME THE NEXT FASTEST MULTIPLATFORM SERIES TO PUMP OUT NEW INSTALLMENTS YEAR AFTER YEAR. IT TAKES PLACE IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY OF EARTH’S HISTORICAL TIMELINE, AROUND THE 3RD CRUSADE LATE IN THE CENTURY 11XX, WHERE ASSASSINS AND TEMPLARS HAVE FOUGHT FOR CENTURIES TO CONTROL SOME HOLY LAND. AN UNREMARKABLE YOUNG MAN NAMED DESMOND MILES PARTICIPATES IN THESE ANCIENT WARS THROUGH A HYBRID TIME MACHINE AND VIRTUAL REALITY DEVICE KNOWN AS “THE ANIMUS”, WHICH TAPS INTO HIS FOREBEARERS’ MEMORIES THROUGH A GENETIC BLOODLINE, WHERE ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL ASSASSINS WHO EVER LIVED, ONE “ALTAIR IBN-LA’AHAD” (TRANSLATING FROM ARABIC AS “THE FLYING EAGLE” AND “THE SON OF NOBODY”), FOUGHT TO SEIZE AN ANCIENT MIND CONTROL DEVICE KNOWN AS THE “PIECE OF EDEN”. DESMOND SCOTT HAD GOOD VOICE ACTING AND BAD CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, VICE VERSA FOR IBN-LA’AHAD, AND THE GAMEPLAY STYLE SHOWED VERY LITTLE VARIETY. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THAT FIRST GAME WAS GREAT.
HOLLYWOOD HAS MADE FAR MORE VIDEO GAME MOVIES IN ‘016 THAN NEARLY ANY OTHER YEAR (EXCEPT PERHAPS ‘008), AND GAMERS HAD SOME OF THE HIGHEST HOPES FOR MANY OF THESE FILMS WHICH INSTEAD LET EVERYONE DOWN AND JOINED THE RACE FOR OUR AWARDS. SINCE UWE BOLL WAS CHASED OUT OF THE FILM INDUSTRY LATE LAST DECADE, THE SOURCE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN PROGRESSIVELY MORE FAMOUS WITH LONGER RUNNING HISTORIES. BUT AS IT’S ALWAYS BEEN SINCE THE SPRING OF 1993, NO SUCH FILM ADAPTATION HAS EVER BEEN WELL-REPUTED.
CRITICS KNOW FULL WELL BY NOW THAT VIDEO GAME MOVIES ARE JINXED FROM THEIR INCEPTION, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS ANOTHER STEP BACK FROM BREAKING THAT CURSE. OTHER THAN ITS CAST, ASSCREED IS BARELY ANY BETTER THAN OTHER SUCH ADAPTATIONS, AND AS USUAL, RELIES FAR TOO MUCH ON CGI. THE PLOT IS TOO MESSY AND CONFUSING, THE ADVENTURE IS DULL AND JOYLESS, AND IT’LL LIKELY FEEL LIKE MUCH LONGER THAN ITS RUN-TIME BECAUSE OF HOW IT DRAGS.
BUT DON’T LET ME CARRY OUT AN ASSASSINATION ON ASSASSIN’S CREED ALONE! IF YOU CAN MAKE A STRONGER CASE FOR CONSIDERING IT FOR OUR AWARDS AT THE LAST MINUTE, CRUSH ASSCREED BELOW!
Some people have said they have definitely played the games for this movie, but they still did not really give what most people wanted to see, which are mostly the Assassin bits. Even when they do, the filmmakers have many action sequences cut from the fighting in the past to the simulation, and back again, making the audience lose the idea of what is going on. It has been described as not fully taking advantage of the idea and focusing more on the wrong aspect of the game. I can see many wanting to nominate it.
PS: I hate to be "That Guy" right now, but are you planning on a Passengers thread anytime soon? I think that the percentiles on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are low enough, plus lets not forget the fact that it was supposed to be this big blockbuster, as it has two of the newest and hottest (their words, not mine) young stars as a couple, Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt. However, it's looking like those aspirations have fizzled out, and such a loss can be pounced upon.
Worst Actor - Matt Damon (nom) (Been called uninteresting and is also accused of promoting a white savior movie. Also since his buddy Ben Affleck has been nominated multiple times, why not him?), Johnny Depp (Just imagine the cruel irony of winning for the role that original got him his first Oscar nom.), Jamie Dornan (nom) (Won for the role last time, need I say more?), Tom Hanks (nom) (He managed to avoid a nom for decades, BurnHollywoodBurn from years back even described him as "Un-Razz-able", but considering how much of a let down The Circle was and how he didn't bring much to it, maybe his time is now. Plus, he'd be interesting to nominate, and it's be weird to have Watson and not him too.), Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson (nom)(Not only did his movie pretty much flop, but he ends up complaining about the criticism on Twitter! Plus, he's been nominated before and Jumanji doesn't look so hot either.), and Mark Wahlberg (nom) (If this is his last "hurrah" in the Transformers movies, maybe he should get a nom as extra motivation to stay away. Marky Mark doesn't want to become a repeat offender, does he?)
Worst Actress - Katherine Heigl (SHE MUST WIN!), Scarlett Johansson (nom) (Starred in two box-office bombs, one of them with the stigma of whitewashing. Plus it'd be interesting to have her.), Dakota Johnson (nom) (Won for the role last time, need I say more?), Milla Jovovich (nom) (Considering that the last outing got her a nom, maybe she'll receive another one.), Amy Schumer (nom) (Not only has her humor been described as getting scale and one-note, but she's been labeling any criticisms of that as "evil conservatives" to try and dismiss them, and now this led up a movie that is not so well received for many reasons, not the least of which being that she did not bring the funny, and did pretty poorly at the box-office.), and Emma Watson (nom) (While starring in, at this point, the highest grossing movies of the year, she also stars in one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Could be something to pounce on.)
Worst Supporting Actor - Javier Bardem (nom) (He does not lend much to the movie he stars in, and the special effects on him make his performance look worse!), Anthony Hopkins (If he is nominated, he'll break a Razzie record. If he wins, he'll break TWO records!), Eric Johnson (nom) (Basically used to make Christian Grey look less bad by comparison!), Ben Kingsley (nom) (Not only a Razzie repeat offender, but his character in Collide keeps watching the Razzie nominated movie Perfect and keeps talking almost creepily about Razzie perennial Burt Reynolds!), Rob Lowe (nom) (Previously won a Razzie in this category, why not nominate him again if he's going to appear in films like Monster Trucks.), and John Turturro (nom) (He has made the ballots for the Transformers movies before, but always gets shut out. Maybe this will be his chance at a nom.)
Worst Supporting Actress - Kim Basinger (Basically in this movie because 9 1/2 Weeks, her first Razzie nomination.), Faye Dunaway (nom) (Razzie perennial Dunaway is attempting to make a big comeback, but starting off with The Bye Bye Man, not to mention being a part of the Best Picture flub at the Oscars, things do not look good for her.), Laura Haddock (nom) (She seems to be a good actress, but when put into a Bay movie where she has to look pretty while being a scientist, Star-Lord's mom cannot pull it off.), Marcia Gay Harden (nom) (Jane Seymour got a nomination for the parody version of the role, so why not the real thing?), Goldie Hawn (nom) (Making her big-screen comeback in Snatched... a movie which stunk and she stunk in it, a surefire way to receive a second nom in this category.), and Isabela Moner (nom) (Comes off as a preachy character, more than likely going to annoy some.)
Worst Director - Michael Bay (nom) (Going to go down in history as the most Razzie nominated director thanks to these Transformers movies. I would not be surprised if he wins.), James Foley (Previous Razzie nominee has returned after about three decades to director the sequel to the Razzie winning Fifty Shades of Grey. I'd say he has this in the bag.), Alex Kurtzman (nom) (Speaking of Transformers, one of the Razzie winning writers of the first and second one tried to start a cinematic universe, and boy howdy, did it get off to a rocky start!), Guy Ritchie (nom) (Speaking of cinematic universes, previous Razzie winner and husband of Madonna tried to start one too, and man did it turn out messy!), Chris Wedge (nom) (Going from animation to live-action and came out with a write-off... yeah...), and Zhang Yimou (nom) (Even with his stylized directing, he could not make the characters interesting, or those lizard creatures look convincing.)
Fernando Marambio (2/7): "The hero has no real motivation. [...] The organization that experiments on LYNCH finances a million-dollar plan, owns a powerful council and manages advanced technology. Director Justin Kurzel only has to print personality and fierceness on them, considering that he had the actors to do it. Marion Cotillard and Jeremy Irons spend more time theorizing about violence than being scary. [...] Since the film insists so much on the details of the Apple of Eden and how to get it, why doesn't it take a second to explain how they're going to make that magic work? RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK didn't have that problem. [...] Fassbender isn't in his most glorious moment. Not even close to what he did in movies like STEVE JOBS, 12 YEARS A SLAVE or SHAME but, being only 39 years old, he seems to be one of the actors that will dominate the screen in the coming years. A stumble isn't a fall, old dog."
I've got a gift certificate for a free movie ticket, guess I'll spend it on this one.
Got round to it yesterday evening, and with the caveat that I haven't played the game.
The main problem IMO with this movie is how uneven it is - it feels like two different movies, mainly because they're using the set-up of the game where your character is in the current day and an organisation makes you relieve the memories of you Assassin Ancestor through the Animus. The movie also does that, with a storyline in 2016 and one in 1492. 1492 was the action-packed parkouring around Andalusia part, and whenever it swapped to more pseudo-sci-fi-philosophical 2016 storyline, the pace just grinded to a halt. Personally, I would've preferred to just go all-in with a storyline set in the past. Could've been a fun action-packed 'retrieve the important item and keep it away from the evil Knights Templar' movie.
I don't know how much of the gameplay is set in modern day, but I'm GUESSING that for most of the videogame you're parkouring and assassinating your way around in the past, not having lots of dialogue with the people operating the device.
So, yeah. It was uneven, it was a movie that didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, and if you're not familiar with the game, the whole 'reliving your ancestor's memories' seems convoluted.
Razzie-wise, I'm considering it for a Worst Screenplay/Worst Picture nom, and Worst Supporting for Jeremy Irons, because he didn't seem to bother at all (he bothered in Batman v Superman, this was just standard generic baddie.) Not considering it worst Actress (Marion Cotillard was all right with the material she was given) or Worst Director (I liked that the scenes set in 1492 were done in Spanish rather than in English/English-with-Spanish-accents.), and the unevenness of the movie is more down to screenplay than director.