11 January 2017

KILLER INSTINCT

The good news is that Assassin's Creed is probably the most stylish video game adaptation ever, for what that's worth. As you may have heard, movies based on video games sometimes aren't very good. So the bar for Ass. Creed to stand out was in fact quite low. But still, let's not get to pissing on it right away: director Justin Kurzel and his crew have come up with some generally interesting ideas for how to stage the action and how to blur the film's two parallel chronologies.

The plot hook, you see, is that that the bad guys have a machine called Animus that allows anyone plugged into it to enter the consciousness of a direct ancestor, as long as that ancestor's DNA can be scraped up in some way. To visualize this, Kurzel & company do a few different things: one is the have all of the trips into the Animus start with a monumental CGI-aided plunge from the clouds down to the streets of a city in Granada, Spain in 1492, the camera floating around like a high-speed ghost until it arrives at the ancestor in question. Another is to have the modern-day Animus user vaguely perceive the space around him even while he's in the memory, leading to several shots of Michael Fassbender (for he is our main star, though that seems like an unsporting thing to point out) pantomiming hand-to-hand combat as he's suspended in mid-air, with wraith-like representations of the past foggily appearing and disappearing in the sleek industrial space of the Animus. It is absolutely and undoubtedly cool, and highlights some of the better visual effects of the year.

Also, it is more or less the only idea that Kurzel ever comes up with. Between Andy Nicholson's production design and Adam Arkapaw's cinematography, the best we can say about Ass. Creed is that it's somewhat banal in its visual associations: smooth lines and blue tinting in the Animus facility, chunks of brown crap shot with blown-out whites in 1492 Spain. The worst we can say is that it's profoundly ugly, coated in a layer of digital grit that gets into everything and leaves the whole movie feeling peculiarly unswept. Only the cross-cutting between past and present in the action sequences adds much of a personality to the film. Which would be fine and all, except it happens every single time, and it's the only real flourish anywhere in Christopher Tellefsen's editing or Kurzel's visual treatment of the fights, so even the thing that the film gets best of all still ends up being boring and repetitive when all is said and done.

There are undoubtedly worse video game adaptations; but why bother clarifying that point? Ass. Creed is plenty bad in its own right and hardly deserves pity points. The story is a muddled disaster ("this section may be unclear or confusing to readers", says the film's Wikipedia synopsis as of 11 January, 2017, and for no worse sin than relaying the events of the film in the order they occur), but when you straighten it out, it proves to be almost embarrassingly simple: the evil people - the Knights Templar, though it's really just a generic EvilCo given an equally generic Secret Society origin story - want a magic doohickey, and evil CEO Alan Rikkin (Jeremy Irons) is going to be in hot water if he can't provide it. So he lies to the only man who can acquire it, Callum Lynch (Fassbender), using his daughter Sofia (Marion Cotillard) as his increasingly unwilling cat's paw. Callum eventually figures this out, and rounds up the rest of the human lab rats in EvilCo's clutches to help him fight back. It takes much too much effort to tease this out, not least because there's a whole other secret society, which is either called the Assassins, or the Assassin's Creed, or the Creed, depending on the scene, and the Assassins stand for free will and letting humanity tear itself apart if that's what free will means, while the Templars stand for eradicating free will to attain world peace. And all of this hinges on Callum learning from his long-dead ancestor Aguilar de Nerha's (Fassbender) resurrected memories where the Assassins hid the Apple of Eden, a glowing silver ball that is apparently also the Apple of the Eden.

None of that's wrong - it's a movie based on a video game, MacGuffins and fetch quests are part of the territory - but it's awfully damn convoluted for what amounts to a sci-fi Indiana Jones film. Even the central gimmick of the movie, the whole consciousness-swapping into a 15th Century Assassin's brain, doesn't end up yielding anything of value: since Callum is an entirely passive spectator to Aguilar's actions, it is basically a movie about watching somebody watching somebody else playing a video game. The evocation of medieval Spain isn't remotely interesting enough to justify the effort required to get us there, and that's in principle the whole reason the movie exists. The video game-style action sequences are given at least some juice by the cross-cutting, but that has the negative effect of making it harder to follow the narrative of the fights, and drawing attention to the generally unlikable "built in a computer" feel to everything that happens.

Into this messy swamp, Kurzel throws a preposterously over-qualified cast: besides Fassbender and Cotillard in the lead roles, and Irons's substantial supporting part, Charlotte Rampling and Brendan Gleeson get expanded cameos, and there are some solid character actors hiding among Callum's fellow prisoners. I won't say that any of them humiliate themselves, but Rampling is the only human in the whole cast who's in any way good, playing the Queen of the Templars, or some such thing, with peremptory authoritarian cruelty. Fassbender appears to be hunting for some deep character arc involving the ghosts of the past that never materialises, and Cotillard is utterly lost with a total nothing of a role (I think she tries to make sense of it by assuming that Sofia is sexually attracted to Callum, and that's not not in the screenplay). It's all very tedious, and only a little bit exciting when Spanish Fassbender gets to swing his wrist daggers around; good enough to put it over the likes of Super Mario Bros. or Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, but I can't even bring myself to believe that it's the best video game movie of 2016.

4/10

11 comments:

  1. So not quite soaring to the dizzying heights of 'Lara Croft Tomb Raider : Cradle of Life' then? Tempting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Magnificent! Classic Antagony snark! Fare thee well old friend. Fare the well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can only assume that the repetitive abbreviation of assasins to "ass" was reference to the quality of the film itself?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I kind of ought to wait until Monday to post this (or perhaps I'll post it again) but what would you consider to be the best video game adaptation? As someone who aviation likes the goat Resident Evil and has a campy love for Super Mario Brothers, I'm not ensconced in the "all video game movies are bad" Cano. So what would you day is the best of them?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Brian Malbon

    Interested as to what Tim picks but I would say the critical consensus lands on Edge of Tomorrow or recently Hardcore Henry for a more niche choice. There's no reason why there can't be an actual game adaptation that doesn't suck providing they steer clear of the dumb teenage vibe that hates films (Resident Evil, Doom) or the serious adult filmmaker vibe that doesn't consider gaming as a storytelling artform every bit as legitimate as film. In short, they just need to pick a video game that has great story and character development already baked in. I'm not convinced Assassin's - ahem sorry, Ass. Creed fits that bill. Last of Us or GTA V would be better candidates in my opinion. Hell, even matching a top tier action director like George Miller to an Uncharted film would be tantalizing, no?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think I recall Tim's review of Mortal Kombat identifying that as the best of the video game adaptations and I can see it, with the addendum that I also don't think Mortal Kombat is a good movie.

    Personally, I want to catch Miike Takashi's adaptation of Ace Attorney before I make a final call.

    Also, Hardcore Henry's critical reception was pretty mixed and I felt that was still to generous to that movie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would somewhat agree with Brian, in fact, that the best Res Evils are right up at the top of the pack (I'm going to make y'all wait to find out what I think the best REs are until the next one opens), but moviemotorbreath has it right: Mortal Kombat is my favorite. The takeaway is that I want more Paul W.S. Anderson video game movies, I guess. I too have not seen Ace Attorney

    I also like TheConciseStatement's suggestion that we think of Edge of Tomorrow as an honorary video game movie. That structure!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’ll wait for home video then. Probably they should’ve scrapped the Animus gimmick. I get that it allows for Fassbender to play a different character in a different era in the sequel, but they could do that anyway. Just have a narrator explain reincarnation during the opening credits.

    Good title. I also would have accepted Angry Birds.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If the movie doesn't have to actually be based on a game, then obviously Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. But really that's a comic book movie. So I would say the answer is definitely Resident Evil: Retribution.

    I don't understand anyone liking Mortal Kombat as an adult--it's totally incoherent. Is everyone just laughing at it the whole time and then saying they liked it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mortal kombat is The Passion of Joan of Arc of video game movies (thus far). It has a beginning, a middle and end. I do love the Resident Ecil series. Can we all at least concur that Paul W.S. Anderson is Hollywood's premiere hack? Always watchable dreck.

    ReplyDelete

  11. thank you so much for your sharing this nice article,
    I really like to reading your blog !

    goldenslot
    สูตรบาคาร่า
    gclub casino


    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.