Assassin's Creed

Selbst eine stupide Geschichte kann so erzählt werden, dass sie keinen Sinn ergibt. Es handelt sich hierbei um sich bis zur Unerträglichkeit hinziehende zwei Stunden über ein Spiel um einen Apfel, die hin und wieder von einem misslungenen Parkour sowie einer Szene gestört werden, die preisgibt, dass Kurzel dem Artstil zugeneigt ist, jedoch auf eine für Blockbuster vollends kontraproduktive Art und Weise. Schwer zu sagen, ob die reibungslosen Übergänge zwischen Geschichte und Gegenwart irgendeinen raffinierten Kommentar über Gekünsteltheit des Gamererlebnisses darstellen. Ich habe keine Kraft, um das herauszufinden. Das Drehbuch zerfällt hier bis zum Erschrecken, die Charaktere weisen keinerlei innere Logik auf und haben keine narrative Steigerung. Ich habe eine reinigende Anschwemmung an Gamer-Ekstase erwartet, jedoch dieser Glaubenssprung endete mit einer komplizierten Fraktur. (21.12.2016)

It’s no fan service and it goes hard toward even the most welcoming viewer. It’s a non-Hollywood adaptation that mercilessly flushed over a hundred million and had no shame in doing so. It’s visually captivating bliss that tests the projectionists and the limits of how much the viewer is willing to accept the creative rules. (30.12.2016)

This film has character. On the one hand, it goes as far as possible against the fans of the game franchise, but at the same time it tries to make a distinctive artistic concept of the Assassin universe. The passages set in medieval Spain are visually stunning, the depiction of the Animus is boldly different (and better!) than we know from the games, and while it left me emotionally cold, I appreciate the personality that Kurzel brought to the table, and I can sense from it his desire to make the best possible film that isn't just a boring descriptive retelling of the game. The highly artistic Kurzel simply entertains me. It's a pity that people won't appreciate his honest approach and that there won't be a sequel. (16.07.2017)

Well, it's not a good film, but in the end it's not a complete disaster either. Assassin's Creed alternates above average and sometimes almost great moments with moments when I almost felt sorry for the filmmakers. What goes well? Definitely the action, or rather almost everything from the past. The battles are quick, fairly straightforward and brisk, and at least the part where two of the heroes are running away from an entire city really hit the spot. The scenes of Spain being terrorised by the Inquisition do show the money, and the costumes, the production design and the visual effects look more than good too. Unfortunately, everything that takes place in the present is more or less ugly and terribly boring. I've played almost all of the games, and from the very beginning, these passages annoyed me. In the film, the uninteresting present takes up two-thirds of the running time. Most of the cast act like they weren't told what was wanted of them, it doesn't make any sense at all at times, and unfortunately Assassin's Creed is unaware of its stupidity and simplicity (nothing against it, I love it) and tries to pretend to be something more than a simple blockbuster. And it's not very good at it. In a few years, someone will edit a nice 20-minute video out of it with good action and nice sets. In the meantime, we have a movie that is boring most of the time or tries in vain to fulfill the ambitions of someone in the background who didn't understand that he was making an action movie. And those have to be entertaining first and foremost. (15.05.2017)

The curse of movies based on a videogame brand continues. This film is once again evidence of the fact that a good gaming adaptation does not need to mean a well-made movie. The computer game is based mainly on the atmosphere of the medieval setting. I always thought the story set in the near future wasn’t too great and I always sort of skipped it. Not only was it fairly nonsensical, but it also didn’t fit into the otherwise nicely depicted history at all. But Ubisoft wanted it this way and they sold it this way. However, the story of the film didn’t work at all although it offered good quality fimmaking, which could represent a pretty good experience. In the end, the only thing I got from the movie were the historical action sequences, which were absolutely perfect. The director of cinematography and the editor probably puffed a joint or two, but it was still within reasonably bearable limits. It was probably also because the film itself wasn’t too cheap so they didn’t have to patch things up and cover them up with a cheaper budget. Some of the stunt shots that I saw were really great. It’s a pity though that Fassbender and Cotillard didn’t get a chance to show off their acting. Emotions – none. Dialogues – horrible. And the plot? What was the whole thing actually about and what is it that was going on in there the entire time? Well, as I said the action was good, but the rest was pretty bad. (02.05.2017)