Assassin's Creed - &%##@$* #%!#3$$^$#$%
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
Great Franchise is over egging it somewhat, the first was a flawed but good game, two was excellent, three was a complete mess and Black Flag is one of the best games of the last ten years. The other sixteen spin offs and interquels are completely disposable.Samtemdo8 said:
The real defining feature of Assassin's Creed is that Ubisoft has released twenty AC games in nine years, more than two games a year! That's not flogging a dead horse, that's taking a foal, running it to death, shooting it to make sure, beating the corpse with increasingly big sticks until all that's left to do is run soupy remains and bones through a steam press to get one last ounce of usable fat, then shooting the steam press and beating that since it's still got some horse in it.
I don't know, I don't find Brotherhood disposable. Its more Assasssin's Creed 2 and that's not inherently a bad thing.fix-the-spade said:
There was something way, way back with the creator of the Assassin's Creed storyline going off on people not liking the Animus sections, saying they were of pivotal importance and if you didn't appreciate them you weren't really getting it (or something equivalent; I'm having difficulty tracking down the original story).
It was malarkey then, and it is now. Having the protagonist be a death row inmate rather than a bartender is kind of an improvement, I guess (sort of a chronologically offset La Femme Nikita?), but no one is remotely as interested in the crappy, improbable science fiction trappings as they are in the parkour-ing guy in the cool hood with the spring-loaded blades at his wrists running around in the trappings of rose-colored historical tourism.
I'm sorry Fassbender couldn't get a good movie out of this, but from the choices that were made, it doesn't sound like that outcome was a surprise.
It was malarkey then, and it is now. Having the protagonist be a death row inmate rather than a bartender is kind of an improvement, I guess (sort of a chronologically offset La Femme Nikita?), but no one is remotely as interested in the crappy, improbable science fiction trappings as they are in the parkour-ing guy in the cool hood with the spring-loaded blades at his wrists running around in the trappings of rose-colored historical tourism.
I'm sorry Fassbender couldn't get a good movie out of this, but from the choices that were made, it doesn't sound like that outcome was a surprise.
What would've been cool, is if the movie was about the RETURN of the assassins. Imagine that the Templars have gotten everyone under their heel, and the Assassins have been stopped. The protagonist stumbles onto plot starter motor, triggering the plot. Then he starts to fight back, but he has to be careful. No teachers, only the creed. And by the end, he inspires a few others. Starting narration being one person reciting the creed, and at the end, the few other people also state it but saying 'we' instead of 'I'.
I had hopes for this movie, I mean the movies for AC2 were great, but apparently Ubisoft don't actually know how to write a story for the AC games, which makes sense since we play the same bloody plot every bloody time!
I had hopes for this movie, I mean the movies for AC2 were great, but apparently Ubisoft don't actually know how to write a story for the AC games, which makes sense since we play the same bloody plot every bloody time!
So, like always, it seems all movie reviewers are either pretentious, joyless, or a combination of the two.
I've now seen it twice, and it was awesome. Granted you can't see it in vacuum, since it leans heavily on presumed knowledge from the games, but so what, I've played them, and I loved them, and I love a story that assumes I'm smart enough to put 2 and 2 together, without spoonfeeding me (I guess that's why some people find it "confusing").
And yes, I also love the games (horror of horrors on this site, someone who actually loves the Assassin's Creed games, instead of toeing the party-line that they're apparently boring).
4.7/5 stars.
I've now seen it twice, and it was awesome. Granted you can't see it in vacuum, since it leans heavily on presumed knowledge from the games, but so what, I've played them, and I loved them, and I love a story that assumes I'm smart enough to put 2 and 2 together, without spoonfeeding me (I guess that's why some people find it "confusing").
And yes, I also love the games (horror of horrors on this site, someone who actually loves the Assassin's Creed games, instead of toeing the party-line that they're apparently boring).
4.7/5 stars.
So, I saw it today and...it's bad, okay? The plot is bad, the acting is bad, the dialogue is bad, the CGI is bad, the cinematography is bad, it's bad-bad-bad-bad-BAD!
Not terrible, mind you, and if I had the inclination I could go in-depth to describe how and why it's bad, while giving credit to the stuff that actually does work. It's not the worst VG-based movie out there, but it's bad, okay? Kind of startingly bad, since a Ubisoft IP (Prince of Persia) gave us a pretty decent VG-based movie, if not an outright "good" one, whereas this is a step back on every front.
Not terrible, mind you, and if I had the inclination I could go in-depth to describe how and why it's bad, while giving credit to the stuff that actually does work. It's not the worst VG-based movie out there, but it's bad, okay? Kind of startingly bad, since a Ubisoft IP (Prince of Persia) gave us a pretty decent VG-based movie, if not an outright "good" one, whereas this is a step back on every front.
It was the worst kind of bad: it was boring.
So yeah, I didn't even pay to see it and I want my money back. I've got a two hour and twenty minute gap in my personal timeline.
It makes no sense, yet isn't nonsensical enough to be entertaining. (I love Battleship in an MST3K sort of way, full disclosure.) You have assassin guy removing his finger, then using sword gauntlets that don't make use of that fact, Assassins who drop the actually iconic white and red look to go with bog standard stealth grey, the fight scenes take place in dingy, smoke filled rooms with both sides wearing dull colors, the animus is a mechanical arm that's supposed to let you mimic the action of whatever you're remembering, except it can't do the forward rolls your ancestor did constantly, but that okay because even after it breaks, you don't walk yourself into a wall as your ancestor is walking around for reasons, centuries old assassin equipment is in perfect working order for, again, reasons, none of the .guards carry so much as a side arm, I'm supposed to believe an extremely white dude is on death row for killing a single pimp, the Templars were going to use an alien doohickey to, I dunno, rewrite everyone's DNA or something, and this whole mess of a plot is started because a couple of extremely white people decided to be the only white family in Baha California.
Seriously, if they decided to hide out in Saskatchewan, they'd have never been found.
Seriously, if they decided to hide out in Saskatchewan, they'd have never been found.
So yeah, I didn't even pay to see it and I want my money back. I've got a two hour and twenty minute gap in my personal timeline.
The animus is especially nonsensical, since it's an obvious gimmick to give the audience eye candy. It doesn't even make sense within the confines of the universe, since, IIRC, Desmond never needed such hardware to give the Templars what they needed. All he had to do was lie down. And if he's mimicking his ancestor's actions, how the hell does it account for horse-riding?altnameJag said:
In what little defence I can give this film, I can believe that Callum is on death row, since it's established that he has a criminal record prior to killing the pimp. But in addition to what you point out, I have to ask, why the hell is Abestergo letting Assassins wander around the facility, and even let Callum's father hang onto a blade? I mean, they're Assassins. ASSASSINS!