Reviews & Ratings for
Assassin's Creed (2016)

The critics have really lambasted this film to no end. Being a fan of the series since 2007 it was inevitable that I would have to check out this one.
I had gone in expecting a rather mediocre cinema and for the first 35 mins I got a rather flat movie. The scenes set in the present are rather lame. Lacking of dramatic impact or any tension. But after the first flash back the film improves a wee bit. But still they have intercut the present and past during combat and that’s jarring and unimaginative. They get a lot of the franchises hallmarks right so it’s not an abomination to the core concept. In fact, the core concept of Templars vs assassins is not diluted or destroyed. Which should be a relief to all the fans.
The acting is very mediocre as the film is written and shot very mediocre. The dialogs are lacking impact and bland. Most of the film is filled with dead eyed stares of tertiary characters.
But in the past scenes and second half the film is not bad. It’s not total junk but a better director could have taken this really high.
Rating: 5.5/10. Fans will sort of like it. It’s worth watching once for the love of the series of games.

Assassin's Creed" is a movie based on a game franchise where you jump around in period dress (the setting depends on which game you're playing) climb buildings and murder people. Unlike the actual video game, "Assassin's Creed" isn't ridiculous and fun, but rather ridiculous and turgid. This is the fundamental disconnect that most video games (except maybe "Mortal Kombat," "Super Mario Brothers: The Movie" and "Street Fighter") run into: there's no way to translate the hands-on action of a vide.
Still, why is there so much pensive info-dump talk-talk-talk in "Assassin's Creed" about the modern-day Knights Templar, and their quest to eradicate global violence using an elaborate virtual reality work program—and yet nothing beyond the basic premise makes sense? Who choreographed these dull, repetitive fight scenes? And why are supporting cast members like Jeremy Irons and Charlotte Rampling skulking listlessly in the corner while poor Michael K. Williams eagerly awaits a good line or two? (He never gets one.) If anybody had a spark of inspiration when they made "Assassin's Creed," it certainly doesn't show.

There's a prisoner named Cal Lynch (Michael Fassbender) and he lives in the not-too-distant future. He's sentenced to death and then abducted by a shadowy group (The Templars) that want Cal because of his, uh, DNA. Hang on, let me go back a step: The Templars have a virtual reality machine called the Animus, and it sends people back in time so that they can see the world through their ancestors' eyes. This information is useful to the Templars because apparently they need information to find the location of the Apple of Eden, a device (not a fruit) that can be used to eliminate human free will. Also, Cal's ancestor is a member of a counter-revolutionary group called the Assassin's Creed, a group of killers who opposed the Templars' dogmatic quest to dominate the world by hiding the Apple from th ...

Long story short: Cal's got information that the Templars need and is apparently too dumb to smell a set-up when he sees it. The same is true of Sofia (Marion Cotillard), Cal's handler, and the daughter of Templar leader Rikkin (Jeremy Irons). Cal's got daddy issues, and this drives him to help the Templars for a spell. Also, apparently the machine gives him the magical ability to learn the martial arts skills that his ancestor Aguilar inherited (this is explained better in the video games, but not much better).