Skip to main content

‘Assassin’s Creed’ movie review

‘Assassin’s Creed’ leaps gracefully above most video game films, but still falls

The history of video game film adaptations is a troubled one. The best of them manage to be mildly entertaining popcorn flicks, but even those often feature terrible dialogue and stories slavishly devoted to the source material. Into this troubled tradition steps Assassin’s Creed, based on the long-running mega-franchise by Ubisoft. The film boasts an impressive cast and crew — director Justin Kurzel, along with leads Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard, recently made an acclaimed adaptation of Macbeth — but is that enough to lift it above the dreadful reputation of video game movies?

For those unfamiliar with the dense lore of the Assassin’s Creed franchise, the film lays out the general premise right at the beginning. For hundreds of years, an organization known as the Knights Templar have been searching for mythical tokens of Eden, in this case the Apple of Eden, which will allow them to rule the world. The only opposing force are the Assassins, hooded killers with a penchant for parkour who, despite all their talk of shadows, do most of their killing in broad daylight. In order to discover the location of the Apple, the modern day Templars kidnap a prisoner named Callum Lynch (Fassbender) and take him to a secret facility that houses a machine called the Animus. The device taps into the genetic memory of the user’s DNA, allowing them to live out the memories of their ancestors (in this case, Callum’s 15th century assassin forefather, Aguilar).

The film’s greatest weapon by far is its sterling cast.

If this all seems a bit confusing to those who haven’t spent hours upon hours playing the game series, never fear. The movie explains the backstory often and at length, to the point that we the audience almost feel like we’ve wandered into a history lecture given by a conspiracy theorist.

Assassin’s Creed is essentially two films that bleed into each other. One is a sci-fi story in which Callum is imprisoned in the gray halls of the Templar pharmaceutical company, Abstergo. The other is a rollicking adventure smack dab in the middle of the Spanish Inquisition. The latter ends up being the most fun, but unfortunately it comprises no more than a third of the film.

Kurzel’s Macbeth drew praise for its striking visuals, and the Spanish storyline allows him to flaunt his talents, revealing ancient Spain in shades of deep red. One particular scene, in which the king, queen, and leaders of the Inquisition gather for an execution, is fantastically disturbing, looking almost like a medieval painting of hell.

The action sequences are also exciting, as Aguilar and his fellow Assassins sprint across rooftops, tumble down alleyways, and kill Templar in brutally efficient ways. Occasional flourishes, like a first-person shot of a crossbow firing, add some style. And most remarkably for a mainstream film, the dialogue in these scenes is entirely in Spanish, adding a surprising level of authenticity to a story about secret societies fighting over a magic token. Throughout these sequences, you can see glimmers of the grand adventure Kurzel could have crafted, had he focused on the events of 1492.

Sadly, as most of the film is stuck in the drab present of Abstergo’s blue-gray laboratories, Assassin’s Creed never really takes flight. Although the Animus induces some ghostly hallucinations in Callum, the film never does anything too visually impressive with them.

The film’s greatest weapon by far is its sterling cast. Fassbender brings a surly charm to his performance as Callum, and pulls double-duty as the more taciturn Aguilar. He is the type of actor who can move you with a smirk or a snarl without much help from a script, which is especially useful in this case. Aguilar is a simple, if understandable hero, while Callum has a tragic backstory which the film attempts to flesh out, but, as with most video game characters, there’s not much compelling drama to explore there.

Marion Cotillard also makes the best of what she is given as Sophia Rikkin, the engineer behind the Animus project. She believes the Apple will lead to a world without violence, and Cotillard’s eyes glimmer with conviction even as her speeches about the power of science grow increasingly ridiculous. Sophia is Callum’s most frequent point of contact, and Fassbender and Cotillard crackle on screen together.

Assassin’s Creed is essentially two films that bleed into each other.

Venerable character actor Jeremy Irons also turns in a professional performance as Sophia’s father, Alan, who runs Abstergo. As a sort of middle manager under the Templar leadership, Alan is an affable villain, and Irons brings his usual gravitas to the proceedings.

Utterly wasted in the role of Haitian Assassin Moussa is Michael K. Williams who, aside from a couple of flat jokes, does not have much to do. There are numerous other Assassins in the facility with Callum and Moussa, too, but one of the unfortunate consequences of trying to tell two stories in one film is that many of the characters are left totally undeveloped.

Will fans of the Assassin’s Creed games enjoy this first film outing? Possibly. The film looks very good, and the absurdly overqualified cast makes the writing feel more profound than it is. In fact, you could argue that Assassin’s Creed is the best movie adaptation of a video game in recent history; the film leaps gracefully above one of the lowest bars in cinema.

Unfortunately, that’s still not much of a compliment. Viewers not already invested in the Assassin’s Creed lore may well find this film a convoluted slog with only occasional thrills to hold their interest.

Will Nicol
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Will Nicol is a Senior Writer at Digital Trends. He covers a variety of subjects, particularly emerging technologies, movies…
3 action movies on Amazon Prime Video you need to watch in August
Mel Gibson lying on the ground holding up two guns in Payback.

When it comes to action movies, there are so many classics that fans love to watch and re-watch, again and again. Then, there are new ones, sometimes remakes, that might catch your attention. The best action movies, no matter when they were introduced, feature actors who have become deeply tied to the genre.

We’re here to help you find ones you’ll want to watch (or, more likely, re-watch) by highlighting three action movies on Amazon Prime Video you need to watch in August that come from the '80s, '90s, and 2010s. With Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, and Liam Neeson leading each of these movies, you can’t go wrong. Plus, don’t worry because all three are available with a standard Amazon Prime subscription or standalone Amazon Prime Video subscription, no add-on channels needed.
Rocky III (1982)
Rocky III (1982) | Official Trailer | MGM Studios

Read more
Like the new Eli Roth film Borderlands? Then watch these 3 action movies now
Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron as Max and Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road.

For 15 years, Borderlands has been one of the bestselling video games of all time. After years in developmental hell, the feature film adaptation has finally arrived. Directed by Eli Roth, Borderlands stars Cate Blanchett as Lilith, a bounty hunter tasked with finding the secret vault on the planet Pandora. Lilith needs help with the mission, so she forms an unlikely team featuring Roland (Kevin Hart), Tiny Tina (Ariana Greenblatt), Krieg (Florian Munteanu), Tannis (Jamie Lee Curtis), and Claptrap (Jack Black).

Borderlands is a video game adaptation with fast-paced action, vicious fight scenes, and slapstick comedy. If you enjoy those things, try watching the three movies listed below. Our selections include a DC superhero film, the first film in a young adult franchise, and arguably the best action film of the 21st century.
The Suicide Squad (2021)

Read more
10 worst book-to-movie adaptations, ranked
Roland and a child walking down the street in The Dark Tower

They say the movie is always better than the movie, and they are mostly right. Indeed, the number of movies that match their source material, let alone surpass it, is rare. Most of the time, the best adaptations offer something new and provide a fresh take on the book, becoming worthy of standing side by side with their literary counterpart.

Then there are those adaptations that are painfully, ridiculously, and embarrassingly bad. These movies fail miserably at recapturing what made their book counterparts popular to begin with, with the major themes getting lost in translation. They are mediocre as movies but outright terrible as adaptations, to the point where the authors themselves have sometimes denounced them.
10. Firestarter (2022)

Read more