Review #1,478: 'Assassin's Creed' (2016)

Despite numerous critical and commercial failures over the last quarter of a century, Hollywood just cannot turn away from trying to capitalise on an industry that continues to out to out-gross them. Video game adaptations have been a thing ever since Nintendo tried and catastrophically failed to bring to life the colourful world of Mario and Luigi with 1993's Super Mario Bros., and it's become a running joke ever since that there has never been, and will unlikely ever be, a decent console-to-big-screen adaptation. But the $1 billion-plus success of Capcom's Resident Evil franchise lingers in the minds of many a studio head, so pretty much every year a new cast and crew are put together to develop a game series with a promise to break the trend. 

While the likes of Prince of Persia and Rampage are perfectly serviceable fluff, they are way overshadowed by the unbearable awfulness of a Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, or a Max Payne, or whatever hot turd Uwe Boll is serving up that month. We have gone through the disappointment too many times to believe it when a director promises to stick to the source material, but eyebrows were raised when it came to the inevitable movie adaptation of Ubisoft's hugely successful Assassin's Creed series, which plunged you into a centuries-old battle between the Knights Templar and a shadowy group known as the Assassins. Not only was Justin Kurzel, director of the truly unsettling Australian drama Snowtown and Shakespeare epic Macbeth, to helm the film, but Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard, two of the most respected actors in the business, were also signed up for the leads. Could this be the movie to finally bridge the two mediums and match the success of its source material?

The short answer is no, but by no means is Assassin's Creed a complete disaster. Its main problem is that it depicts two worlds from two different periods in time, but forgets to make them both interesting. We have the Inquisition-era Madrid, where hooded assassins move stealthily through the crowd armed with daggers and their wits, as they attempt to bring down those in power who seek peace in the land through control. The Assassins also long for peace, but peace gained through freedom, and they don't want a McGuffin known as the Apple of Eden, which somehow possesses the power to block humanity's free will, falling into their hands. This war has raged on for centuries, and in the modern era - a glum grey world full of murky corridors and empty rooms - the Templar continue their search for the Apple, employing a new technology that allows people to travel into the memories of their ancestors, to track down the allusive object through the centuries. 

We spend the bulk of the time in the present day, as convicted criminal Cal Lynch (Fassbender) is saved from the electric chair by Sofia (Cotillard) and spends much of his time brooding in his cell over the murder of his mother. I get the feeling that writers Michael Lesslie, Adam Cooper and Bill Collage want to keep you in the dark about who the good guys are here, but as soon as Jeremy Irons arrives with his black turtleneck sweater, you pretty much know how this is going to play out. The plot is an odd mixture of overly complicated and incredibly stupid, and much of the screentime is spent having these characters explain it to each other and the audience, or at least those in the crowd who have never played the game (like myself). When Cal finally straps up and enter the body of his ancestor Aguilar de Nerha, the movie springs into life, although this bleached-out world of questionable special effects and wannabe-Indiana Jones action may have seemed all the more exiting by the sheer dreariness of the alternative. 

Directed by: Justin Kurzel

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling, Michael Kenneth Williams

Country: USA/France/UK/Hong Kong/Taiwan/Malta

Rating: **

Tom Gillespie

Review #261: 'Melancholia' (2011)

I wrote a review for Lars Von Triers previous film, Antichrist (2009), so I won't reiterate his 'agent-provocateur' profile outside of his films. I also have to confess that I've never really been much of a fan of his work. The aforementioned, I found intriguing, The Idiots (1998) was OK. Other than Breaking the Waves (1996 - which whilst utterly depressing, was a fine film), I can't say that his films have enlightened me in any way. His approach has always been interesting though. Now to his most recent effort. Melancholia, whilst forming around the concept that a planet (Melancholia) is heading towards Earth, the film is largely focused upon the relationship between siblings Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), who are, emotional, polar opposites. The film is split into two chapters, each with the sister's names as titles.

The first half focuses on Justine, and specifically her wedding reception. This part of the film plays much like another of the Dogma '95 films, Thomas Vintererg's excellent Festen (1998). We are introduced to Dunst's character as someone fleeting. She constantly leaves the party, sporadically moving around outside of family and friends. We know from this that she is without conscience when considering people around us. We see in this section that Justine is a person attracted to chaos; she despises order. This is perfectly illustrated in a scene in the bridal suit, where coitus is about to take place. Her new husband, Michael (Alexander Skarsgard), begins taking his clothes of, folding each element of garment and carefully laying them down. This show of order seems to frighten Justine, as she leaves.

In chapter two, the main focus is on the sister, Justine. She has a seemingly austere life, married to John (Kiefer Sutherland) with a young son. They stay in what seems to be a manor house. Justine, who is now staying with them in the throws of deep depression. Claire, unlike Justine, is petrified with any form of disorder. All things have to be in the right place. From the start of the film the presence of the approaching planet is referred to. As it gets ever closer Claire's husband constantly reminders her that it will most certainly not impact with Earth. The film progresses as each character comes to terms with their existence in the face of utter destruction.

A drama which alludes to science fiction, it is an interesting film on two very different people living with the idea of total destruction. It is without question an utterly beautiful piece of cinema, with some exceptionally great performances, particularly from Dunst, in what must be her finest role.


Directed by: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Rampling, John Hurt, Alexander Skarsgård, Stellan Skarsgård
Country: Denmark/Sweden/France/Germany

Rating: ****

Marc Ivamy

Review #25: 'Never Let Me Go' (2010)

Never Let Me Go is a film, like the novel it's based on, that seemingly mixes genres whilst almost firmly staying within the aesthetic realm of British period drama. You'd be forgiven for thinking that it is in fact just another 'costume' drama with Keira Knightly in it. I use the term costume drama loosely, simply as it is set in a period that is not our own. The film takes place in 1978, 1985 and 1995. Let Me Go portrays a dystopian 'past' which gives off an vague feeling of science fiction whilst firmly staying within the parameters of 'realism'; again a term used very loosely, as it is an alternate reality if you like.

The screenplay was scribed by Alex Garland (previously known for novel/screenplay of The Beach (2000) and screenplay for 28 Days Later (2002), amongst other works), based on the novel of the same name by Kazuo Ishiguro, which was on the Times top 100 novels since 1923. Ishiguro is previously known for the novel Remains of the Day, which was also adapted for the screen. Director Mark Romonek makes his second major feature work after 2002's One Hour Photo, which was an interesting piece of cinema, overshadowed in the media by the odd, but quite brilliant performance by a subdued Robin Williams. Romonek's other work is mainly in the music video world, along with adverts (whore! - I retract that comment if we ever accept adverts on this blog! - well....).

Let Me Go tells the story of three children who are raised in what first appears to be a very English boarding school, called Hailsham. As the story progresses we realise that these children are raised in strict restriction from the real world as they are later to be used for their vital organs for the purpose of medical progression, and to restrict the spreading of serious diseases. It's never elaborated on whether the children are born of cloning or as test-tube babies. because of the setting I assume they would be test-tube. But again, as I have stipulated before, we are in an unsure mix of genre and an ambiguous state of reality.

The film has three stages, first of which is the aforementioned childhood stage. This is where the characters Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield), and Ruth (Keira Knightly), cement their friendship. I'm not going to give too much away about the relationships, as I feel this is where the majority of the emotional and narrative drive comes from. As they grow and are dissipated from their every day, they move towards their twenties, and the last stages of existence; 'completion'. This is the stage in which they begin donating organs. Between these they each explore their sexuality and their place in the world, knowing all too well that they are only on the planet for a short period, not knowing where they came from. They always (particularly the girls), want to know who their 'originals' are. This, in me, triggers that concept that it is in fact a product of cloning. The performances by the three main characters are very noteworthy. They give realistic and emotional gravitas to the events and problems they all endure.

I really don't want to linger at all on details of the narrative, or to dwell on the complexities of the relationships, as I feel this is one of those films everyone should watch. It encompasses the issues of science and duplication of people, as it questions the nature of the human soul. What does make us human? If we are replicated in a science laboratory, does this make us less human genetically/biologically? Whilst this idea is not wholly new in any way, it is a fundamental question when faced with the realities that we live with. After all, cloning is absolutely possible.

The film is beautifully crafted; stunning, yet simple cinematography permeates the film, whilst also portraying the times they are set in perfectly. (We may well be in a different time altogether, but it 'feels' correct). A simple angle of the camera gives the nostalgia of time to the complete mise-en-scene. I rarely leave a film so touched, and so moved by questions of humanity and the importance of life.


Directed by: Mark Romanek
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley, Sally Hawkins, Charlotte Rampling
Country: UK/USA

Rating: *****

Marc Ivamy