ShareThis Page

Review: 'Assassin's Creed' is an exciting, if strange, ride

| Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2016, 3:00 p.m.

In 2015, director Justin Kurzel and actors Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard teamed up for a prestigious cinematic adaptation, a bloody, mad take on “Macbeth.” In 2016, the trio moved from Shakespeare to ... a video game? Taking on the popular “Assassin's Creed” game seems like quite the left turn, and while the results aren't as striking as the previous outing, the film is thoroughly stamped with Kurzel's unique visual style, which makes for an exciting, if strange ride.

There is a complicated and deep mythology behind the game, and the film follows it mostly faithfully. Callum Lynch (Fassbender) is a death row inmate with a violent childhood. He is put to death by lethal injection, but wakes up in a clinic at the shadowy Abstergo corporation. The lead scientist there, Dr. Sofia Rikkin (Cotillard) claims she's researching “the cure to violence.”

Cal is harnessed up to a giant mechanical arm called the animus and forced to regress to 15th century Spain, where he fights the Spanish Inquisition as his hooded assassin ancestor, Aguilar.

And Abstergo? They're just a front for the Knights Templar, the eternal mortal enemies of the assassins. Both groups want to get their hands on “the Apple of Eden,” which has the genetic code for free will (whatever that is). The Knights Templar want to bow people into peace through mental obedience, while the assassins are all about free will, violence and all.

“Assassin's Creed” will be polarizing, but as an entry in Kurzel's oeuvre, it's fascinating for the ways that it doesn't fit and the ways that it does. It is so singularly his film — both in the style and the fascination with hubris, power and violence. It's his mark on the studio blockbuster that make the brilliant parts of “Assassin's Creed” worthwhile.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service movie critic.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.