Assassin's Creed

Video game movies get a bit of bad wrap. It is incredibly hard to capture the essence of what makes the medium great (the active participation) and transfer that to cinema (a passive experience). When I first heard about this movie based on a semi-historical game series, and how it would take place in the world of the games, not just follow the story, I was hopeful. But once again, there is a failure to realise what makes this particular game series so popular.

Callum Lynch (Michael Fassbender) is a troubled man. He saw his mother be murdered by his father in Mexico and, after a life of crime, finds himself being executed for murder. After 'dying', he is subsequently revived by a shadowy organisation called Abstergo, who are doing experiments with genetic memories (the idea that the memories of our ancestors are locked in our very DNA). Abstergo has tracked Callum's DNA back to the Spanish Inquisition, where his ancestor Aguilar (also Fassbender) was a member of an ancient order called the Assassins. Sophia Rikkin (Marion Cotillard) is in charge of the experiments and puts Callum inside an 'Animus', a device that allows users to relive the memories mentioned before as though they were really there. It turns out though, Abstergo is really a front for a group called the Templars, the historic enemy of the Assassins.

This movie is complete chaos. The only reason I was able to write half of that plot outline was because I have played the games. The story is a real confusing mess, as the audience is thrust into the film with a tiny little historical background to the two warring factions and their goals, but none of the technology that dominates the film. And that leads to one of the big problems of the film. The games on which it is based are split between a modern and historical storyline. This is not an even split however, as the majority of the time is spent in that historical setting (be it the Crusades or Colonial America), with the development of the modern storyline and characters taking a back seat (granted these add up over the span of five games and isn't something you do with a movie). But for this, there is an attempt at an even balance, although it tips toward the modern setting, with the only reason I can see being that it would be harder to make a historical action movie. Now I will say one thing I really appreciated about the sequences set during the Spanish Inquisition, is that they went all in and had everyone speaking Spanish. Too often Hollywood movies would just go for the easy English option.

Up top, I should say that the action is very nicely choreographed and the stunt performers worked extremely well. The only problem was that you couldn't see it. Now, the Jason Bourne series is known for very rapid handheld 'shakycam' shots that a lot of people don't like. It's a different stage of the movie making process that's at fault here though. This time it's the editing. Some of the action shots were so quick I couldn't keep up. At one stage a bad guy had a horse on a roof and I didn't even know how he even got there. It's no secret that Michael Fassbender doesn't like doing press interviews or promotional work for his films, but I've never seen him look so bored while in a film. In a lot of the scenes he has a rather pained look on his face as though he has no idea what's going on and I can't really fault him for that. Marion Cotillard looked equally confused, but probably at the fact that her role was so underwritten. The remaining veteran actors in the cast (Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson and Charlotte Rampling) are wasted as background filler and I had no idea what Michael K. Williams was doing in the plot at all.

This movie will turn you off if you're a hardcore fan or someone just wandering in from the street. I know it might be easy to point a finger at me and say that I overanalyse movies, but I truly came at this one wanting it to be good. Sadly, it missed out on being a solid action movie, despite the high amount of action.

Allied

Robert Zemeckis’s past two films The Walk and Flight both fell massively short of the mark, with more gloss than quality storytelling. Now he’s taking on a classic genre, the wartime epic romance, and putting his own spin on it with Allied.

It’s the height of World War II and Royal Canadian Air Force officer Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) is travelling to Casablanca in French Morocco as part of a planned assassination of the German ambassador. His partner is French Resistance fighter Marianne Beausejour (Marion Cotillard). The two are to pose as a married couple for cover as they prepare for the mission, however they grow a little too close and after completing the assassination they move back to London to start a life together. A year after their marriage, Max finds out from the Special Operations Executive that Marianne may be a suspected German spy and that he is to help determine if she can be trusted. If she is found to be an enemy agent, Max must execute her by his own hand.

With what might be most closely described as the first act of Allied, we see the two meet in France and swiftly plan their pseudo-marriage and the assassination. This should initiate a spark of character development that draws us into this sweeping romantic war film - the sort of film we haven’t seen in a very long time - but what we get are stale cardboard cut-out roles that only really prepare us for a decidedly tepid film overall.

Before we know it, Max and Marianne have settled down in London and already have a baby girl. We’ve skipped a whole crucial stage of empathy-building and by the time the rumours of Marianne’s allegiance make it to Max, we couldn’t really care less about the end result because we’re not invested in their relationship. Despite all the tabloid hearsay that plagued this film’s production, there’s just no chemistry between Pitt and Cotillard.

The film continues along at a sluggish pace, and makes sure you’re aware that it sees itself as a sort of new-age Casablanca, dangling comparisons around blatantly. The same overly-syrupy filmmaking that we saw in Flight is also present here, with sweeping tracking shots and sentimental strings at every corner. There’s a lack of emotional contour to the film because of this and it all blends into one.

That being said there are some great set-pieces in Allied, particularly the scene when a German plane is shot down during the Blitz and starts to spin out of control down towards their house. As always Zemeckis uses effective and nuanced CGI to blend digital elements in the background, and overall the film looks great, if overly smooth and saccharine.

Despite these few-and-far-between moments, Allied is unfortunately not a return to form for Zemeckis. Although all his sappy directorial decisions are not as adverse to the overall film as the total lack of allure between Pitt and Cotillard and the stagnated characters that they inhabit.

Macbeth

Shakespeare has been a fixture of adaptation since the birth of cinema. Whilst there have been many attempts to modernise his works, the best adaptations have come when they make a straight adaptation (two great examples that come to mind are Oliver Parker's Othello and Ralph Fiennes Coriolanus). Australian director Justin Kurzel's latest film Macbeth follows this strong tradition.

In the closing battle of a bloody civil war in Scotland, Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) proves his loyalty to King Duncan (David Thewlis) by killing the treacherous MacDonwald (Hilton McRae). After the battle, Macbeth and his friend Banquo (Paddy Considine) come across three witches who tell Macbeth that he will be king and that Banquo's children will be kings. Macbeth is lured into killing Duncan by his wife Lady Macbeth (Marion Cotillard) so that he can become king, but only after Duncan's son Malcolm (Jack Reynor) flees to England. Once Macbeth becomes king, Duncan's closest ally Macduff (Sean Harris) begins to suspect Macbeth's involvement in the old king's death. At the same time, Macbeth is haunted by what he has done and descends into madness.

It is very hard to fault one of these adaptations on its story. There is little you can do to make the story better than what has been written. So therefore they must be judged on the performances and technical aspects. Luckily this film excels in both areas and that is largely due to the fantastic direction of Justin Kurzel.

The most important part of this film is its performances. You really need to be able to cast the right actors for the roles because people know the characters so well. Choosing Michael Fassbender was a genius move. He has the physicality to carry the battle scenes as well as the vulnerability for the madness scenes to be genuine. Marion Cotillard was good, but I felt as though she didn't have enough of a villainous attitude. Sean Harris is amazingly scary and brutal as Macduff. While both Paddy Considine and David Thewlis have rather short roles they both have a great screen presence. Elizabeth Debicki does a great job with her small role as Lady Macduff and Jack Reynor does the same. The problem that a lot of people are going to have getting into this movie is the thickness of the Scottish accents. This combined with the language of Shakespeare can make for some tough viewing.

Technically, this film is a masterpiece. The locations chosen in the Scottish Highlands are beautiful as is Bamburgh Castle on Northumberland coast. Kurzel employs a lot of frame rate experimentation with this movie as well, which gives it an almost ethereal quality. The battle sequences are all shot in super slow motion which heightens not only the tension and action, but also visceral emotion in the scenes. He also uses time lapse in a great scene when Macbeth is descending into madness, wandering around his chambers.

Even if you're not a fan or unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare this is a great entry point, despite the fact that it can be a little difficult to follow at times. It's an even better if you do like the play, but it's not at all a prerequisite.