So, I've only watched the game Assassins Creed played, and I haven't seen the movie. But I'm wearing this pretty owning hoodie inspired by the look of the main character. Makes me look a little more broad shouldered and narrow waisted, which is good I think.
So, since I haven't seen the movie I've decided I'll read the review of the movie by an actual film critic, watch the movie, and then critique the critic. I've done this before, but not in video format.
Check out some of the cool merch associated with the movie in the links below and definitely get this hoodie! Seriously. It's super comfortable. I feel like I could sleep in it, and I already have slept in it. It's like getting a nice gentle hug that's so warm and comfy you don't notice the sharp blade sliding between your ribs and into your heart.
I'll put up a link to the Guardian article and it's author Wendy Ide, so you can read it yourself. I'll give a bit of a disclaimer: I don't know why critics even exist. They are false participants. They didn't make the movie, write the script, or act in the film and somehow they think they are qualified to tell you what you should or should not enjoy.
Okay, into the review of the review.
First off the article starts off with the directors previous film adaptation MacBeth (a film I was squealing to see). While I can get behind showing a directors previous works, I feel this is a mixed bag that's kind of a disservice. I mean, yeah, warn people off of Uwe Boll movies since that guy has a proven track record. But comparing Mac Beth to the potential of Assassins Creed seems like trying to compare Schindler's List to E.T. Both by an acclaimed director, but worlds apart in terms of almost everything cinematic.
Then the article goes into whining about the logical leaps the movie takes. I know the premise of the movie from the game and trailer, but for those who don't, this seems like a trash piece. This movie might indeed be terrible, but if you have a problem with the story of the film, start with the story as you understand it. Then include WHY you didn't buy it. A movie is all about the suspension of disbelief, but sometimes you have to give it the benefit of the doubt; maybe the writer knew something you didn't and you just thought it was b.s. Like the movie Novocaine with Steve Martin. That movie was written by a dentist, but a lot of critics thought the movie was full of shit because they thought ripping someones teeth out and swapping them with your own was an impossible way to fake your death. I know that the film concept revolves around the concept that memory is saved in our DNA...and that's a theory that actual geneticists and psychologists have put forward to explain why we sometimes have irrational fears that would actually protect us in the wild...like a fear of snakes. A fear of snakes when you live where there is no snake population is an irrational fear, but what if way back in your ancestry your monkey grandparents survived due to a fear of snakes that came from experience?
Then the article goes into mentioning the plot, but the bias is already established. Maybe the director and screenwriter didn't communicate this idea effectively, or maybe they did but this Wendy critic didn't know enough about the subject to believe it.
Then they just kind of end the article saying it was boring. You know what? I liked the movie Odd Thomas, but I HATED it, too. Know why? Because that movie was based on a book I loved, and as an book adaptation it sucks. But as it's own contained story in a movie it was actually kind of fun. I would recommend it to people that have never read the book, and I would tell people that have read the book to either pretend they never read it or see something else.
Because as a critic you should try to pay attention to what people would WANT to see, not what you think they should see.
But that's just me.
Hey fun fact! Did you know that the original assassins were called "assassins" because of pot? Yeah! That's right. Because the Hashshashin is a name used to refer to the medieval Nizari Ismailis, who were looked at by the neighboring peoples as a bunch of drug addled twits. In reality they are described as a secret order led by a mysterious "Old Man of the Mountain", they were an Islamic sect that formed in the late 11th century from a split within Ismailism – itself a branch of Shia Islam.
Why "Failed Daily"?
Because I fail to update daily.