TV REVIEW
It’s one of the few absolutes in film:
there has never been a good video
game movie. In the 23 years since
“Super Mario Bros.” was released to
resounding vitriol, not one film in
the genre has crossed the line into
even mediocre. But as “Assassin’s
Creed” approached,
it
seemed
like
it
would be the one
to break the mold.
Justin Kurzel, who
helmed
last
year’s
visually
astounding
adaptation
of
“Macbeth,”
signed
on
to
direct.
He
brought
with
him
Michael
Fassbender
(“Inglourious
Basterds”)
and
Marion
Cotillard
(“Inception”), two actors who not
only add credibility to their chosen
projects, but who have done great
work in genre films in the past. All
the pieces were in place for a great
video game movie to finally happen,
but somehow everything still went
wrong.
“Assassin’s
Creed”
opens
by
introducing
the
audience
to
its
sympathetic, likeable main character,
Fassbender’s
convicted
murderer
Callum Lynch. However, in the rush
to get to more scenes of Cotillard and
a sadly underused Jeremy Irons (“The
Lion
King”)
vomiting
exposition
everywhere, the script forgets to
give Lynch any humanity or depth
whatsoever. The audience is stuck
with an unappealing, uninteresting
character.
After
what
feels
like
an
interminable amount of time, Lynch is
finally put into the Animus,
a virtual reality machine,
to live out the memories of
his ancestors. This is what
fans of the series have been
waiting years to see. The
idea of seeing it on screen
is likely what brought the
vast majority of viewers
to the theater, and yet it
is possibly the worst part
of the whole ordeal. To be sure, the
scenes in the present are boring and
far too long, but at least they were
competently made. The scenes in
15th century Barcelona, a city which
was apparently constantly cloaked in
a CGI sandstorm, are so poorly put
together that it’s mind-boggling.
Most of these scenes are made
up of a series of action sequences in
order to give the plot some illusion of
momentum. To be fair, there is some
fantastic stunt work on display here,
but it’s ruined by some of the most
atrocious editing of the year. As it
turns out, “Assassin’s Creed” works
best when looked at as a cautionary
tale about the importance of editing.
The constant cutting back and forth
between something that might be
considered
exciting
in
the
past
and Callum miming his ancestor’s
actions in the present results in
some seriously laughable imagery.
Even when the film stays in one time
period for more than three seconds, it
still cuts between shots and locations
so often that there’s no tension, no
intensity, no excitement. There’s just
incomprehensible “action shot” after
incomprehensible “action shot” and
an Academy Award-nominated actor
miming said action shots. It would be
utterly hilarious if it wasn’t so damn
infuriating.
Finally, after another hour of
overwrought exposition scenes and
mystifyingly subpar action scenes,
“Assassin’s Creed” ends with a rushed
climax and resolution that bait a
sequel that, God willing, will never
see the light of day. It’s awful, but by
that point, it’s to be expected. This
was supposed to be the film to finally
change the tide of junky video game
movies. Instead, it became a part of
the epidemic itself, perhaps the final
nail in the coffin for video game fans
who dare to hope.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Friday, January 6, 2017 — 5
JEREMIAH VANDERHELM
Daily Arts Writer
“Assassin’s Creed” an unmitigated mess
Video game adaptation fails to meet even the slightest standards of success
Jacqueline Kennedy’s pink Chanel
suit and pillbox hat may be the most
famous outfit in recent history. It’s
almost like the Coke logo or Marilyn
Monroe’s face — a quintessentially
American image burned into collective
memory.
Like
most
symbols
of
classic
Americana,
it
was
gruesomely
distorted. When her
husband was shot,
Jackie
refused
to
clean the blood off
her
perfect
pink
suit, and reportedly
regretted
washing
it off her face and
hands. “I want them
to see what they’ve done to Jack,” she
said.
This is where “Jackie” begins.
Directed by Pablo Larraín (“Neruda”)
and starring Natalie Portman (“A
Tale of Love and Darkness”), the film
is an exploration of the First Lady’s
reaction and response to her husband’s
assassination. “Jackie” is the latest
in the recent trend of biopics such as
“The Social Network,” “Lincoln” or
“The Wolf of Wall Street” that turn
historical
figures
into
traditional
fictional characters instead of merely
pointing to the significant moments of
their lives.
There are two Jacqueline Kennedys
in “Jackie.” There’s the poised and regal
woman who painstakingly redecorated
the White House and was a style icon
to millions. And then there’s the Jackie
behind the camera, who speaks in a
register about an octave lower than
the first: tough, determined and made
of absolute steel. It’s the second Jackie
the audience sees for a majority of the
film. We follow her as she arranges
the funeral and moves out of the
White House, all while confronting
the hungry press, the all-
too-eager Lyndon Johnson
and the task of determining
how her husband will be
remembered.
The film is a deeply
personal one. Tight close-
up shots and shaky camera
work
dominate
as
the
audience is given entry into
some of the most intimate
moments
of
Jackie’s
life. This allows Natalie
Portman’s performance to shine as it
takes center stage, but unfortunately
relegates all the other characters
and conflicts to the background. The
movie is hyper-focused on Jackie, both
figuratively in terms of its story, and
literally. She is in every scene, and the
camera follows her closely. The effect
is unsettling, but maybe not in the way
the filmmakers intended.
“Jackie” was clearly meant to be
an intensely affecting film. We’re
thrown into the psychology of this
very interesting person in order to
see the world the way she saw it
during that awful week following the
assassination. All of the elements are
technically in place for the audience
to be fully absorbed and ready to
empathize with Jackie. The score
by Mica Levi (“Under the Skin”) is
hypnotic, Portman’s performance is
subtle but powerful, and the camera
work is intimate, to say the least. And
yet, none of this comes together.
The story just isn’t quite functional,
meaning that none of the rules of
drama that would make it actually
resonate are put into place. None
of the choices the character makes
are contingent on each other. Plot
elements just sort of happen, with no
build or release of tension. Instead of
being a story built on cause and effect,
it’s a story based off of the principle
of “and now this is happening.” And
that’s just no way to invest viewers in a
narrative. It doesn’t matter how pretty
the score or how perfect Portman’s
accent. It also doesn’t matter that most
of the plot points of the film happened
in real life. We need actual character
motivation
and
good
dramatic
storytelling to register emotionally
what is happening.
“Jackie” looks great. Its period
setting is visually perfect, the score is
unnerving, it’s filmed in a seemingly
artful way and the acting is high
quality. But underneath the glossy
surface, it’s a hollow shell of a story.
The real Jacqueline Kennedy, both the
public and private versions, deserved
far better than this. She too had a
pretty surface that looked nice on
camera. Unlike her biopic, however,
the real Kennedy had depth, intention
and
layers.
For
this,
Jacqueline
Kennedy’s legacy will endure. “Jackie”
will be lucky if it makes it past the next
Oscar season.
TV REVIEW
“Sherlock” mostly works
After a hiatus that lasted long
enough for some “Sherlock”
fans to graduate high school
and forget about the show, the
modern mystery solver is back.
The
premiere
of
the long awaited
Season 4, “The Six
Thatchers,” began
with
the
funny
self-proclaimed
“sociopath” tweet-
ing on his phone
despite
being
in
the middle of a
Really
Important
Secret
Meeting,
lulling viewers into
a relaxed amuse-
ment, tinged with anticipation.
This didn’t last long: the plot
twist of the final 20 minutes
left me — and most of Tum-
blr fandom, where many of the
show’s fans reside — alternating
between a confused daze and
suspicions that there might be
genius somewhere in it. I happen
to lean towards the former.
The arc of the mystery in “The
Six
Thatchers”
falls
slightly
short, deriving more of its ener-
gy from the action than from a
clever framework of the case and
the clue-by-clue sleuthing, one of
the main draws of the first two
seasons of the show. Sherlock
(Benedict Cumberbatch, “The
Imitation Game”) first solves a
mysterious death that Watson
(Martin Freeman, “The Hob-
bit: The Desolation of Smaug”)
later blogs about, of course, but
one of the clues from that case
provides the link to the next —
which has something to do with
Mary (Amanda Abbington, “Mr.
Selfridge”), Watson’s wife. Once
again, we are plunged into con-
fusion about whether to trust
Mary, who runs away across the
world, purportedly to protect her
husband and daughter from her
previous identity and the dangers
that come with it.
Of course, Sherlock (and Wat-
son) find her — but so does Mary’s
would-be assassin, a previous co-
worker in her line of secret agent
work. While he is unsuccessful
in his mission there, in the end
of the episode there is a shock-
ing death; but it feels, somehow,
ungenuine. Either
a
major
charac-
ter has just been
killed off in a very
hasty way, or in the
next two episodes
there’s going to be
some
miraculous
return from death
— again. One would
hope that the plot
maneuver
would
only be employed
once, though there
are also allusions to another vil-
lain who was killed in Season
3 maybe making a return. The
hints read neither as red herrings
nor feasible plot points, making
for a disjointed episode.
Throughout “The Six Thatch-
ers,” there are moments of humor:
Sherlock trying to explain things
to a baby, Sherlock outsmart-
ing people and being rude about
it without meaning to, Sherlock
choosing Mary and a dog over
Watson as a sleuthing partner
for an expedition, and of course
the bitter banter between Sher-
lock and his brother. But though
those feel familiar and comfort-
ing, they’re not enough to carry
the episode. The show itself is a
complex modern mystery, with
weaving and dodging parts; the
pacing — and the protagonist —
can make you feel foolish if you
can’t keep up. But despite that,
even if the confusing elements
were
confusing
intentionally,
the overall episode doesn’t quite
live up to the hype that a three-
year hiatus inevitably creates.
Hopefully the next episode
reconciles Sherlock and Watson,
because while conflict makes for
good TV, shots of Benedict Cum-
berbatch being sad and alone
don’t.
B
“Sherlock”
Season 4
“The Six Thatchers”
BBC
SOPHIA KAUFMAN
Book Review Editor
ASIF BECHER
Daily Arts Writer
B-
“Jackie”
Fox Searchlight
Pictures
Michigan Theater
“Jackie” baits in its beauty and mediocrity
Pablo Larraín’s visually arresting drama is a sleek but safe offering
COURTESY OF 20TH CENTURY FOX
Shame. Shame. Shame.
COURTESY OF FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES
So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.
COURTESY OF BBC
Ay gyal you a bad ting.
D-
“Assassin’s Creed”
20th Century Fox
Rave, Quality
PEOPLE IN SCHOOL TELL ME, ALWAYS
IN THE BARBERSHOP, CHIEF KINERY
AIN’T ABOUT THIS, CHIEF KINERY
AIN’T ABOUT THAT, MY BOY AN
EDITOR ON MAYNARD AND THEM,
HE — HE SAY THAT GIRL DON’T BE
PUTTING IN NO WORK. SHUT UP.
Y’ALL DON’T KNOW NOTHING. ALL
Y’ALL TALK ABOUT CHIEF KINERY
NO HITTA CHIEF KINERY AIN’T THIS
CHIEF KINERY A FAKE. SHUT UP. Y’ALL
DON’T LIVE WITH THAT GIRL, Y’ALL
KNOW THAT GIRL GOT CAUGHT
SUCCEEDING AT NBC AND THAT GIRL
BEEN SOARING SINCE I DUNNO WHEN!
WRITERS STOP PLAYIN’ HER LIKE THAT.
THEM WRITERS SAVAGES OUT THERE
IF I CATCH ANOTHER ONE TALKING
SWEET ABOUT CHIEF KINERY I’M
HIRING LAWYERS! I’M NOT PLAYING
NO MORE.
Interested in applying to Daily Arts? E-mail
us at npzak@umich.edu or anay@umich.edu
for an application and a copy of Chief Keef’s
discography.