"Assassin's Creed" was not a good movie. But, I loved it. The acting was wonderful, the way it was shot was amazing, but the writing falls flat. Perhaps it sticks too close to the games, to where those who are uninitiated can't tell what's going on. I don't know, I never played the games. The characters aren't the strongest, and the plot is muddled a little. But does it deserve hate? Does it deserve to be reviled and filed away as another "bad video game film"?

Critically, we seem to have an expectation that every film must be a masterpiece. If the film is not good, it is bad. Nothing can be mediocre. Nothing is just good enough. We forget that the primary focus of film is to have an experience, and most times that experience to provide an enjoyable few hours of time that we can waste away.

Film can make you think, explore, and push boundaries, but that is not exactly what most people go out to see movies for. Underworld doesn't exist to make you explore the dual nature of man, it exists to entertain. And that's alright.

We should take critical eyes to our films, we should examine how they're built and what they say, but should we really be so focused on if it is good or not? Should we focus more on if it's intent is reached or not?