'The Adventures of Tintin' Movie Review (2011)
It's an adventure alright, but I didn't care how it ended up
Photo: Paramount Pictures
After a tiresome four-minute credit sequence Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin begins with a perfect example of just exactly what kind of film it's going to be, a film for the fans of the graphic novels from which it's based.
The first bit of imagery after the title sequence is that of original "Tintin" author and artist Georges Prosper Remi, or Herge as he's best known, rendered in full CGI and painting the titular Tintin (voiced by Jamie Bell) just moments before the plot begins to unfold. I only know this was Herge because I looked up a photo of him when I got home. I haven't read a single page of the "Tintin" graphic novels and had no idea who the character was or what he was about before walking in. I was at a clear disadvantage.
The cast includes Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Daniel Craig, Toby Jones, Mackenzie Crook, Gad Elmaleh, Cary Elwes, Tony Curran and Daniel Mays. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"The Adventures of Tintin" is a DreamWorks Pictures / Sony Pictures release, directed by Steven Spielberg and is rated PG for adventure action violence, some drunkenness and brief smoking. The running time is 1 hour 41 minutes.
The story is easy enough to follow and Spielberg injects all the action and adventure we've come to enjoy from the filmmaker, particularly his similarly themed Indiana Jones features. The only problem here is that I was never able to care about what was going on. A connection to the characters is never made as much as the audience is simply thrust into the story and sent off on a wild goose chase of a mystery that appears to have been concocted simply out of the need to tell a story, rather than as a natural progression of events.
Within minutes after this introduction, Tintin stumbles upon the model of the "Unicorn," pays for it and is promptly accosted by a pair of blokes, one suggesting he get rid of it the other suggesting he sell it to him. Wait. What? Who are these people? I just got here, why are you beating me over the head with villains and sinister plots? Who is the kid with the boat again? Maybe we'll learn more about him later… maybe not…
Spielberg treats the material as if we are already familiar with the character and have an intimate knowledge of his quirks and characteristics. As someone that has never read the novels from which Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish adapted the script all I can assume at this moment in the film is Tintin must collect tons of model ships and this is the piece he needed to complete his collection. Once back at his apartment we learn that isn't true and, in fact, it appears he collects typewriters. But considering the hubbub over his latest purchase he's now keenly interested to the point it consumes him and the rest of the film.
The Adventures of Tintin simply bounces from one location to the next revealing a few new clues in relation to the mystery at the center of the plot, but the characters are so one note it's impossible to care about the story or the ultimate outcome because you don't care about the characters involved. It doesn't help, either, that they are all rendered in emotionless CGI. Uncanny valley or not, there is always something off with this kind of motion capture animation and Tintin is no different.
This isn't to take away from the film's overall design and presentation. Outside of the distraction I found in the characters' faces, the animation is actually quite impressive as is John Williams' bouncy score and the action sequences, particularly a one-shot above the streets of Baghar that runs for nearly two-and-a-half-minutes without a single cut. It plays like a Universal Studios theme park attraction and is the true standout moment in the film as little else manages to offer up nearly as much excitement.
From a supporting character perspective, comedy relief is meant to be found in the drunken Captain Haddock (voiced by Andy Serkis) who relies on the continuous use of such phrases as "blistering barnacles" and "pilfering parasites" or any such variation of the two. It got to a point I began cringing each time he said it and during that previously mentioned one-shot I think he rattles off at least five such phrases. And Daniel Craig is quite spindly and sinister as the film's lead villain, but I really don't see what makes him so evil outside of the fact he just doesn't know how to ask for things nicely.
But as I've been saying the whole time, the biggest issue is with the fact the characters are entirely unfamiliar and remain so throughout. Motivations and intentions are clear, but a greater understanding of these characters can't be found. Instead of wasting four minutes on a meaningless credit sequence to open the film, perhaps Spielberg could have used that time with a sequence such as the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark to give us greater insight into what kind of life Tintin leads and his personality rather than placing all the emphasis on the adventure portion. A little character goes a long way, I'm not asking for much.
Tintin, as portrayed here, is just a straight-laced young investigator with a nose for trouble, which is fine, but it's not very interesting. While Tintin brings to life some great moments of action, it all becomes meaningless noise amidst a story and a mystery I never cared about or would care to revisit. Should a sequel be made something will have to be done to make Tintin more engaging rather than telling us he's excited by a mystery and therefore we should be too.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 22 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Agree with this review Brad, well written…
Regards from Indonesia
You are the worst film blogger ever
He's a critic, not a blogger. Have you even seen this movie.
HAHAHA, he's not a critic. If he were, he would try to care how it would end up.
What exactly do you mean by "how it would end up". Its pretty easy to make a happy ending but Brad cannot talk about it unless he wants to spoil it. If he spoils it, then nobody wants to read his review because they don't want to know what happens.
Not necessarily. It's not a critic's job to fake interest in a movie they deem to be bad. I disagree with Brad. I liked Tintin. However, as long as he can justify his position, his opinion as valid as anyone else's.
Succinct and to the point, which I give credit for. But that's the kinda remarks that needs a bit of elaboration.
I considered writing a pithy "worst film blog commentator ever", but I don't want to be rude for the sake of a witty retort.
if this is best for fans of the comics then FAAACCKKK YEAAAHHHH IM PUMPEDDD
And I expect you will like it, there were people that were clearly fans in my screening that were laughing during moments when I was unsure what they were laughing at. It is certainly a movie for the familiar.
this sounds literally identical to the style of the graphic novels so this should be good for people like me who love those
I saw the movie last night at a midnight screening (got to see it in 3D for the price of 2D as well!) but I like you never read a single page of Tintin ski knew very little about him. I like you was expecting a little more character growth but they seemed to be on a rush to get into the adventure which was a shame. That being said I did enjoy it because it had a big Indiana Jones feel and a bit of a throw back feel too. Reminded me a lot of simple films from my childhood with a decent amount of dark parts thrown in and I said the exact same thing to the person I was with that one shot chase felt like a ride. But I wanted to say that maybe how this was made was how tintin was written, maybe his stories just got right to the point of it all or maybe they had character development? We don't know but after seeing this movie I'm going to check out the books and see for myself. I enjoyed the film a bit more than you but I see and understand the problems you had with the film and maybe for the next one (that's going to be directed by Peter Jackson) will be better in development. Keep up the great work!
One last thing , the opening credits (shades of "catch me if you can") was a sum up of one of the books someone told me so I think that's where they were going with it.
I think that's being a skoosh harsh on it, but whatever.
I really enjoyed it. I did feel that the first twenty minutes or so were a bit uneven (I didn't like or dislike the title sequence but it just seemed very similar to 'Catch Me if You Can') as the wheels were put in motion, but after that it was quite pacy I thought.
I've never seen or read any other TinTin material though, so a comparison to the source was something I couldn't do. But I found it quite entertaining.
Rather harsh I feel, I don't necessarily agree with your appraisal of the characters. Tintin is thin, I do agree with and has no character development which i found to be deliberate on the part of Wright/Moffat/Cornish's script (which you never mention). Greater development is given to Haddock, if anything he's the main character in it and I found his attempt to try and console himself with endless drinking to be funny and a sign of who he was, character wise.
I'm not sure I get your claim about it being for the fans, surely you would need to read the comics to even make that claim?
Whether you went into the film with an attitude of "impress me" I'm not sure but it sounds from the review that this was film was going to have to be mightily impressive to gain your interest. Regardless, i enjoyed it and I hope others can find entertainment in it too.
Hard to continue reading this after the first line described the opening credit sequence as 'tedious' when it was littered with all kinds of visual gags/references from the comics. In any case, as the lead character of the stories Tintin is pretty much the 'blank page' upon which all the other characters are reflected so his characterisation in the movie is spot on. Have you even read any of the albums?
Did you read the review? Don't ask questions that are answered in the first paragraph and comment on the first sentence when I expand on that idea later in the review.
let me be clear from the beginning – i love your site and your writing.
but with this review clearly disagree.
the opening title is not tedious – it is reminiscent of the catch me if you can with a load of tintin visual references of things that are a recurring themes in the various novels.( i didnt know this but looked it up) but by no means was it tedious infact it was quite entertaining to watch this clearly 2-d opening to a 3D ( yeah i saw it in 3D) movie. the 3D is well executed as well and i wouldn't go as far as calling it avatar level but its quite good. its not in-your-face but its more enveloping.
all through your review it seems you wrote it while you were watching the movie especially the opening sequence about how various characters are introduced and as someone who has no reference to the tintin source material you felt it was hard to "keep up" ? i myself am unfamiliar with the tintin source material and i managed to laugh at all the right places and followed the story and plot lines all through the movie.
also the fact you didn't find Andy serkis's haddock funny beats me – i found him entirely hilarious.
did you perhaps watch war horse before this and it turned you completely off of Spielberg? i really enjoyed the movie and find this review to be a little off..
again – i don't mean disrespect its your opinion and i wanted to share mine.
First off, don't ever feel you have to apologize for having a different opinion. I totally respect a differing opinion and appreciate you explaining where your opinion differs from mine, after all, my review is merely a starting point for conversation… at least that's how I see it.
As for most of your comments we clearly just saw it differently, but I will say that it wasn't that I had a hard time keeping up with the story. In fact there's nothing difficult about the story at all. I had a hard time caring about the story or understanding why I should care since Spielberg didn't spend any time developing the characters as much as he just kicked things off and went from there. I wouldn't have minded this so much had the characters evolved, but outside of the exploration of the villain, the other characters are the same as when we first meet them.
Oh, and no, I saw War Horse a way before seeing Tintin.
Thanks for your comment!
Another well-written review, Brad.
TinTin has been released Internationally prior to the US and I think most of (international) moviegoers felt the same way (a score of C/C+). It just doesn't translate well to the screen.
Still wanna see this, since you said it'll please the ones who've read the book before…After all, C+ isn't that horrible.
Tintin was french to begin with. And it reflects on the release dates; Europe first and Quebec (Canada) after. I saw the movie yesterday, and I was curious about the reception in the States. Because the Tintin culture is so present in the French world that even if one doesn't like in particular the style (as me), they get the jokes and expression. Like, for example you say about "blistering barnacles" from Haddock. Well it's "1000 tonnerres de brestre!" in French and it's so used in the culture here we use it in the everyday language. But thanks for the review, I was actually curious to see how the stats would had react about it.
I'm a big fan of the comics, and I must say I was a little underwhelmed. I didn't like the changes made to the story, even if I can understand the logic behind them. Touching on your point about character development, Brad, I think they should've chosen one of the earlier comics for the first movie, where Tintin hasn't yet met Haddock or the detectives. Would've certainly been a better introduction for American audiences.
Visually they got it spot on. On the whole it was nice to revisit the characters (I wish they didn't completely skip Prof. Calculus though), and I think there're much better stories to be told so I'm excited to see what Jackson does with the sequel. Unlike Spielberg, he grew up reading the comics, I think he'd manage to capture some of the finer subtleties, if at all they can be translated to the screen.
I liked it. I think this review is harsh. C+? Dang, Brad! I also loved the opening credits. I would give it a solid B.