web
counter
 

Tintin Review: A Rip-Roaring Adventure In The Uncanny Valley

By Joanna Robinson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (40)



Tintin.jpg

It may seem laughable to say this about a director of his fame and stature, but director Steven Spielberg kind of needed a win with this one. His two huge TV projects (“Falling Skies” and “Terra Nova”) fizzled this year. And, believe it or not, it’s been six years since he made a good movie (Munich) and nine since he made a great one (Minority Report). But, with his first foray into the world of animation, Spielberg has a solid win. And what makes it a win, despite its flaws, is the amount of heart both Spielberg and his collaborators poured into it. The intrepid Belgian comic book figure, Tintin, and his canine sidekick Snowy have been adventuring for nearly a century now and, as such, have wormed their way into the hearts of millions. The creative team behind the film are no exception. Among Tintin’s longtime fans are producer (but, really, co-director) Peter Jackson, the talented artists at Weta Workshop, and the brilliant screenwriting duo Steven Moffat (“Sherlock,” “Doctor Who”) and Edgar Wright (Shaun Of The Dead, Hot Fuzz). Their love, a childish and sincere one, is evident with every faithful line of dialogue and each painstakingly rendered hair on Snowy’s body. But does that love translate into something both longtime Tintin fans and newcomers can enjoy? Great snakes, it does.

When he first started writing “The Adventures of Tintin in 1929, author Hergé had children in mind. And what better director to capture the wonder and excitement of a childhood love than Steven Spielberg? (Look what he did for dinosaurs.) But what makes Tintin so universally beloved by readers of all ages is exactly what makes him a tricky lead character on screen. For those of you unfamiliar with the comics, Tintin is a boy reporter and amateur sleuth who, along with his dog and a motley crew of friends, gets involved in high-stakes adventures and madcap hijinks all around the globe. Tintin is of an indeterminate age (boyishly young, yet lives alone and is gainfully employed), has blandly likable features, an affable demeanor and is unfailingly earnest. To be honest, the most exciting thing about him is his magnificent quiff. So while a blank slate character is perfect for comic book adventures, allowing any reader to imagine him or herself in Tintin’s place, it makes for a rather ho-hum character. Imagine if Orlando Bloom’s Will Turner were the actual focus of that first Pirates of The Caribbean movie. Now imagine him even more vanilla. And no one is really to blame for Tintin’s lack of luster, not the animators and certainly not the very capable Jamie Bell. But with the mid-twentieth century derring-do of the plot bringing to mind both Indiana Jones and The Mummy (the first, fun one), the audience might find themselves longing for Harrison Ford’s wry humor or Brendan Fraser’s anti-heroics.

But the trouble with Tintin doesn’t last too long because a third of the way into the plot he meets his own Captain Jack Sparrow in the form of Captain Archibald Haddock, played with all the brilliance and nuance we’ve come to expect from Andy Serkis. This is Serkis’s second masterful motion capture performance of the year (the first being Caeser in The Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes a.k.a. the only reason to watch The Rise of The Planet Of The Apes). Frankly, there’s really no point in attempting a motion capture film without him. You hear me, James Cameron? Serkis brings wit and pathos to the drunken, bombastic sea captain and hogs all the best laughs. And while I missed Haddock’s famously blue dialogue, my inner child clapped with glee at every “Blistering barnacle!” Serkis certainly isn’t the only talented voice in the crew, the often heroic Daniel Craig obviously took great delight in every villainous sneer. And while Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are largely wasted as the bumbling detectives Thompson and Thomson, audiences might enjoy trying to tell them apart. Which is half the fun of those characters anyway. Once Serkis is aboard, the nimbly plotted story roars ahead at full speed, whisking our heroes halfway across the world, stranding them on land and sea, but never falling prey to unnecessary complications or convolutions. Moffat and Wright, weaving their plot from three of the Tintin books, also neatly side-stepped any of the problematic and archaic depictions of other races that make the Hergé’s classics a little unpalatable for modern audiences.

But once the pace reaches breakneck speeds, and Spielberg unleashes one meticulously choreographed action sequence after the next, the movie positively shines. For years Spielberg intended to make a live action version of Tintin and while there are certainly some Uncanny Valley issues with this film (particularly with Tintin and the odd, off-putting sheen of his rendered skin), the motion capture technique allowed Spielberg to fully embrace the whiz bang feel of the comics. There is one particularly long chase sequence down the twisted, dusty roads of an African hillside town that is breathtaking. Heroes, dog, falcon, villains and vehicles are all a-whirl in a dizzying, but never disorienting descent. Fans of the comic books will also be delighted by the trademark background antics and the perfect depiction of Snowy, who, though fully digital, feels as real as any cinema pup. In fact, Spielberg gets so much right, it’s hard to believe this is his first crack. But it won’t be his, or at least Tintin’s, last adventure. The film ends with an obvious nod to a sequel (as does Hergé’s book) and with Peter Jackson slated to direct, I can’t wait to see what fine mess they get into next.

tumblr_lkyogt1xDZ1qj8x3ko1_500.jpg









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol Review: Smashing Through The Boundaries, Lunacy Has Found Me | The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo Review: Skin Deep









Comments

I used to check out Tintin comics at the library when I was younger. I didn't understand a bloody thing that was going on, but I just adored flipping through the large floppy magazine-like comics, learning different kinds of slang, etc. That's really why Tintin has a special place in my heart. I'm glad that this was a decent win for Spielberg as well.

Posted by: duckandcover at December 22, 2011 2:06 AM

You had me at Moffat/Wright.

And I'm so happy to see Jamie Bell getting to work on a good project. I've loved him ever since Billy Elliot. He's a talented actor with so much potential. Next time, I hope he gets a good, meaty role where we get to see his face.

Posted by: Jelinas at December 22, 2011 2:51 AM

Paramount Pictures and Columbia Pictures Present a 3D Motion Capture Film The Adventures of Tintin directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by Steven Moffat and Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish. Starring Jamie Bell as Tintin, the intrepid young reporter whose relentless pursuit of a good story thrusts him into a world of high adventure, and Daniel Craig as the nefarious Red Rackham.

Posted by: Watch films at December 22, 2011 3:45 AM

I saw this movie about a month ago (apparently it started earlier in Europe) and was thrilled. I had no harder time identifying with movie-Tintin than I had with comic-Tintin twenty years ago. Great fun, can´t wait for the sequel.
Technically, it was just stupendous. No uncanny valley to be found as far as I´m concerned, beautiful textures and animation.
The only problem I had with it was that a 2D showing was nowhere to be found in my city. Every now and then I took off my glasses to see the vivid bright colours and begrudgingly put them back on to return to the lacklustre world of murky 3D.

Posted by: Qualtinger at December 22, 2011 4:14 AM

I agree with Qualtinger. I didn't feel like there was any uncanny valley shenanigans going on either. Apart from Tintin, most of the characters were a bit too cartoonish for it to feel weird. Although my female friends did say that one thing was confusing: "I had to come to terms with the fact that Tintin was kind of hot, and realized 'Yeah, I'd probably fuck Tintin.'"

The problem with living in Paris (I saw it a month or so ago as well) is that if a movie has a 3D option, it's nearly impossible to find it in VO (version originale) in 2D. They just don't bother. And I hate 3D.

Posted by: Munkymack at December 22, 2011 5:14 AM

Clearly I am missing something in my upwardly-mobile African-American upbringing, because I really don't get why everyone seems to have such a hard-on for all this Tintin stuff.

Posted by: Jerry at December 22, 2011 5:51 AM

So did you see it and didn´t like it, or are you just trolling, Jerry?

Posted by: Qualtinger at December 22, 2011 6:05 AM

Joanna does some damn good reviews even if she is the worst writer on this site.

Calm down, I'm joking!

With the talent involved in this movie, it's a gottasee.

Posted by: snapnhiss at December 22, 2011 6:51 AM

Tintin always was a distant second to Asterix for me, not bad but always too bland. I'll be seeing this one eventually, though.

Nice to see that Gollum hasn't lost his mo-cap touch..

Posted by: lordhelmet at December 22, 2011 6:54 AM

I really liked it when I saw it a while back, and really liked it. And add me to the list of people who say there was no uncanny valley in the movie.

Should say that it wasn't just Wright and Moffat that wrote the script, Joe Cornish (Attack the block) did too, and considering that Moffat left fairly early on to be head writer for Doctor Who, I don't know how much of Moffat's touch is still in the script( besides that one time when Haddock ashouts "Geronimo")

Posted by: cockroach at December 22, 2011 6:55 AM

Andy Serkis is crafting the template for a new generation of actors.
When all your acting is motion captured ("mocapped","capped"?), you needn't have hit the genetic lottery at birth; John Barrymore is actually Joe Sixpack when he's at home.

No part is out of reach- one day you're an ape, then the urZiggy Stardust (I don't know why Tintin strikes me like that, he just does) and next week, Scarlett O'Hara.

I have it on good authority that the Kardashians are really a beta test of an Industrial Light & Magic/Honda collaboration to precisely map the uncanny valley.
Our soon to be robot overlords will be merciless but have great asses.

Posted by: clocker at December 22, 2011 8:22 AM

@Qualtinger: Because people with opinions that differ from yours MUST be trolling, amiright? I honestly thought this was gonna be an gag review as soon as I read "Rip-Roaring". Having said that, I might now check this out on Netflix at some point in the future after this review.

Posted by: Socraz6 at December 22, 2011 10:40 AM

I was OBSESSED with Tintin growing up. I had all the books, and read them over and over again (antiquated racism be damned!). I can't wait to see this movie, uncanny valley or no, and I'm thrilled to hear that Steven Spielberg hasn't raped another one of my childhood memories, but instead has lovingly stroked its cheek. Probably only because George Lucas wasn't involved.

As Snowy would say, "wooah wooah!" (Translation: "to the theater!")

Posted by: AnnArrogance at December 22, 2011 10:56 AM

#1) Sorry, but I can't see the movie in any other language but French.

#2) it's Milou, NOT "Snowy".

#3) Jerry, I don't find it odd that you don't get it, since Tintin is, at its roots, horribly racist/colonialist.

Posted by: Estelle at December 22, 2011 12:08 PM

My kid was super excited to see this, so I took him on opening day. The thing is TWO HOURS LONG. What surprised me, though, is that the kid (who's six) sat through it with no problem, while I became whiny and wiggly. I found it to be painfully long and underwhelming. I also was not a fan of the moment when *SPOILER* the captain belched into the gas tank of the airplane when it ran out of gas. *END SPOILER*

I just kept thinking, man, this was fun when Harrison Ford did it 30 years ago.

And I LOVE LOVE LOVE Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, and Egar Wright, so I was predisposed to like this film, but I just couldn't.

Posted by: idgiepug at December 22, 2011 12:29 PM

I want to seethis movie. I remember the comics (and a brief look at an animated series based on them) very fondly indeed.

Posted by: The Wanderer at December 22, 2011 12:49 PM

Pajiba Overlords, come on. Don't make me do this:

Winnow (win·now /ˈwɪnoʊ/) verb (used with object)
1. to free (grain) from the lighter particles of chaff, dirt, etc., especially by throwing it into the air and allowing the wind or a forced current of air to blow away impurities.

Or alternately, 5. to separate or distinguish (valuable from worthless parts) (sometimes followed by out ): to winnow falsehood from truth.

Please, spend some time or money on editing. I'm not being a dick for the sake of dickishness. I love this site. It's an oasis of literacy in the cultural desert that is the internet - and I am not being snarky in the least. I chide because I care.

[Well where the sh*t did I get that expression, I wonder. Noted and corrected.--JR]

Posted by: marya at December 22, 2011 1:08 PM

(by the way, +800 points to Joanna for the use of the word quiff; -25 points for the winnow situation, resulting in a score of: I apologize for the dickishness)

Posted by: marya at December 22, 2011 1:11 PM

I agree with the -25 points for "winnow", but +800 points for "quiff". I LOVE "quiff".

Posted by: MM at December 22, 2011 2:05 PM

@Qualtinger:

No, I haven't seen it at all, nor do I intend to. I am responding to the hype-in-overdrive nature of the marketing. To this point, I have no knowledge of either the film's nor source material's significance whatsoever, so, again, I don't understand why everyone has such reverence for it.

Given Estelle's comment, I'm also unsure as to why I would want to familiarize myself with it either.

Posted by: Jerry at December 22, 2011 2:26 PM

All of these comments are fine and dandy, but I'd really like to get into the underlying themes and messages of Watch films post...

Posted by: =DocDoom1= at December 22, 2011 4:30 PM

Man, if only Pixar would do an Asterix movie...that would be the tits, to put it mildly.

Posted by: Arran at December 22, 2011 5:31 PM

"I just kept thinking, man, this was fun when Harrison Ford did it 30 years ago."

And I bet Harrison Ford thought it was AWESOME when Tintin did it 50 years before THAT.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Posted by: AnnArrogance at December 22, 2011 5:54 PM

Please, spend some time or money on editing.

Volunteering to be the nameless, faceless proofreader of these reviews. COME ON, ROWLES.

Posted by: duckandcover at December 22, 2011 9:58 PM

"#1) Sorry, but I can't see the movie in any other language but French.
#2) it's Milou, NOT "Snowy".
#3) Jerry, I don't find it odd that you don't get it, since Tintin is, at its roots, horribly racist/colonialist."

Make up your mind. Is it a timeless French language classic that an English language version ruins, or is it a horrible racist grandpa bringing down everyone's holiday cheer? I think your urge to be pretentious is clashing with your need to find offense.

Posted by: Craig at December 23, 2011 10:20 AM

Craig, sorry that you find me pretentious, but French is my first language (since that's where I'm from) and I grew up reading these comics. I never heard of an American reading them as kids. So, the fact that an American director is making these is a little surprising.

If you don't think the link below is horribly racist, then I don't know what you'd consider racist. Tintin was originally written in French in the 1930s and printed for a Belgian audience, which was full-throttle colonizing the Congo. It's not surprising to me that an African-American person would 1) never had heard of it and 2) wouldn't give a shit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/Angry_King_in_Tintin.JPG/220px-Angry_King_in_Tintin.JPG

But thanks for being super nice to me, internet stranger. Oh, and Happy Christmas!

Posted by: Estelle at December 23, 2011 10:45 AM

@Jerry

Most Americans probably don´t have much reverence for it.
It´s just that I usually don´t comment in a provocative manner on movies I know nothing about and am not interested in seeing.
As for the marketing, I would assume that the studios might want to make some money off it, since it was obviously not cheap to make.

In any case I can assure you that, unsurprisingly, none of the racism of the first few Tintin comics (which were published in the 1930s) has made it into the movie. It even seems very much at odds with the later issues of Tintin and is no more than a sad testimonial to the time it was produced in. To me, it doesn´t subtract from the quality of later Tintin comics nor from the fact that Hergé´s drawing style was a major influence for generations of comic artists to come.

Posted by: Qualtinger at December 23, 2011 1:20 PM

"Craig, sorry that you find me pretentious, but French is my first language (since that's where I'm from) and I grew up reading these comics. I never heard of an American reading them as kids. So, the fact that an American director is making these is a little surprising."

That doesn't make you pretentious. Your dramatic, "I shall NEVER see this now that it has been sullied by the filthy English tongue!" and "The dog's name is MILOU, ignorant peasants!" earned you the pretentious label.

"If you don't think the link below is horribly racist, then I don't know what you'd consider racist. Tintin was originally written in French in the 1930s and printed for a Belgian audience, which was full-throttle colonizing the Congo."

It is no longer the 1930s. No one is saying Tintin wasn't racist and horrible then. EVERYTHING was racist and horrible then. That was then. This is now. Things that were matter-of-fact back then would not fly now, and equating the current Tintin with comics from unenlightened times is more than a little silly.

Posted by: Craig at December 23, 2011 2:37 PM

As I'm sure the publishers kept a good handle on the translation, seeing as it's been translated in 50 languages I seriously doubt that the English or Americans are to blame. You're showing your own "dirty European" bias with such xenophobic and idiotic statements, native language or not. Arrogant asshole is pretty much universal in any language.

As for the source material, I'm with Jerry. I've read a couple in the past, including shorter snippets in Heavy Metal or some similar magazine, and I still don't really get what the love affair is about. The characters are kinda interesting and the stories are well written, I just can't seem to see what the fuss was ever about, other than the fact that they were released in the 30s and 40s when I guess reading material of this nature was spotty, kinda like the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew - beloved for those who grew up on it, yawn-inducing for those of us who didn't.

As for the movie, fuck me was it stupid. I walked out after the scene on the ship, where, for some reason, there's a closet with 900 glass bottles of liquor. Sitting peacefully on shelves... Shelves on a rolling, rocking ship... a scene which follows immediately upon the heals of another scene in which the ship is swaying about 30 degrees in either direction. Shelves with bottles... There's a reason liquids are carried in casks and stored in holds. And in said previous scene, sailors are sleeping so soundly in their bunks that Tin Tin can climb on them and while their sliding from bunk to bunk with the rolling ship, and even knocking more than a few out of their bunks, without waking them. Did I miss something? Were they drugged? Usually when your head hits the floor, you're gonna wake up.

We walked out after 45 minutes.

This cartoon of a movie reminded me of all the things I hated about Jackson's King Kong. Ridiculous set pieces where things are spinning and flying and people are swinging at ridiculous speeds and performing amazing and physically impossible feats of retardedness. Even in the trailer I just watched, two ships become entangled on the open sea. Two large, three masted warships get their masts tangled together and one entire ship gets lifted out of the water and into the air and swung into the other by the momentum of that. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, removing my brain and replacing it with popcorn and sawdust is another.

You know that scene in King Kong where not one, but two T-rexes are falling into a ravine, along with Kong and Jane? The one where they're swinging around on vines criss-crossing the canyon and Kong is flinging Jane around and somehow not breaking her spine? Or the scene where the one guy has giant ants crawling all over him, somehow not eating him yet, and another guy with a Tommy gun shoots them all with his eyes closed?

Think of a movie filled with that.

And thenthink of a movie where there's a mystery and crucial evidence and it takes the hero about 5 minutes to figure out what the audience already sees and his dog already knows but can't speak (even though he understands every word Tin Tin says). Frustration does not equal suspence.

Maybe it got better further into the film. I doubt it. For the record, the only instance of Uncanniness I saw was with the title character, who's face is three times wider than anyone else in the world and yet they obviously went to great pains to make him much less a charicature than the other characters in the film. There's about 3 inches too much dumb meat on either side of his head and his eyes are too far fom that edge. He looked, not to ridicule the less fortunate, like he had Down's Syndrome.

And to top it all off, The Hobbit trailer was not in attendance - the only reason I was there in the first place and the only reason I stayed as long as I did. Free movie. My daughter and I sat in just to see it, after viewing Sherlock Holmes for the second time in two days, and despite our disappointment, stayed to see if it was worth seeing. 45 minutes was all either of us could endure.

Save yourself the aggravation and see Game of Shadows instead.

Posted by: Protoguy at December 24, 2011 11:39 PM

Feh..."heels" "suspense"
I miss my spell check here in Fla.

Posted by: Protoguy at December 24, 2011 11:42 PM

You hit the nail on the head there, Protoguy, it is indeed a cartoon of a movie.

Posted by: Qualtinger at December 25, 2011 6:34 AM

I want to watch this. I really do. We grew up on Tin Tin comics, reading them in English, Spanish, French AND Portuguese because we loved them that much.

But...but the Mo-Cap. I hate that shit. Tin Tin just looks so disturbing and weird, with the dead eyes and bizarre head-shape, that I don't think I can get over it.

But maybe I'll try. And see how long I can stomach it. My record with Mo-Cap is half an hour of Beowulf before I had to turn it off.

Posted by: figgy at December 26, 2011 11:28 AM

I have to admit, that even with the mo-crap the CG is gorgeous. Especially the main villain. There is a bit of "where the hell is he looking?" going on with the eyes, a touch of 'deadness' even in the best rendered face, but overall it wasn't nearly as off-putting as anything Zemekis shat onscreen. I was in a restaurant the other day and they were showing Polar Express. I'd never seen it but man, was it horrifying. Dead eyes, ugly black holes for mouths... awful.

Everything else about the CG in Tin Tin was gorgeous. My complaint is with the action and ridiculous "stunts". It's not about suspending disbelief so much as suspending thought.

Posted by: Protoguy at December 26, 2011 4:18 PM

I've never read the source material but based on what I've heard, it sounds great. I'm sure that it is loved by so many people for good reason. Unfortunately, I saw this movie last night and I thought it was boring. The animation was beautiful. The voice work was excellent. There was lots of action, but the plot was boring. It was all about finding 3 pieces of paper and a little bit of treasure. Boring. I actually fell asleep for a few minutes and I don't think I've ever done that before in a theater.

Posted by: Alison at December 26, 2011 11:44 PM

Huzzah for Asterix!

Posted by: Ruby at December 27, 2011 2:50 AM

The animation still looks like crap, distracting from the story.

Posted by: grumpiestoldman at December 27, 2011 3:56 PM

Ok, full disclosure, I've never been 'that guy' before. I came to Pajiba expecting a similar reaction but it seems most people here enjoyed the film? It would seem I am the odd loser out. I saw it yesterday and I am still seething.
This was nothing more than a slick, attractive butchery designed to slide from one mind-numbing action set to another with no sense of tension or feeling for ANY of the characters. I was willing to let so much slide, I tried REALLY hard to like this movie. But halfway through the fifth ridiculous action sequence that never would have seen the light of day in a Herge comic, I realized all the canon stuff had been replaced with original content and it all sucked. I know that's not a very thoughtful analysis but I'm getting tl;dr already here.
I understand 'editing for film' and 'rearranging content for efficiency' but what's the point of paying 'homage' to something if you are going to completely eviscerate the plot, disregard the story-telling style, the characters and anything resembling the heart that made Tintin so wonderful.

This was a stupid, mind-numbing action film with Tintin's face smeared on it in an attempt to cash in on my childhood nostalgia. It certainly isn't 'introducing a new generation of youngesters' to the magic of Herge because they'll be awfully disappointed when all they get for action is a few pot shots and a bonk on the head followed by an ACTUAL STORY.

Posted by: alice88wa at December 28, 2011 1:49 PM

I was very pleased to find this web-site.

Posted by: Avril Belfiore at January 1, 2012 4:11 AM

no uncanny valley. beuatiful visuals, stunning action sequences.

BORING PLOT! Tintin's lack of character meant that the movie was a LotR-style series of action sequences with very tenuous conective threads between them, improbably scripted so that each neatly took place in an entirely different, visually magnificent setting. but i left feeling empty.

also, the movie seemed a testatment to filmmakers not making decisions. what age was this supposed to appeal to? because i didn't feel like it ever truly figured out what it was trying to do.

Posted by: Kaiser Fox at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM

Now that I've seen it (and yes, I know I'm very late to the party), I have to agree with Protoguy. I, too, grew up with the TinTin comics (as well as Asterix and Gaston), and I found this movie extremly loud, ham-handedly directed and trashy.

Instead of condensing the two Unicorn books into it (which would have been possible without a problem), they filled it with non-sensical and overlong action sequences. It seems that Spielberg took a page from Bay here.

Don't get me wrong: technically, it is pretty great, and the voice cast does a great job (especially Serkis). But that doesn't help if the director is crap.

Posted by: FabMax at February 21, 2012 8:21 PM