Borrowing elements from other Spielberg films; a John Williams score, a Moroccan adventure and Mr. Spielberg himself, The Adventures of Tintin differentiates itself by using performance capture from New Zealand-based digital effects house, WETA (Lord of the Rings, King Kong, X-Men: The Last Stand). The result is a visually stunning film, but one that’s filled to the brim with an all-to-familiar aesthetic.
Based on the characters of the internationally known comic by the Belgian artist, Hergé, the film follows Tintin, a young journalist and his loyal dog, Snowy. The screenplay, written by Steven Moffat (BBC’s Dr Who), Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim VS The World) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block), is light on dialogue and has a surprising amount of adult-themed situations and visuals. I did not expect to see a major character as a light-hearted drunk, or other characters casually smoking, in what has been marketed as a family film. The recently released triumph, Hugo (read my review), also had each of those elements, but the drunk was looked down upon as a failure and the smoking was in the context of the time period to lend authenticity. I appreciate how the team for Tintin stays true to the source material, but this is not a family film, it’s an adventure film. Yes, it appeals to the young as well as old, not unlike the Indiana Jonesfranchise, but with animation, it almost naturally puts itself into a younger audience. Whether or not this should be the case is becoming increasingly debatable.
In the recent press conference, Spielberg commented that by using performance capture technology; he had the ability to cast the best actor for the character. In particular for Tintin, he could cast Jamie Bell and not just someone who looked like Tintin that may or may not be able to give the best performance. Andy Serkis, who should receive an Oscar nomination for his performance in this year’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes (read my review), delivers another pitch perfect performance as Captain Haddock (the bumbling drunk). Focusing on the face in particular, he is a chameleon that has found his true calling in this new field with his ability to transform into virtually any character with ease. Daniel Craig as Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine gives a commanding voice performance and is nearly unrecognizable in combination with his animated physique.
I was unimpressed with the formulaic story that included foreseeable twists and an obvious conclusion. I found each elaborate action sequence to be a distraction from the story. One, maybe two large action sequences would have been more effective than having the entire film be an elongated action piece with bits of dialogue here and there. I wanted to get to know the characters and there was very little development. Why should I care about this kid and his dog? Is he a good guy? I refer back to Raiders of the Lost Arkwhere we know what kind of man Indy is within the first 10 minutes of the film and root for him every minute thereafter.
The 3D technology in the film is completely unimpressive when compared to the amount of detail put into the animation. Yes, there are some amazing 3D scenes, but it felt like an afterthought and clearly a way to tack on some extra money for a ticket price. Even at the press conference, the only mention of 3D was when Spielberg casually talked about blocking each scene for 3D. Again, I compare that to Hugo, where Scorcese made it his priority to use the 3D technology to enhance the movie-going experience and succeeded tremendously.
The involvement of Peter Jackson as producer on the film was no doubt because of his love of the books and prepares him well for directing the next film in the series. He’s perhaps the most experienced modern director in performance capture as well as practical effects, and his influence is clear throughout the film.
The film has been released outside the U.S. and has already made close to $200 million in its short run. This was an extremely smart marketing move and will build up generous buzz prior to its December 23, 2011 U.S. release date. As I said before, it’s an adventure film, not a family film, so parents, be advised as such.
Rating: Adventurous and visually appealing, but nothing any movie-going adult hasn’t seen many times before. 5/10
Recent Comments