Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn Post Release Thread

I just got back from this and I agree with much of what Stelios said. Like "Avatar", it was a movie I enjoyed at certain points based entirely on spectacle, but I like this more than "Avatar" because it didn't have a preachy bullshit message and one-dimensional villains. Most of the characters were disappointing, though.

 

Tintin was basically a cipher constantly spouting exposition (about the only discernible personality trait he had was "plucky"). Frost and Pegg got a few chuckles from me as inspector twins, but they were mostly just underused caricatures. Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock was by far the most consistently entertaining and funny character in the movie, but he too was hurt by being saddled with too much exposition. Serkis made a valiant effort to inject some pathos and heart into the movie by selling the hell out of his character's melancholy, but despite the admirably convincing passion of his performance, the movie mostly left me cold.

 

The one character that always intrigued me was the villain played by Daniel Craig. I've never seen him play a villain before, but his performance in this movie suggests he was born for roles like that. I liked him as James Bond, but he seemed more in his element playing a villain instead of a hero. I loved his sinister voice and body language. It was also kinda neat how he looked sorta like young Spielberg, but most of all he reminded me of the great Indiana Jones villains.

 

Tintin's dog, Snowy, was another highlight. He's an impressive C.G.I. creation- one of the most lovably smart, brave, and resourceful dogs I've ever seen in a movie (right up there with the dogs in "The Mask" and "As Good As It Gets") and definitely one of my favourite entirely C.G.I. characters too. The best thing about the movie was the action set pieces. There were two chases that reminded me of the classic vehicle chases in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", but in a way they were even better. Being animated in 3D gave them an overwhelmingly exciting freedom of movement that's probably not possible in live action.

 

I was about as thrilled during the action set pieces as I possibly could be during action set pieces, but the characterizations weren't emotionally affecting enough for me. The movie works as a singularly thrilling roller coaster ride of an experience, but it was basically the same exposition-action sequence-exposition-action sequence formula over and over again, and the exposition scenes were generally dull.

 

Serkis, Frost, and Pegg occasionally perked them up with some nice comedic moments, but they were also irritating or too bogged down by exposition at times. I consider Daniel Craig the M.V.P of the flick, but the other characters disappointed me. I dug the movie on a visceral level for its top notch superficial qualities, but I wish there was more to the characters.

 

God bless Serkis for trying so hard, but his effective emoting and many funny moments weren't enough. I think he might have been more of an asset to the movie if the Tintin character had a little more personality. Unfortunately, we're too often stuck with a very interesting Haddock and a Tintin who stands there reacting, without being interesting himself.

Edited by Naisu Baddi - 11/13/11 at 1:10pm

I think the script is a cut above most of its ilk, and I didn't find the exposition scenes dull. Hell, there aren't even that many of them. The chief explain-it-all moment is a great one, with Spielberg using all kinds of weird segues and wipes to transition back and forth between Haddock's animated relating of his ancestry and the 16th century pirate attack he's describing.

 

Haddock is an engaging and unusual presence at the heart of it and Tin Tin being a blank slate is frustrating but forgivable. The setpieces are just astonishing, though. The motorcycle/falcon chase is probably the most imaginative and thrilling ten minutes I've ever seen in the cinema.

True, when you see the "written by" credit you'd expect some mindblowing genre-defining madness going on in it. But I just can't hate a children's adventure script which does a main character overcoming alocoholism, and does it both funnily and well. There's clunky parts, but it mostly works. The aforementioned Haddock exposition scene and Thomson and Thompson visiting Silk are probably the two longest talky bits in the film, and they both fly.

Tintin's a complete cipher in the comics, too, so that's faithful at least.

 

Does Snowy talk?

Nope.

Damn, the only 3D showing near me is not on tonight. And this is the only time I will be able to see it in the next few weeks. Don't want to fork out 14 quid in central london.

Has anyone seen it in 2D?

The real question is does he say "Wooah Wooah!" instead of "Woof Woof!"

 

It's fine in 2D. I certainly didn't notice anything missing.

Surprised there are so few comments on this.

 

Well I loved it. I loved the weird spot it hit between reality and cartoon. It's a world where a sea plane can be powered by drunk sea captain burps. Lots of weird inventive stuff (The sailors sliding out of their bunks, etc). All up it just seemed so rich with detail and life.

 

I had my 3 and 4 year old boys to contend with, so I was partially distracted the whole way through. I'm keen to see it again by myself.

Wow, what a boring movie. Yeah, boring. A few chuckles of some set pieces (the bunks routine was probably the cleverest), but Tintin was nothing but an exposition mouthpiece, the quest was meaningless and the animation was among the creepiest Uncanny Valley I've ever seen. 

I think the weakest thing about the entire thing was the script, it felt like it was missing an awful lot. 

I would agree with that.

 

It felt like Tin Tin's low point and Haddock's moment of inspiration come out of nowhere and happen only because we're supposed to get such scenes in movies.

I didn't have much of a problem with the script. Primarily it's Haddock's story. He's the one that gets a character arc. I liked Tintin too, he's inquisitive and driven. And Snowy is awesome in his own silent way too. Between the three of them I had no problem with a lack of character in the film.

 

I also don't know how anyone can say the quest is meaningless. Aside from the lost treasure Sakharine intends to kill Haddock as part of his revenge. 

I agree in the sense it's the only sign of defeatism Tintin ever shows> On the on the other hand Sakharine did seem to beat him soundly, forcing him to choose between his friends and the treasure.

I said this in another Tintin thread, but I really feel like the film needed a better introduction to Tintin than him casually strolling through an open air market.  It's as if Spielberg assumes we all already have an affection for the character and simply seeing him on the screen will be enough to make us connect to him.  Not that they needed to underline the Indy parallels any more firmly, but I really think we needed an Indy/Bond-style intro to let us know who Tintin is.  And in a more concrete fashion than the admittedly clever opening credits.  We see all those newspaper clippings, yet we never get a sense Tintin was actually on those adventures.  So when the plot finally gets moving, we're following Tintin simply because he's the lead character.  I never really felt invested in him.

I had no problem going on this adventure with Tin Tin, but I certainly wouldn't have minded a Bond-like pre-credits opening adventure sequence.  That would've been fun.

Wasn't there an (admittedly light) in credits adventure story?

 

Full disclosure: I know the character from the books (but I'm no mega fan). The big thing I picked up from the film was how whimsical and jokey it was. That element reminded me most of the books. Without that whimsy, it would have felt more like a standard Indiana Jones film. As it is, I found it was a really refreshing way to do a story and felt unique amoungst the films we usually get these days.

The script just doesn't work. Its all patched over by good performances and nimble direction. It feels like it's maybe a draft away from being complete and I imagine there's a very clear bureaucratic reason for that. The film is good, but not great, it's most interesting aspect, but one that I think truly divided audiences, is that Tin Tin, Haddock and Snowy, separately are incomplete, but put together make a functioning 'Indiana Jones'. The fact that the structure is cobbled from other stories and is perhaps too true to its material is a real burden too.

 

Also, I don't know about anyone here, but I was pumped for this film going in, but the music in the opening titles deflated all my energy, it needed a rousing John Williams, Spielberg tune, but it was this jazzy mess, plonking along. The end theme should have been at the front because it took me ages to get back to my initial mood.

I get the feeling you expected something other than what the film is. I don't think it should be a rousing adventure movie. It's got two bumbling interpol agents who can't tell they've caught their thief when they are standing right in a room full of wallets. A scene like that wouldn't play in the middle of Indiana Jones. It's a different thing here. There are guns, sea planes, side cars and rocket launchers... but there are also opera singers, elastic band wallets and dogs drinking medicinal alcohol.

 

Perhaps the trailer over-sold the action elements (though the pirate battle was badass).

This scene kind of deflated the movie for me. Aside from the whole Pick Pocket subplot being unncessary, it was just to eye rollingly stupid for the two Interpol cops to not twig to the fact that they'd found their man. It's just too over the top idiotic, like the screenwriters were thinking "hm let's put in some "humour" like Charlie Chaplin used to do!" and it comes off as forced. Just an example (for me) that sometimes you have to translate from the source material, not copy/paste it.

 

Quote:

 

Not at all. I try to never let my expectations of what I want a film to be, cloud what it actually is. I was looking forward to all of the smaller, quirky stuff, having watched the cartoon when younger, it's sums up for me, what the whole thing was about.

 

In a lot of the quieter scenes, especially with Thompson & Thompson, there was a strange deflated atmosphere hanging over everything, as if there was a missing laughter track. Which is curious considering the performers. I imagine an extra draft, or even some tighter editing would have fixed those problems, because the film seemed to ground to a halt whenever it wasn't involved in a big action set piece.

 

As someone familiar with the material, I can only imagine these problems stood out even more, because there really was no set up for Tin Tin at the start in any clear way. I agree that there should have been an intro scene, with the end of an investigation, setting up everything we need to know about Tin Tin, that then leads into the main story. 

 

In the screening I was at, children were fidgeting during the opening titles, which is the moment that should have been immersed into the films world, and I saw them continue to struggle to get involved, and only really perked up when Snowy was on screen because the character always had a momentum and witty reaction to his situation.

 

I think the critics, audience views and Box Office have been very kind to the film and open to what it was going to be. I think everyone has to admit, it basically failed to be what it should have been, which is a shame, because so many people gave it a chance. For me, all of those problems lie in the writing. 

Double post. Fucking forum bugs.

My feelings exactly.  I know they're beloved characters, but this particular story just didn't need them.

Oh well, I still loved it. Seems like it's a bit divisive then.

 

I would note that from my usual reviewers, it has got some fairly glowing reviews:

 

 

- Nick and Renn on this site ( http://www.chud.com/77898/tag-team-review-the-adventures-of-tintin/ ). 

 

- Ebert gave it 3.5 stars ( http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111220/REVIEWS/111229999 ). 

 

- Dan Whitehead on Badass Digest had a very positive review ( http://badassdigest.com/2011/10/25/movie-review-the-adventures-of-tintin-is-the-indy-sequel-spielberg-never-ma/ )

 

- As did Drew McWeeny ( http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/review-spielbergs-the-adventures-of-tintin-offers-remarkable-action-and-energy ).

 

- And Outlaw Vern ( http://outlawvern.com/2011/12/29/the-adventures-of-tintin/ )

I really enjoyed myself (saw it twice) and am close to loving it, but there are several issues like the ones brought up so far.

 

Not having knowledge of the source material, I was surprised by how pointless the pick-pocket subplot ended up being.  And the opening title sequence felt LONG the 2nd time I saw it.

 

The first time I saw it, I was distracted by the fact that there was something wrong with the 3D projection.

Oh wait... there's a whole other post release thread.

 

not at the showing I saw.  All the kids were laughing and cheering, gasping, oohing and ahhing.  And it's the first film I've EVER seen that got a round of applause from the audience at the end.  Also it was the most packed of any movie I've seen in NZ.
 

 

 

no, but they do get "woah" in during the credits sequence which, weirdly, pleased me immensely.

They were very popular at my screening. They earned their presence in audience good will. Snowy and the Captain blew everyone else out of the water though.

 

So thankful the uncanny valley factor was at a bare minimum. Only the singer looked a bit undead/like a Mat Lucas mockery of womanhood, while the Calif or whatever (dude who owns the 3rd boat model) and the pickpocket looked like guys wearing weird rubber heads.

 

I think they nailed Tintin himself perfectly. If he was too eccentric a character then the Captain and supporting cast would be overkill - like a Jeunet movie. He's the vanilla ice cream to their banana, sprinkles and chocolate sauce.

 

It was a lot of fun. What's interesting is that it had a lot of what conventional filmmaking would label as "flaws" (Tintin being a nonentity, the low stakes, the laid-back tone) but that I found to be exactly right for a Tintin movie, and oddly refreshing. I actually love that the only motivation for Tintin at a certain point is "we're on an adventure, and we have to stop the bad guys because they're bad." He's not in it because Sakharin killed his parents or something, or because the fate of the world is at stake. He's just doing it because it's the right thing to do, and because it's fun. That's very refreshing to me, in a cinematic era where protagonists have to be browbeaten into becoming heroes, and usually end up complaining and moping about it every inch of the way (because REFUSAL OF THE CALL! JOSEPH CAMPBELL SAYS SO!!!!) And the fact that it's Haddock, not Tintin, who comes closest to being a "chosen one", though he still isn't really.

 

That said, I still wish they'd gone with conventional animation instead of trying to make the characters look semi-realistic. Tintin was pretty amazingly rendered, I'll admit, but Haddock was a freakish goblin-creature, and most of the others had a certain "rubber-mask" effect, as noted.

Saw it for a second time tonight with a different group of friends. It could be that my separate gaggle of pals have too much in common with the first, but they had the same reaction to it the first lot did. This flick is alot of fun. Its kiddie and safe, but at the same time worked on a level that amused a bunch of twenty-somethings looking for an old-fashioned adventure yarn like 'Raiders'. 

 

I'm really content with it; the adventure worked great, the action had me laughing out loud, and the characters were totally enjoyable. I agree the script was a bit thin in parts, thats totally true, but the overall tone and speed to the movie was well-executed. I'd love to see one of these things every few years, just to remind myself that there doesn't have to be a dour plot to get heroes into action, like Prankster said above. 

Other than having to explain the definition of "sober" to my 6-year-old, I enjoyed the heck out of TinTin. The motorcycle scene was on of the coolest actions bits I've seen in a long time.

I liked it but didn't love it, which actually is kind of how I've always felt about Tintin now I think about it. I loved Asterix and I liked Tintin.

 

For me what held it back from being top-tier was the same as a few other folks have pointed out in that the script feels undercooked. The best adventure films have the wicked set pieces but also show us engaging characters engaging each other engagingly along the way and Tintin felt like it was missing a draft or two in that direction. Even Haddock, the guy with the arc, felt only three quarters fleshed out. Perhaps the challenge of writing a tight script around a sloppy drunk is one of the greater challenges in screenwriting but I didn't think they quite pulled it off with this one. It also suffered from the same thing as the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film too in that the villain was lacking in heft. As much as he continually put our heroes into mortal danger Sakharine never felt like a genuine threat or challenge for Tintin. Hopefully in the next one they can do what Ritchie did and get a more Moriarty-esque bad guy in the black hat.

 

And as much as Tintin is more or less a cipher in the comics when you blow that up to feature film size the thinness of it is stretched to the point he's just a little too flat.

 

On the plus side almost none of it fell into the uncanny valley for me and the odd moments in which it did were very fleeting - never more than a couple of seconds. Also on the plus side most of the action was a lot of fun, especially Morroco and the excape from the ship into the lifeboat and the float plane hi-jinks. And also on the plus side the old-fashioned physical gags really hit almost every mark it aimed for. And also also on the plus side I love the look and design of the thing overall.

I long for a legitimately decent Asterix movie.  Some of the animated ones were OK, but none of the captured the genius of the comix for me.

 

And that life action one was just arseix

I loved the animated Asterix movies when I was a kid. It's interesting, I actually read the Asterix comics in their original French, which I can understand, obviously, but a lot of the wordplay and so on went over my head. When I finally found some really good English translations I had a blast with them. The cartoons did, I think, capture the spirit of the originals (when I was a kid, obviously it's been a while).

Saw it with the whole family and it's unanimous -- really entertaining Tintin flick for all generations.

Both me and my oldest have read all the (English) books and have seen some of the animated episodes. Having that background keeps you running comparisons all the time and distracts from being as critical of the movie as film.

No Uncanny Valley effect for the family though I think 2D would have been just as good (and brighter!)

I think the focus on Haddock is spot on and Tintin has always been there to move the plot along while contributing little to the colour of the whole. Also, consider how outlandish his villains are (e.g., Rastapopoulos) in comparison to the boy hero as opposed to, say, Haddock or Calculus.

OT: I've been wary of an Asterix movie as I've been badly burned by bad English translations (e.g., the American ones).