The Adventures of Tintin review

A little over a month ago, I would have never seen Tintin. In fact, I would have gone on a long, argumentative tangent attacking the mere idea of the film and attempt to persuade you, my dear reader NOT to waste your time on it.

Things change and through a strange course of fate, I was tempted and eventually excited to see the film. I even wrote an article on why and how my mind was changed.

So it's quite bizarre to be here now reviewing a movie that at one point I swore I'd never even sit through.

The Adventures of Tintin tells the story of a journalist (the Tintin in question) who stumbles onto the search for a lost treasure and the redemption of a family name. Along the way he meets and fights a variety of interesting and unique characters on an adventure that is mostly fun but sometimes tedious. There is a certain charm to the character of Tintin who is extremely altruistic but in an endearing way that speaks to the innocence of us all. He's almost like a young Sherlock Holmes or even a magic-less Harry Potter. It's that Luke Skywalker, hero's journey archetype that is almost always appealing. Especially when it's done right.

There's a moment when the villain has seemingly gotten away entirely with all the clues and is untouchable, someone asks where Tintin is going as he storms off determinedly towards a motorcycle and replies, "I'm going after him."

Moments like this send chills down the spine and make you root for this unorthodox character and his world.

Nevertheless, the question remains, is the Adventures of Tintin the new Indiana Jones or does it fall flat to my first estimation as a piece of fiction that remains interesting in Europe but nowhere else?

It's somewhere in between. The movie is NOT bad. However, it's not what the critics are claiming it is. It's a decent, enjoyable flick, that's about it. It's not what Kingdom of the Crystal Skull SHOULD have been and it's not even a close relation to Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Hell, it's not even a close proximation to the Rick O'Connell Mummy adventures (not that it's trying to be).

Brendan Fraser's Indy facsimile. 

One can argue that this movie should be a grand slam with Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson attached, but I'm not one of those people. Just because you've done good work in the past doesn't mean you will forever do good work. Nobody is perfect.

And the movie is far from either parties' worst feature. As I said above, it's still an enjoyable movie.

The problem with Tintin is the format.

If you don't already know, Tintin was shot using motion-capture CGI. Meaning that actor's were filmed in special suits to track their movements and expressions while animator's used this as a basis and/or guide for developing the film.

Before we go any further, I have to explain something called the Uncanny Valley:

It's simple, Wall-E and R2-D2 are cute because they don't look enough like a human to creep us out. But human-looking robots or certain CGI characters (I'm looking at you Polar Express) DO creep us out because they are so close to being or looking like a human being - except we KNOW they aren't.

Right off the bat, I'll admit I downright LOATHE motion-capture filmmaking. It's okay when you use it sparingly and integrate it into a live-action film a la' Gollum in Lord of the Rings or the Navi' in Avatar. However, I see absolutely no reason to ever shoot a movie entirely within this format.

Robert Zemeckis was once a great filmmaker (Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump) but has since become so obsessed with this format that it has become obnoxious and toxic (Polar Express, Beowulf, the shitty Jim Carrey A Christmas Carol).

Now Tintin could never have been made in live-action. There are just too many cartoonish, unbelievable elements that would not work if you wanted to remain faithful to the comic-strip. So the obvious solution to this problem is to use animation.

And that's exactly what they should have done. Tintin should have been a Pixar film.

Instead, it's a motion-capture CGI crapfest that insists on being realistic but isn't. It floats in such a realm of Uncanny Valley bullshit that you find yourself yawning when you should be excited.

It's a VERY fine line, but the reality is that while so much of what happens in Tintin is straight out of a cartoon (human interaction with animals, chases and set-ups right out of a Tom and Jerry sketch all while the laws of physics go flying out the window) the animation is so close to realistic that you're mind is torn between believing in what you're seeing and knowing it's a cartoon.

Spielberg tried to have his cake and eat it too and it just doesn't work. You can't have an extremely realistic character in a realistic setting talking to his dog while crashing through the cockpit of a plane as it's crashing without any sign of harm.

The sad fact is that the action in Tintin could have been so much more believable, fun and exciting if it had just been ANIMATED. But because they go for an extra layer of realism with the sensibilities of a cartoon world it just ruins everything.

Bottom line: Tintin is a fun movie but it conflicts with itself and it's hard to take seriously when it has one foot in reality and another one firmly placed in cartoonville.


7 / 10