The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn [DVD]

bought this DVD after hearing such good reviews and having loved the original cartoons as a kid. Will quite easily say that the animation is stunning - as good as is possible I would hazard a guess. Great story too with loads of tip top action. One of the best films I've seen in years. You don't have to have kids to enjoy this I promise you !

I'll explain my review title later, but first, a quick summary:

Animation 10/10:
Possibly the best animation I have ever seen. The facial expressions, character movement, and the motion of clothing to wind, rain / character movement are outstanding. The crisp details of each scene were wonderful, as were the light and shade effects. There are people who are better qualified to make more specific comments relating to rendering and contrast etc. so I will leave that them.

Action 10/10:
Lots of it, really fast and with lots to take in and gasp at, but greatly tempered with the important slower scenes, used to explain plot progression. Certainly this is where the DVD's 'replay' value shows, as there may have been things missed the first time around and, even then, it worth watching the scenes again to marvel at the interactions of the characters, creatures, their vehicles and the environment. To explain the action further might spoil the film for others, so I will leave it there.

Storyline 10/10
Although some reviewers on Amazon are not happy with the storyline, I really enjoyed it. Certainly I had guessed some of it, but certainly not all of it, and it could even be progressed further if a 'Tin Tin 2' is made. It is important to stress some reviewers have read the entire series of Tin Tin books, but my review is purely based on having read the comic strip versions of the series. In that sense, considering the style of the comic strips, the storyline is excellent.

Humour 10/10:
Sadly some negative reviews resort to insulting adults who liked the humour, by claiming 'It's childish and only a 3 / 6/ 12 year old would find it funny.' I for one, will lose no sleep at all at such comments, because they do seem to suggest, 'If I don't like it, then others who do, must be inferior to me.' and I believe you should respect others who don't have your personal tastes. If you don't like it, then is fair enough, score the film as 'low', explain your reasons, but leave it at that. Now, although I wasn't expecting the film to have that many comedic moments in it, I am so glad that it did. When they came, usually interspersed with the action scenes (but not always) I laughed out loud, as did my son. At 52 and 23 respectively, we were in tears and, yes, holding our sides. Again, I cannot specify these moments, as to do so would spoil the film, but if you love watching your family enjoying a film, then you cannot really go far wrong with Tin Tin.

That's my brief take on the film but, if they make a Tin Tin 2, 3 etc. to the same standard as this initial film, I will be in the queues to buy them. As to my review title, 'The worst post-viewing experience ever!', well I laughed so much during the film I had a coughing fit and pulled a couple of muscles around my ribs. I ended up with two days of aches and pains and box of paracetamol as my best friend but, to me, the film was definitely worth it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to dare the ire of the fans. Because I was, it seems, less impressed by this film than most.

But first, the positives: the CGI was genuinely amazing. It successfully bestrode an intriguing middle ground between the cartoonish and something very, very close to photo-realism. From the waves on the ocean to the expressions on the characters' faces, the animators were extremely successful in creating a world that is solid, real, and compelling. It most definitely draws us in.

It is, as stated, more Spielberg than Hergé. The quiet, the stillness, and above all the restraint that were such hallmarks of Hergé's work are nowhere to be found. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Filmic interpretations do not have to be slavish copies, and this one certainly wasn't. I'm sure that many fans will be quick to point out that this is a film that almost constantly pays homage to the visual side of Hergé's work - particularly in some of its most iconic and best loved panels. And it's true: the film does do precisely that. However, the similarities are all on the surface. For those who look deeper, and compare this film's intricacy of detail, and above all its relentless, ceaseless motion with the minimalism of Hergé's famous "ligne claire" style, it is at once apparent that at a certain point Spielberg made the choice to go his own way. Indeed, the film tacitly admits as much at the very beginning, when this movie's "Tintin" has his portrait drawn by an artist at a market stall. The artist closely resembles Hergé, and the drawing the original vision of Tintin. We are being politely but firmly told that this will be a film that respects the original, but does not feel so beholden to it as to be nothing more than a carbon copy.

The true artist must have scope for interpretation.

This film also gave us not just one but two stand-out performances. Jamie Bell, in the titular role of Tintin, and Daniel Craig as both Sakharine and Red Rackham. Each actor brings a level of reality to their characters rarely to be found in animated features. This fits perfectly with the film's visual approach: it's that whole "intriguing middle ground" between the cartoonish and the photo-real that I spoke of earlier.

I was less impressed with Andy Serkis's performance as Captain Haddock, which was certainly more overtly cartoonish, and just plain less interesting. But it is worth stating that some of the minor characters were exceptionally well rendered, and very much in the spirit of Hergé's original versions. I'm thinking here particularly of the pickpocket, played by Toby Jones, and a two-bit thug by the name of Tom, played by Mackenzie Crook. I'd like to think that Hergé himself would've approved of both these performances.

Yet despite all the good stuff, I did feel that from a grown-up perspective, this movie let itself down in the writing. Particularly in terms of pacing, it's more like a bad Indiana Jones movie than anything else. Certainly so far as depth of characterisation goes, all the heavy lifting is done by the actors and the animators. The writers contribute almost nothing. The main problem is that after a promising start, the film rapidly degenerates into little more than one long action sequence, with only very brief, unconvincing, and ultimately uninteresting pauses along the way. At times the relentless action seems to exist as little more than a showcase for the animators' virtuosity. And as outstanding as the animation is, technical brilliance for its own sake does not a good film make.

Earlier I spoke of Hergé's work as possessing a certain restraint. Indeed, I would even go so far as to say that I consider that restraint one of its defining stylistic features. This holds true not only on a visual level, but also in terms of story. Hergé knew when to give his readers time to think. A quiet moment here and there to reflect on what had happened and let it all sink in. Such moments are, I feel, sorely lacking in this movie. This film is all about the spectacular. It's a joy to look at and is without doubt a rollicking, two-fisted rocket-ride through adventure. But it's not a whole lot more than that.

Which is where, I believe, it really has let Hergé's original vision down.

Theo.