What the hell was that?

Rating: 4/10 (12 December 2011)

Went to see this last night. I had serious reservations, because of what I had heard about the film, and because frankly, the previews just didn't look right. But I had similar reservations about Avatar, and I ended up liking that one a lot. The technology: The opening sequence was a tribute to the original animated TV series, where Tintin seems to run pretty much everywhere, but seemed disjointed and odd. When the photo-real action began, it didn't get any better for me. Tintin looked greasy, and his eyes were like glass balls in his head. None of the characters seemed to be able to walk normally. I got the impression they were all weightless, sort of like the characters in Shrek. This is odd to me because mocap should capture an actor's weight as he moves around, but this didn't make it into the film. There is one scene early on when a character runs into a light post, that makes it look like the light post had a force field around it. Other scenes, where Tintin is running and jumping, or when Haddock stumbles and falls, and particularly everything Milou does... just don't look right. I've seen other mocap films where the characters moved very realistically - Monster House, Avatar, even Final Fantasy. So why do they not look right in this movie? Maybe I'm too hard to please. The 3D was nice, however: never jarring, rarely gimmicky. I got a nice feeling of depth without the forced look that post-produced 3-D movies get.
The story: There are some spoilers here, but quite frankly, if you haven't read the books, it won't make any difference to you; if you have read the books, you might as well read on, so you won't end up sitting there for 100 minutes waiting for Tintin to go off on a trip to recover the sunken treasure. I grew up reading Tintin in French. I know all of the Tintin stories. Le Secret de la Licorne / Trésor de Rakham Le Rouge was one of the best. Some people who also have read Tintin say that it was good for the producers to throw in the Capitaine Haddock meeting Tintin story from another Tintin adventure - why? That took up about half the film, and caused the producers to throw out pretty much all of the second book - yes, they totally deleted the entire expedition to the tropics, the underwater adventures, meeting Professeur Tournesol, and put in scenes that were probably deleted from the last Indiana Jones film. There were some laughs, and from time to time, I saw past the dead eyes and clumsy movements of the characters, but overall, it just didn't work for me. Some of the minor details also left me cold. At one point, Tintin pulls a gun out, and it's not a Browning Hi-Power. It looked like a Walther PPK, or some other smaller handgun. I can't be sure, but I fondly remember Tintin ALWAYS using a Browning Hi-Power pistol. It's the Belgian pistol of choice, and Hergé was a proud Belgian. I could be wrong about this, so call me on it if I'm wrong.
The 1930s: it looked like a 1930's period piece. Interesting, because Tintin's early adventures were set in pre-war Europe, but it's going to be odd in the sequels when they try to make Objectif Lune, when Tintin goes to the moon.
Language: I saw this in French in the theater, and quite frankly, it was disappointing. Everything was in English. I was hoping for some sort of attempt to retain the core language of Tintin, including props, news clippings, street signs... it's all in English. I guess I was expecting the same sort of excellence you get in a Pixar film, where they take the time to change the title sequence, and some if not all of the text in the film to the language that it's dubbed in.
Chase Scenes: Spielberg can't seem to let this go. He inserts incredible chase scenes into his films. The scenes go on too long, and the characters perform stunts that are completely ridiculous, even in Tintin's world. The Morocco chase scene that everyone is talking about just went on and on and on, with weightless CG characters bouncing along like pin balls. One chase scene inexplicably had a tank appear, dragging a stucco building along with it. Not sure what that was about.
Overall: It was a crushing disappointment. It played like a Tintin- flavoured pulp action flick set in the 1930s. So, should you go see this? I have two recommendations for you: 1) If you like Tintin, and hate it when producers make unnecessary changes to good stories when they make a movie, don't pay money to see this in the theater. 2) If you thought the last Indiana Jones film was good, run! don't walk to the theater to see this. I swear, the only missing was the nuclear bomb/fridge stunt.