Director: Steven Spielberg
It has been much publicised that
Tintin creator Herge insisted only Spielberg could direct a film about his much
loved character. Through motion capture technology Spielberg has to an
impressive extent recreated the feel and look of the comics. The film combines
three of these comics to meld them in to a tale of treasure hunting and revenge
that centres around the legacy of the captain of the sunken ship the Unicorn
and his descendant, the drunkard Captain Haddock played by Serkis.
Tintin, as played by Bell, comes
across as a vacuous character. This may well be intentional allowing any child
to superimpose themselves on the blank canvas of Tintin to facilitate a sense
of “that could me be, this could be my adventure.” This technique proved
effective with the Bella character in the Twilight franchise. On the other hand
it could be down to the technology. Serkis is a proven master of the motion
capture acting and as always steals the show with the only performance that
carries resonance. The other actors, including Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, seem
to be unable to convey emotion with anything like the same intensity. The result
is flat and leaves the audience not relating nor caring.
Where the film does well is
Spielberg’s legendary handling of action set pieces. With this
technology he is free from inhibitions of camera and actors allowing him to
create an intricate motorbike chase in one shot. The sea battle
also impresses as Spielberg defies logic and physics to have two ships spinning
the other in a mighty tangle as sailors fight and canons and sails blaze. 
This however is not enough to engage
the audience. The adventure and mystery never draws you in. The macguffin is
there in the form of the model ships that contains the next clues. The purpose
of the mucguffin is meant to be so you care as much about finding the object as
as you do for the heroes. The trouble is that Spielberg never conveys Tintin’s
motivation beyond “here is another mystery to solve.” As such by the time they
find the prize there is no sense of achievement in either Tintin or the
audience. Indeed throughout the film Tintin does not undergo any change in his
character arch. He is exactly the same inquisitive and perky young quiffed man
as we found him. Even his Dog Snowy showed more of a dynamic character development
and more innate skills at sniffing out a crime. 
A friend described the film as
comparable to the rollercoaster ride that was Indianna Jones and the Temple of
Doom. I see his point in that Tintin goes from set piece to set piece. However
you cared for Indianna, you cared for the macguffin as the stones represented saving the lives of enslaved
children. The film had depth beyond the fun. Tintin has none. To add to this there is never any real sense of jeaprody or risk to the heroes. You felt every punch Indianna took, not so with Tintin. Despite being in harms way he comes out unscathed, unchanged by the process and ready to do the next bit of adventuring. Tintin's adventure come across as a hazardous hobby, not a quest to save us from a dangerous enemy's diabolical plot. If he failed, who would care. I imagine not even Tintin. He would just stumble into another mystery.
This is without doubt a Spielberg
film. I wonder to what extent Jackson was involved as I did not sense his input
as much as had wanted. The technology is definitely opening new doors to
portray adventure, but if the audience has not been given enough emotion or
insight into the characters, then it is all for nought.
Rating: 6/10
Official Trailer:
No comments:
Post a Comment