The Adventures of Tintin

The boyish dream of Spielberg, who is only brought down by unnecessary megalomania, which sometimes kills space for subtle finesse. But other than that, I've been riding this wave from the beginning like a little bastard. The Adventures of Tintin is a beautifully simple, joyful and straightforward film about which there is no point in discussing anything at all. Steven created something that once held me breathless for hours and hours while reading adventure novels. A beautiful film. (26/10/2011)

I wasn’t looking forward to Tintin, so I can’t say I’m disappointed with the results. Actually, watching it in cinema on a very hectic day felt quite good. It’s nice to look at, undemanding, relaxing, entertaining… The humour is often almost cringe-worthy, but it’s effective in its own way. The animation was surprising, if the characters hadn’t been so clearly stylised, in some scenes I wouldn’t have been able to tell I’m not looking at something real (for instance, the first minutes at the marketplace). It’s not something to swoon over, but it’s OK for single-use fun. PS: Yesterday on TV I watched several scenes of the fourth Indiana Jones and I realised that in the last few years Spielberg has lost his sense of measure. I don’t like that kind of relentless action anymore. (20/11/2011)

It is no longer necessary for anyone to bother with making a film adaptation of the legendary adventure game Broken Sword – in terms of atmosphere, that’s exactly how I imagined it. The exotic settings, the interconnectedness of the plot with history, the brilliant combination of humour and action. Furthermore, there is some slightly adventurous problem solving (figuring out what to do with what’s currently at hand, finding keys, combining objects). The economically managed narrative without a single unnecessary diversion is fully subordinated to the fluidity of the action, which, after the initial explanation of the context and the express introduction of the protagonist, only continues to build. The objective is clear, the fun can begin. With an average shot length of 4.8 seconds (according to the Cinemetrics website), it may have the fastest editing of any of Spielberg’s films, but compared to other 3D action movies, the shots do not alternate very often. On the contrary, great care is taken to arrange the action in space and to work with multiple plans of action simultaneously. It’s a bit in the spirit of slapstick; Spielberg long ago mastered the art of making the context clear through movement instead of words. The movement, whether vertical (forward) or horizontal (into the past), almost never stops and when, as in the middle of the desert, it seems for a moment that no action will happen, the wild hallucinations of one of the characters appear. In addition, the transitions between scenes are very inventively designed, which contributes to the impression of unprecedented fluidity. The rising action curve reaches its peak in a scene lasting several minutes without a single cut, for which I would not shy away from usin the word “masterful” to describe it. It’s all about having fun, isn’t it? But wasn’t the summation of the entire story in the title sequence intended to be a call to lower the demands on the intricacy and intellectually stimulating nature of the content and, with the fascination of a small child, to mainly enjoy the exciting spectacle? I haven’t had this much fun in a long time. Without feeling guilty about the silliness I was watching. The first time, the second time and the third time. And I have zero doubt that I will enjoy it the fourth time. 90% (15/01/2016)

Although the cleverest character of the movie is a dog, any simplicity is replaced by Spielberg’s playfulness and talent for this particular genre. State of the art technology (Zemickis’ innovation gets a good slap in the face when Spielberg manages in one movie to do what he worked on for years) is a blessing mainly in the action scenes, which are lively, full of ideas, humorous and perfect. The ending has superb gradation, including the grandiose clash of the two main antagonists on the crane. Beautiful work. (24/02/2012)

There was something missing... Something, something, something... But what was it? The film had pace, it was funny and suspenseful, the animation was perfect, Williams' music was great (how I miss those honest orchestral pieces) and Steven Spielberg took his proverbial toy-ness to a new level. If you're also wondering why Tintin wasn't made with live actors and in a real setting, the answer is easy: Spielberg would lose a camera that he can do absolutely anything he wants with, and that would be a huge shame. It is thanks to it that he served us a decent number of (without exaggeration) unforgettable scenes (apart from the chase in Morocco mentioned by everyone, I would like to highlight especially the breathtaking naval battle, which is equal to the craziest escapades of Verbinski's Pirates of the Caribbean, and the final bombastic duel of cranes), which definitely makes it worth going to the movie theatre to see this. In 3D. If someone is bothered by the bland main character, it's certainly not the film's fault - the three-dimensional Tintin is practically identical to the paper version. And that's a good thing. At least Captain Haddock, who is the main character anyway, will stand out more. So why don't I give it a full score when I'm so happy with everything? Well, it's because of the ending. I found the last minutes of the "search and find" strangely drawn out and was actually quite surprised that Tintin was "only" an hour and three quarters long. I didn't know the runtime beforehand and I guessed it to be about two hours (and a bit) by the end.__P.S. The Jaws parody was divine.__P.P.S. Hergé's digital cameo was just as good. (12/11/2011)