WTH? I havn't heard about it until now and it just ruined my whole day.
This is the first time in years I'm getting freaking excited about a hollywood film announcement. Hero of my childhood!
The trailer is looking great. I want a series :O
Looks bloody amazing. I still can't believe this movie exists. This is my damn childhood right here. Haddock is totally going to steal the show in this one (just like he did in the comics). Glad to see they haven't toned down the guns/fists/drunken shenanigans. I hope they kept that scene where Haddock starts hallucinating and thinks that Tintin is a bottle of whiskey.
I suppose people are finally going to stop comparing this movie to uninspired crap like Polar Express and Mars needs Moms. Looks way better than anything I could have hoped for.
The trailer actually looks pretty good. I'm still not sold on the style of animation, but nevertheless it works a lot better in this trailer than in, say, that Tom Hanks film with the train to the North Pole because the figures are trying to look like cartoon characters rther than real people.
It's got a good cast. It's got good writers. It's based on good stories. Spielburg I'm not a great fan of (you just know that he;s going to bring in a pair of kids and... no wait,they did that already in "Lake of Sharks"), and Peter Jackson's stuff I can't stand for five minutes, let alone five hours, so... could go either way.
(Oh, and somebody tell Andy Serkis that Haddock is an *Englishman*. That's the exact and specific reason that Herge called him Haddock in the first place!)
Yeah, and something like six seconds worth of faces were shown.
What are you talking about? What should they do to satisfy you, have a full close-up for a full 10 seconds or something? It's a trailer, and you get to see quite a lot of faces, both near and far. Lot's of close-ups, and great shots during that Thompsons-scene, the market scene and that motorcycle-scene. Are you sure you watched the new trailer and not the old one?
What are you talking about? What should they do to satisfy you, have a full close-up for a full 10 seconds or something? It's a trailer, and you get to see quite a lot of faces, both near and far. Lot's of close-ups, and great shots during that Thompsons-scene, the market scene and that motorcycle-scene. Are you sure you watched the new trailer and not the old one?
Yes. For a Motion Capture movie, I'll decide whether to see it or not as to whether or not the faces look good, as it's what I'll be staring at for 150 minutes.
Yes. For a Motion Capture movie, I'll decide whether to see it or not as to whether or not the faces look good, as it's what I'll be staring at for 150 minutes.
Man, you're off your rocker. The faces look fantastic and nowhere near Zemeckis shit. They showed plenty of faces for a trailer and they showed them clearly.
You're judging it off that? It's nice to see 20 or so frames of each face shot, but it's still blatantly avoiding them and that makes me not want to see the film. Can we not have a solid 3-7 second someone (or people) talking without one of them standing in front of a pole and the other wearing a paper bag over their head?
Can we not have a solid 3-7 second someone (or people) talking without one of them standing in front of a pole and the other wearing a paper bag over their head?
I don't get any Uncanny Valley from the "animation" at all.
fix'd.
But, I agree. I did not see anything that belongs in the Uncanny Valley, or at least, anything that bothers me much. Of course, normal CGI would be better, but I don't think the mo-cap would ruin the film that bad. Also, it kinda looks fun.
Saw this yesterday. Absolutely amazing. Best Spielberg movie in years. The amount of love and respect they show towards the original comics is amazing. Really, this is my movie of the year. We were talking to other audience members after the movie, and everyone was just incredibly enthusiastic about this movie.
Of course, my opinion is partly formed by years of growing up with this series. Everyone in my country knows the characters and most of the adventures, so it's really hard for me to imagine what people who never heard of Tintin (Americans, I guess) will make of it. The joy of finally seeing Haddock portrayed so perfectly, watching the Thompsons doing their thing... Man, I think I'm going to watch it again tonight. And I never watch a movie multiple times in the theatre anymore.
About the CGI: I guess people are going to complain about this, but I thought it looked amazing (maybe Tintin's face looks a bit weird in a couple of close ups, but that's it). There's no way this could have been live action, and old 2D-animation (like the old cartoon adaptions) wouldn't have been nearly as effective. I always thought the old cartoons, as fun as they were (the Dutch voices for that show were amazing), weren't nearly as dynamic as the panels in the comics. The action in this movie is simply breathtaking.
Seriously, if you've ever liked/loved Tintin during any part of your life, watch this movie. It honestly puts all those Asterix-movies to shame.
...I'm going to argue the Asterix comment, because the live-action ones are actually great fun, and 'Asterix Conquers America' is one of my top 5 animated films. I didn't think Lister would be a good pick, but he does a surprisingly entertaining Asterix.
Asterix at the Olympic Games isn't that great, I'll concede, but it's still fun. They're just fun in a different way.
...I'm going to argue the Asterix comment, because the live-action ones are actually great fun, and 'Asterix Conquers America' is one of my top 5 animated films. I didn't think Lister would be a good pick, but he does a surprisingly entertaining Asterix.
Asterix at the Olympic Games isn't that great, I'll concede, but it's still fun. They're just fun in a different way.
I think Mission Cléopatre is the only live-action film that comes close to the fun of the Asterix books. Both Asterix at the Olympic Games and Contre Caesar (don't know the English title, but the first one) are pretty awful. If you look at the cartoons I'd say that Asterix & Cleopatre, Asterix in Brittain and especially Twelve Tasks of Asterix are great (that last one is a classic), the rest never felt like the comics to me. But I was actually talking about the live action movies in my comparison (maybe not entirely fair, because Tintin isn't live action, obviously). I was always more of a fan of Asterix than of Tintin, and apart from the exceptions I mentioned, I've always been disappointed with most Asterix-movies.
But yeah, before I get carried away (and before I start a war with Asterix-fans: I'm one of you!), I agree that there are some good Asterix-movies. But a lot of bad ones too. I honestly believe that the new Tintin movie is better than the best Asterix movie though. They've got the feel of reading those comics as a 9-year old exactly right. In the live-action Asterix-movies it always felt like the franchise was too much to handle for the directors.
Absolutely amazing. Best Spielberg movie in years. The amount of love and respect they show towards the original comics is amazing. Really, this is my movie of the year.
When going to film school, there was one mistake that I saw a lot of the beginning directors, cameramen, editors and the like make. They were all so focused on the technique behind the film, that they forgot to focus on story and the characters. Watching Tintin and the Secret of the Unicorn made me feel like I was in film school again.
From the first shot on, walking into the world of Tintin feels amazing, you see that everything was treated with the greatest care and eye for detail, and even though they still can't quite seem to get eyes right, the whole movie looks absolutely amazing. Strangely enough, you don't get the time to enjoy the beauty of it all, because right after the initial scene you're taken into a roller-coaster ride. It's there where this movie is starting to show it's flaws. There's very little breathing time left for the movie, and because of this, you never really get to feel or care for the characters. They never become lovable, they don't get their moment to shine and they're never genuinely funny.
Watching the whole spectacle, one begins to wonder if Spielberg purposely chose to abandon all basic storytelling rules and just go with it, or if he was distracted the whole technique of motion capture while making it. At least, to me, it feels that way.
As a result of this, the movie falls a bit flat. You have a great introduction sequence, but after this you're sucked into one two hour action sequence which is barely followable because of all the different layers of action going on on screen. Steady camera shots have been replaced by a constantly moving roller-coaster cam, which gives beautiful lenghty shots, but gives so much information that it's barely followable en sometimes even stomach turning.
Another part where the technique doesn't compliment in the storytelling is with the sometimes slapstick humor. Because the characters look so real, except for some facial features, as a viewer, you can't really accept some of the things that happen to them. If a piano falls on a cartoon character, you think it's funny because you accept that he'll just come out of it unharmed except for the fact that the piano keys are (completely playable) sticking out of his mouth. If that same thing happens to a human, we know that he would have broken every bone in his body and, if still alive, would have to be driven to the intensive care immediately. These kind of things feel illogical in the movie and take the viewer away from the viewing experience.
Storywise they took the easy way out. The situations feel forced and uneasy, like they wanted to put as many locations in the film as they could, and the plot, told by action instead of dialogue, is rather laughable. I don't like to compare the source material to the movie in a review, but the way they translated and hollywoodised the story feels out of place and never genuine. This feeling even goes as far as the soundtrack, because even the music by the brilliant John Williams seems flat, uninspired and never truly memorable. We never hear any of the compositions that Williams excels at, the recognizable orchestrated themes introducing plot elements or characters, telling a story of their own. But to be honest, these elements never really get enough screen time to have their own theme.
In a nutshell, it feels like the movie was focused on technique, and while it looks truly beautiful, it lacks in all the other departments. And in a world in which computer graphics get prettier every day, this movie, in a couple of years, will be forgotten with the rest of the for-their-time beautiful, but lacking story wise, computer animated films.
The Adventures of Tintin; Secret of the Unicorn
** out of *****
When going to film school, there was one mistake that I saw a lot of the beginning directors, cameramen, editors and the like make. They were all so focused on the technique behind the film, that they forgot to focus on story and the characters. Watching Tintin and the Secret of the Unicorn made me feel like I was in film school again.
From the first shot on, walking into the world of Tintin feels amazing, you see that everything was treated with the greatest care and eye for detail, and even though they still can't quite seem to get eyes right, the whole movie looks absolutely amazing. Strangely enough, you don't get the time to enjoy the beauty of it all, because right after the initial scene you're taken into a roller-coaster ride. It's there where this movie is starting to show it's flaws. There's very little breathing time left for the movie, and because of this, you never really get to feel or care for the characters. They never become lovable, they don't get their moment to shine and they're never genuinely funny.
Watching the whole spectacle, one begins to wonder if Spielberg purposely chose to abandon all basic storytelling rules and just go with it, or if he was distracted the whole technique of motion capture while making it. At least, to me, it feels that way.
As a result of this, the movie falls a bit flat. You have a great introduction sequence, but after this you're sucked into one two hour action sequence which is barely followable because of all the different layers of action going on on screen. Steady camera shots have been replaced by a constantly moving roller-coaster cam, which gives beautiful lenghty shots, but gives so much information that it's barely followable en sometimes even stomach turning.
Another part where the technique doesn't compliment in the storytelling is with the sometimes slapstick humor. Because the characters look so real, except for some facial features, as a viewer, you can't really accept some of the things that happen to them. If a piano falls on a cartoon character, you think it's funny because you accept that he'll just come out of it unharmed except for the fact that the piano keys are (completely playable) sticking out of his mouth. If that same thing happens to a human, we know that he would have broken every bone in his body and, if still alive, would have to be driven to the intensive care immediately. These kind of things feel illogical in the movie and take the viewer away from the viewing experience.
Storywise they took the easy way out. The situations feel forced and uneasy, like they wanted to put as many locations in the film as they could, and the plot, told by action instead of dialogue, is rather laughable. I don't like to compare the source material to the movie in a review, but the way they translated and hollywoodised the story feels out of place and never genuine. This feeling even goes as far as the soundtrack, because even the music by the brilliant John Williams seems flat, uninspired and never truly memorable. We never hear any of the compositions that Williams excels at, the recognizable orchestrated themes introducing plot elements or characters, telling a story of their own. But to be honest, these elements never really get enough screen time to have their own theme.
In a nutshell, it feels like the movie was focused on technique, and while it looks truly beautiful, it lacks in all the other departments. And in a world in which computer graphics get prettier every day, this movie, in a couple of years, will be forgotten with the rest of the for-their-time beautiful, but lacking story wise, computer animated films.
The Adventures of Tintin; Secret of the Unicorn
** out of *****
Troglodyte! Fresh-water sham! Imposter! Bashi-bazouk! I just wanted to comment and say that this review is pure bullshit. Or Joop didn't watch the movie at all. Something like that.
I'll write a review eventually but I disagree on most of these points and I give the movie a 9 blistering barnacles out of 11 overall.
I just wanted to comment and say that this review is pure bullshit. Or Joop didn't watch the movie at all. Something like that.
I'll write a review eventually but I disagree on most of these points and I give the movie a 9 out of 11 overall.
Or the third most logical option. He watched it and didn't like it.
Kind of like this critique:
"While the big set pieces are often exuberantly handled, the human details are sorely wanting. How curious that Hergé achieved more expression with his use of ink-spot eyes and humble line drawings than a bank of computers and an army of animators were able to achieve."
Well, I'm about to start my...fourteenth, I think, Tintin book. I think that after reading all of these, I should have some idea of what's going on when I finally get to see this thing.
Haddock's definitely my favorite character. Though Tintin himself is a very close second.
Haddock's definitely my favorite character. Though Tintin himself is a very close second.
A good choice but I have to say I like Thomson & Thompson best (I couldn't just pick one, they come as a pair). Mind, it's been too long since I've read any of the Tintin books. I'm gonna have to do something about that. I also need to go and see the damn film as it's one of the few I actually want to go to the cinema and watch though my brother has been going on about watching it in an IMAX theatre.
Comments
This is the first time in years I'm getting freaking excited about a hollywood film announcement. Hero of my childhood!
The trailer is looking great. I want a series :O
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEj3UsAl0K8&feature=player_embedded
I suppose people are finally going to stop comparing this movie to uninspired crap like Polar Express and Mars needs Moms. Looks way better than anything I could have hoped for.
It's got a good cast. It's got good writers. It's based on good stories. Spielburg I'm not a great fan of (you just know that he;s going to bring in a pair of kids and... no wait,they did that already in "Lake of Sharks"), and Peter Jackson's stuff I can't stand for five minutes, let alone five hours, so... could go either way.
Are you sure you've watched the trailer?
Yeah, and something like six seconds worth of faces were shown.
What are you talking about? What should they do to satisfy you, have a full close-up for a full 10 seconds or something? It's a trailer, and you get to see quite a lot of faces, both near and far. Lot's of close-ups, and great shots during that Thompsons-scene, the market scene and that motorcycle-scene. Are you sure you watched the new trailer and not the old one?
Yes. For a Motion Capture movie, I'll decide whether to see it or not as to whether or not the faces look good, as it's what I'll be staring at for 150 minutes.
Man, you're off your rocker. The faces look fantastic and nowhere near Zemeckis shit. They showed plenty of faces for a trailer and they showed them clearly.
Some shots from the trailer, and that's not even all of them. Satisfied? Personally, I think it looks great.
Um, there was. Several times.
And I love Haddock's nose =<
Touche, Josh. Touche.
One word: Snowy.
*whoosh*
fix'd.
But, I agree. I did not see anything that belongs in the Uncanny Valley, or at least, anything that bothers me much. Of course, normal CGI would be better, but I don't think the mo-cap would ruin the film that bad. Also, it kinda looks fun.
*splash*
Of course, my opinion is partly formed by years of growing up with this series. Everyone in my country knows the characters and most of the adventures, so it's really hard for me to imagine what people who never heard of Tintin (Americans, I guess) will make of it. The joy of finally seeing Haddock portrayed so perfectly, watching the Thompsons doing their thing... Man, I think I'm going to watch it again tonight. And I never watch a movie multiple times in the theatre anymore.
About the CGI: I guess people are going to complain about this, but I thought it looked amazing (maybe Tintin's face looks a bit weird in a couple of close ups, but that's it). There's no way this could have been live action, and old 2D-animation (like the old cartoon adaptions) wouldn't have been nearly as effective. I always thought the old cartoons, as fun as they were (the Dutch voices for that show were amazing), weren't nearly as dynamic as the panels in the comics. The action in this movie is simply breathtaking.
Seriously, if you've ever liked/loved Tintin during any part of your life, watch this movie. It honestly puts all those Asterix-movies to shame.
Asterix at the Olympic Games isn't that great, I'll concede, but it's still fun. They're just fun in a different way.
I think Mission Cléopatre is the only live-action film that comes close to the fun of the Asterix books. Both Asterix at the Olympic Games and Contre Caesar (don't know the English title, but the first one) are pretty awful. If you look at the cartoons I'd say that Asterix & Cleopatre, Asterix in Brittain and especially Twelve Tasks of Asterix are great (that last one is a classic), the rest never felt like the comics to me. But I was actually talking about the live action movies in my comparison (maybe not entirely fair, because Tintin isn't live action, obviously). I was always more of a fan of Asterix than of Tintin, and apart from the exceptions I mentioned, I've always been disappointed with most Asterix-movies.
But yeah, before I get carried away (and before I start a war with Asterix-fans: I'm one of you!), I agree that there are some good Asterix-movies. But a lot of bad ones too. I honestly believe that the new Tintin movie is better than the best Asterix movie though. They've got the feel of reading those comics as a 9-year old exactly right. In the live-action Asterix-movies it always felt like the franchise was too much to handle for the directors.
I agree.
Visually stunning, story wise boring.
When going to film school, there was one mistake that I saw a lot of the beginning directors, cameramen, editors and the like make. They were all so focused on the technique behind the film, that they forgot to focus on story and the characters. Watching Tintin and the Secret of the Unicorn made me feel like I was in film school again.
From the first shot on, walking into the world of Tintin feels amazing, you see that everything was treated with the greatest care and eye for detail, and even though they still can't quite seem to get eyes right, the whole movie looks absolutely amazing. Strangely enough, you don't get the time to enjoy the beauty of it all, because right after the initial scene you're taken into a roller-coaster ride. It's there where this movie is starting to show it's flaws. There's very little breathing time left for the movie, and because of this, you never really get to feel or care for the characters. They never become lovable, they don't get their moment to shine and they're never genuinely funny.
Watching the whole spectacle, one begins to wonder if Spielberg purposely chose to abandon all basic storytelling rules and just go with it, or if he was distracted the whole technique of motion capture while making it. At least, to me, it feels that way.
As a result of this, the movie falls a bit flat. You have a great introduction sequence, but after this you're sucked into one two hour action sequence which is barely followable because of all the different layers of action going on on screen. Steady camera shots have been replaced by a constantly moving roller-coaster cam, which gives beautiful lenghty shots, but gives so much information that it's barely followable en sometimes even stomach turning.
Another part where the technique doesn't compliment in the storytelling is with the sometimes slapstick humor. Because the characters look so real, except for some facial features, as a viewer, you can't really accept some of the things that happen to them. If a piano falls on a cartoon character, you think it's funny because you accept that he'll just come out of it unharmed except for the fact that the piano keys are (completely playable) sticking out of his mouth. If that same thing happens to a human, we know that he would have broken every bone in his body and, if still alive, would have to be driven to the intensive care immediately. These kind of things feel illogical in the movie and take the viewer away from the viewing experience.
Storywise they took the easy way out. The situations feel forced and uneasy, like they wanted to put as many locations in the film as they could, and the plot, told by action instead of dialogue, is rather laughable. I don't like to compare the source material to the movie in a review, but the way they translated and hollywoodised the story feels out of place and never genuine. This feeling even goes as far as the soundtrack, because even the music by the brilliant John Williams seems flat, uninspired and never truly memorable. We never hear any of the compositions that Williams excels at, the recognizable orchestrated themes introducing plot elements or characters, telling a story of their own. But to be honest, these elements never really get enough screen time to have their own theme.
In a nutshell, it feels like the movie was focused on technique, and while it looks truly beautiful, it lacks in all the other departments. And in a world in which computer graphics get prettier every day, this movie, in a couple of years, will be forgotten with the rest of the for-their-time beautiful, but lacking story wise, computer animated films.
The Adventures of Tintin; Secret of the Unicorn
** out of *****
I want to see a shark jump up and bite them in the ass.
Let's see a shark jump up and bite them on the ass! Spielberg has done it before!
Troglodyte! Fresh-water sham! Imposter! Bashi-bazouk! I just wanted to comment and say that this review is pure bullshit. Or Joop didn't watch the movie at all. Something like that.
I'll write a review eventually but I disagree on most of these points and I give the movie a 9 blistering barnacles out of 11 overall.
Or the third most logical option. He watched it and didn't like it.
Kind of like this critique:
"While the big set pieces are often exuberantly handled, the human details are sorely wanting. How curious that Hergé achieved more expression with his use of ink-spot eyes and humble line drawings than a bank of computers and an army of animators were able to achieve."
No, he's just wrong. In nearly every point. I'll get to explaining it...in the movies topic.
Haddock's definitely my favorite character. Though Tintin himself is a very close second.
A good choice but I have to say I like Thomson & Thompson best (I couldn't just pick one, they come as a pair). Mind, it's been too long since I've read any of the Tintin books. I'm gonna have to do something about that. I also need to go and see the damn film as it's one of the few I actually want to go to the cinema and watch though my brother has been going on about watching it in an IMAX theatre.