Review: The Adventures of Tintin - Secret of the Unicorn

I saw The Adventures of Tintin the other day, so I thought I’d write up a quick review about it.

I’ll start off by getting the main thing out of the way – I enjoyed it. It was entertaining, enjoyable and didn’t annoy me. All good things. Time did not drag, nor did it constantly morph my seat like a piece of plasticine into an uncomfortable  pile of fabric and sponge, making me wiggle and fidget throughout the entire film (something which inexplicably happened during Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, despite it also being very good). No, Tintin was a good film. Good.

But it wasn’t great.

And the only thing I can put that down to it the fact that, at its very core, Tintin is a children’s movie.  There’s no intellect or emotion, or really any humour, it’s just a film designed to keep the youngun’s happy. And let’s be clear, it did - I heard several giggles and guffaws around me. But what separates Tintin from the likes of Toy Story is that it targeted only children, whereas Disney Pixar usually sprinkles in a few lines for adults to pick out. Unfortunately, none of that was in here, or if it was I missed it. So that’s what stopped the film from being great, it catered to only one audience, but it was still good and here’s why…

First off, the art style was brilliant. I loved it. Producer Peter Jackson has previously said :-

“We're making them look photorealistic; the fibres of their clothing, the pores of their skin and each individual hair. They look exactly like real people – but real Hergé people!”

That last bit, about looking like Hergé’s people rings true to me. Now, I’ve never actually read a Tintin comic before, but most people know what is meant and have at least seen a picture of the comic. Immediately it was clear (and I won’t give away anything) this film was going to offer a faithful adaption of the famous comic book characters, at least in visual form anyway. Often, the type of CGI-capture this film used can be jarring or just look plain creepy (ahem…Polar Express), but here it was beautiful.  Hergé’s actual art style was something called ‘Ligne claire’, which basically left everything in a panel with equal importance e.g. the background had the same ink thickness as the characters in the foreground. This gives a clean, almost refreshing quality, which I’m pleased to say transferred over to the silver screen remarkably well.

The plot is apparently three Tintin comic stories all tied together - The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn, and Red Rackham's Treasure. This being the case, the film ran rather smoothly indeed and any disjoints or gaps were obviously sealed with some good polyfilla by writers Edgar Wright, Stephen Moffat and Joe Cornish.  I had heard one review before seeing this film, by the much beloved Mark Kermode who said he found the story rather flat and plain. All I can say is that it seemed big enough and exciting enough for my £3.75 (go Orange Wednesdays!) so goodness knows what it was like for 10 year olds. That being said, Kermode had read the comics, so he might be comparing it to a brilliant comic story or something. The action and events were very Spielberg-y – the rises and falls, the relationships, the dialogue, the action (all of the ‘set action pieces’ were creative, inventive and very well put together). In fact, the film had a Spielberg stamp all over it, being another producer. He really does leave a mark doesn’t he? Suffice to say this film included actual guns and no walkie talkies.

Finally, to wrap up this increasingly overwritten review, I’ll say a bit about the acting. And yes, it was acting, just done in a costume with loads of bobbles all over it. Jamie Bell was, as a replacement, good. Nothing spectacular, but then I hear the character of Tintin isn’t meant to be. Tintin is, in fact, rather plain – it’s the characters around him. Or so I hear and read anyway. Personally I felt Simon Pegg and Nick Frost were underused as Thomson and Thomson, but at the same time I found them slightly annoying so hey, perhaps the balance was correct. Daniel Craig can do a damn fine ‘villain’ voice, yet to me the voice didn’t match the character visually. Now I’m just nitpicking.

Overall, The Adventures of Tintin is a wonderfully crafted, hugely enjoyable film. It’s well worth a watch, but that’s probably it. Unlike other classic children’s movies, this doesn’t warrant repeat viewings, which sums up its problems quite well. Oh, except, there’s going to be a sequel so you might have to watch it then too. If anything, the film has made me (and probably many others, including young children) want to read some of the original comic books, so for that it must be appreciated!