Over the weekend, I got a chance to see the flat-screen version of the new Spielberg opus ...
Watching it, I completely understood what the New Yorker was driving at in its review:
... The great thing about “The Adventures of Tintin” is that it never stops moving — and the terrible thing about it is that it never stops moving. ...
Frankly, it was like watching Michael Curtiz direct, if Michael Cutiz was directing on crystal meth.
In virtual camera-land, you don't need cuts! You don't need a dolly or steady cam or a platform on the camera truck! All you need is imagination and a strong stomach. If you possess both those things, you can pirouette the virtual wide-screen lense through time and space until vertigo sets in.
Which is what Mr. Spielberg often does.
Don't misunderstand me. I dig truck ins, pans, and truck outs. Up to a point. And for a while the incessant camera movement is zestful and uplifting, but ultimately it wears you out. (Okay, it wore me out.) In contrast, the plot is boy's adventure minimalist, but it's mostly there to provide a structure on which to hang all the action set-pieces. Since Steven Spielberg knows how to deliver action set pieces, this works out more than okay.
Despite my gripes, I can understand why overseas audiences have flocked to it, and critics have been more favorable than not. The virtual worlds and art direction are downright dazzling, and the "uncanny valley" fails to trap many of the characters, although the large, cartoon noses get distracting. (Some players are free of it altogether. Tintin's wily terrier Snowy is a downright hoot.)
My guess is that The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn will open respectably stateside, and have a decent run. A sizable part of its audience, taken up by the film's environments and slam-bang forward momentum, will recommend it to family and friends.
Who knows? It might even inspire people to go out and read the comic "albums" on which the movie is based.
Posts
7 comments:
Looks identical to the "dead eyed" garbage released by Zemeckis.
Hey, I have an idea. Zemeckis should re-release Beowulf, Polar Express, and Christmas Carol and plaster the names "Peter Jackson' and "Andy Serkis" all over. Then wait and watch as fanboys call them visual masterpieces.
It was dreadful! It was like a bunch of in-betweens, with no extremes whatsoever! The zombie-cap was exactly what I'd anticipated. For all the effort, it's a shame they just didn't either shoot it in live action with effects, or just ANIMATE it. The basic story was entertaining enough, but the film making, as Steve said, is so beyond self conscious, and the mo-cap so creepy that it was severely distracting from the story. It's like a live action director's idea of what an animated film can be (much like the dreadful rango).
What a waste.
Here we go with Rango again.
"Looks identical to the "dead eyed" garbage released by Zemeckis."
Be grateful that only a few people were allowed to view the finished "trailer" for the proposed Yellow Submarine.
yo, rango hater. WE GET IT! you don't like rango. MOVE ON! Let it go already....
'Bolt'sucked!, 'Tangled' sucked!
diablo
Thought this film was a hoot , kind a high adrenaline movie theme park version of the wonderful comicbooks. Better than i expected the mo cap is 100% more lively than zemeckis christmas carol , The eyes and faces are a lot more expressive. Rackam's (daniel Craig) character was the best of the bunch. The airplane crash sequence was my favorite.
rango was a horrible kids cartoon. I don't get why anyone would defined it on any level. Badly animated (in singapore, so I shouldn't be so harsh--they're just not very good), poorly designed, and piss poor lighting.
But most of all, it's just plain ugly. Glad it flopped at the box office.
Post a Comment