Movie Review:
The Adventures of Tintin
2011 / 1 hr., 47 min. / PG
Director: Steven Spielberg
Until 2011, I had never heard of Tintin. Even now I know very little except that my son discovered some Tintin books at the library that summer, that he loves reading them, and that this literary find randomly coincided with the news that a film version was on its way. Naturally, a father-and-son outing to the cinema was in order.
Tintin is the creation of French author Herge from back in the 1940's. An intrepid reporter with a shock of red hair, Tintin never has an easy assignment; like the Hardy Boys or Hercule Poirot, Tintin manages to end up in life-threatening adventures just by existing, it seems. The episodic series of books, packed full of mystery and action, therefore lent themselves quite well to another of Steven Spielberg’s grand-scale tributes to the Saturday matinee serials of yesteryear, plainly titled The Adventures of Tintin.
My son informs me that this one is based entirely on the book The Secret of the Unicorn, in which Tintin’s innocent purchase of a miniature sailing ship lands him in the middle of dark and sinister intrigue. Dark and sinister people desperately want a piece of parchment tucked in the model’s tiny mast, and Tintin is naturally not content with letting them have the ship and parchment – He did, after all, pay an entire British pound for it, at the 1940's value. Instead, he pursues the dark and sinister forces, ending up on a steamer bound for some place in the Middle East I have never heard of and cannot now recall.
Along the way, Tintin meets and rescues Captain Haddock, a drunken sod who has a penchant for alliterative expletives like “Blue blistering barnacles!” Together they delve into the mystery of why anyone would care about a model sailing ship and a cryptic scribble on a piece of parchment. Delving, in this case, involves getting lost on the open seas in a rowboat, flying a sea plane into a violent thunderstorm, dying of thirst in the desert, attending an opera, and driving through Arabian city streets on a motorcycle-and-sidecar in pursuit of a bird of prey. In that order.
In directing The Adventures of Tintin, Steven Spielberg returns to a bygone era where kids could run down to the local theater every Saturday and watch their favorite heroes take off on daring new escapades for a quarter. Each film spun off of the one from the week before, creating an episodic series (hence “serials”) of tales. The hero engaged in chases, fights, and high-stakes adventure in pursuit of dark and sinister villains, many of which escaped to antagonize the hero again next week. Spielberg first tipped his hat to this “golly-gee whiz-bang” age with Raiders of the Lost Ark and the ensuing episodes of Indiana Jones’ adventures, and I can only imagine that he fondly remembers being one of those kids plunking down a quarter, because he pulls it off again here quite well. Tintin may or may not become as iconic to American audiences as Indiana Jones, but the homage to Saturday matinees is unmistakable.
Unfortunately for my personal taste, Spielberg chose to present the film as computer animation instead of live action. I suppose the argument could be made that animation is in keeping with the spirit of the books, since they are in graphic form, but my inclination is toward real people and sets, especially for fantasies and adventures. The film employs the motion-capture method of animating, in which real actors perform each shot of the movie wearing special suits that allow a computer to record their movements. From there, computer artists create the characters and locations. While it is probably cost-effective for an adventure like this, saving money on everything from costumes to pyrotechnics, it simply does not draw me in. It is too animated to be real – individual frames do look deceptively photographic, but to this day computer-generated living beings still do not move like flesh-and-blood people on physical sets – and too real to be enjoyed as an animated film. I spent the entire screening being aware of the film, and that is precisely what a film-maker should avoid. When technique distracts from the story, the film is less than perfect.
This is also true with the excessive camera movement. Spielberg is occasionally guilty of succumbing to the “Because We Can” syndrome – don’t get me started on one particularly egotistical shot in his War of the Worlds – and The Adventures of Tintin is no exception. The hypothetical camera feels constantly on the go, swooping in and around and over and through, simply because it can. Throw in some ineffectively simulated “hand-held” motion, and I’m just about ready to vocalize my discontent right there in the theater.
But within the bounds of Spielberg’s personal choice of storytelling medium, I would have to say it was a very enjoyable experience. Spielberg’s senses of wonder, awe, mystery, suspense, and adventure remain keen – and he even gets to throw in his trademark beams of light shining in dark, dusty rooms. On only a couple of occasions does he slip and allow truly cartoonish moments of silliness to interfere; but what can you expect when the hero’s sidekick is a dog with enough cognitive and communicative prowess to make Lassie green with envy?
Tintin is “played” by Jamie Bell (Nicholas Nickleby), assisted by Andy Serkis, renowned for his very physical performances for other motion-capture roles like Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Daniel Craig of recent James Bond fame. It is hard to critique anyone’s acting in a film like this, since their performances undergo computer manipulation; but the voice talents are decidedly appropriate, at least.
I cannot speak for how well the screenplay conveys the spirit of Herge’s story, but writers Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish adhere closely enough that my son recognized which book he was seeing; and he sported a big grin on several occasions, particularly when Captain Haddock uttered another of his traditional epithets. He also instantly recognized the bumbling twin police detectives Thompson and Thomson, helpfully informing me of who they were. So as far as an adaptation goes, I guess they did a good job. As a script on its own terms, it is generally clever and consistent.
And I must comment with delight that John Williams is back. I haven’t heard anything truly interesting from him since his scoring for the Harry Potter series, and his recent work for Spielberg’s War Horse was pleasant but unmemorable. The rousing fun of Tintin’s quest allows Williams to rev up an energetic orchestra and really belt it out once again. There’s nothing specific to hum on your way out of the theater, like “The Raiders March”, but the music is in that same boisterous vein.
All told, I enjoyed my time with my son, and he enjoyed his time with Tintin. A few moments were spent cowering behind the row of seats in front of us – my son, not me – during some fairly intense chases and fights. But in general, for a harmless thrill ride through a good old mystery adventure, Tintin awaits you.
My Score: 8
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Practically Perfect
Movie Review:
Mary Poppins
1964 / 2 hrs., 20 min. / G
Director: Robert Stevenson
The “G” in the ratings system stands for “General Audiences,” as in a film that reaches the youngest children, the oldest adults, and everyone in between. Modern studios don’t seem to understand this – most of their “G” films really need a “K” for kids, since adults will typically find the product mind-numbing. Not so with Walt Disney. Mr. Disney was the Grand Master of true Family entertainment. He knew how to find and produce stories that truly reached all ages: Eye-catching visuals for the kids, humor and poignancy for the adults (something Pixar seems to have picked up on in the wake of the Disney corporation’s floundering after Walt’s death). While I enjoy practically every feature project created during Disney’s lifetime, I have found none that so exemplifies Family entertainment as Mary Poppins.
This is a film that everyone needs to see, first as a child, then as a teenager, then as a young adult, then as a parent – and as frequently as possible in between all of those stages – for it has something to offer at every stage of life, and its offerings get richer the older one gets. Of course, there is the likelihood that the modern cynical teenager will not have the patience for the film’s cutesy veneer, but it is his loss if he does not stick around and learn something about life.
George Banks (David Tomlinson) is aptly named, as he is a banker at a prestigious London bank in 1910. His wife (Glynis Johns) is a strange blend of Vigorous Suffragette and Submissive Housewife. His children, Jane (Karen Dotrice) and Michael (Matthew Garber), look up to him and want ever so much to love him – but George does not see it. Children are to be patted on the head and sent up to bed, educated by a nanny, and generally molded by their fathers and mothers into new fathers and mothers who will then do the same to the next generation. Such is the precision a British home requires.
When the previous nanny (Elsa Lanchester) quits in a huff, George advertises for a new one – but only after tearing up the advertisement his children wrote on their own. Children could not possibly know what is good for them. (Well, I agree on a limited basis, but not to the extreme George Banks believes.) In a fun interview scene, George meets the first and only applicant for the position of nanny, Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews).
The children quickly learn something is not quite ordinary about the new nanny. After all, she literally breezed in by coasting over London using an open umbrella as a sail. She does not deign to walk up the stairs to the nursery, but slides up the bannister instead. And not ten minutes into her new job, she is pulling impossibly large objects out of her carpet bag, cleaning up the nursery with a mere snap of her fingers, and talking to her reflection in the mirror. Yes, we’ve all done that, but who among us has a reflection that answers back with a mind of its own?
From there, Mary Poppins takes the children on an outing to the park, where they meet up with Bert (Dick Van Dyke), a jovial cockney bloke who employs himself with whatever comes to mind (including narrating the film at a few key moments). He is first seen as a one-man band, in the park he’s a chalk artist, and later he’s a chimney sweep. Together, the four of them enjoy an afternoon inside one of Bert’s chalk pictures, complete with animated singing animals.
But it is not my job to tell the whole story here. In short, the seemingly frothy and pointless adventures continue, quietly building to a purpose that leads to Jane’s and Michael’s running away from their father, whom they are sure is out to destroy them. “He’s bringing the army, the navy, and everything!” Michael claims.
And thus we come to the amazing beauty of the film. Yes, all of these adventures are fantastic tales for youngsters to watch. I laughed my pre-teen self silly at the sight of Jane and Michael magically cleaning the nursery, hopping into the chalk picture, and having a tea party on the ceiling with Uncle Albert (Ed Wynn). But it was not until my late teens, perhaps even early adulthood, when I realized what was really going on.
It happens in the scene where George decides to dismiss Mary Poppins. Lecturing her on the importance of raising the children with a certain mind set, Banks is prepared to let Poppins go because of her apparently frivolous methods. But before he knows what has happened, she has pegged his unloving short-sightedness dead on, and has done so in such a way that he has no clue his soul has just been laid bare.
From there, George’s world falls apart. His children inadvertently cause a run on the bank, bringing the terror of the bank’s executives down upon George. He is called to a late-night meeting where he will be sacked, and his walk to the bank in the middle of the night, through the empty London streets, is one of the most powerful moments of the film.
And then, he gets it. He finally gets it! In the midst of the chaos his life has become, the reality of what his life should have been all along strikes him. And isn’t that often the way? When we are rising to the top, our field of vision overlooks the objects of real beauty, joy, and love that surround us. It is not until we are toppled by one of life’s misfortunes that we take time to look around and see what is truly worthwhile to our existence.
But I should back up and do my duty as a reviewer. First, in dealing with the cast, Julie Andrews (The Sound of Music) plays Mary Poppins flawlessly. I mean that. I can’t find anything to quibble about. Apparently neither could the Motion Picture Academy, as Andrews was awarded Best Actress by her peers. Dick Van Dyke (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) appears to be having an unrestrained blast in his role as the everyman who guides the story along. Linguistic purists will cringe over his version of a cockney accent, but I don’t find it distracting. And watch for his other appearance as Mr. Dawes, Sr., the role he quite begged Disney to let him play.
David Tomlinson (The Love Bug) was Disney’s every-villain for a while, and while he’s not so much a “villain” here, he does a good job as the crusty father. Glynis Johns (While You Were Sleeping) is humorous as Mrs. Banks, one moment bravely asserting that women should get to vote, and the next repeating, “Yes, dear,” to her husband in meek acquiescence.
And then there are the two children, played by Matthew Garber and Karen Dotrice (The Gnome-Mobile). They are self-proclaimed adorable children, and I agree. Matthew is quite funny as Michael, especially when he is hopelessly frustrated by his inability to snap his fingers. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, these two joined the long list of Child Stars Who Failed to Make the Transition to Adult Stars, because aside from one or two other Disney features, they are almost completely unheard of after this film.
The script by Bill Walsh and Don Da Gradi did not win P.L. Travers’ approval, but it is lively, joyous, and in the hands of director Robert Stevenson (Bedknobs and Broomsticks) is told with great enthusiasm, wit, and fun. It also approaches its point with wonderful subtlety. Although there is an episodic nature to the little outings the nanny takes the children on, all of these things slowly and quietly build to the main point without ever stating it.
The songs are some of the most memorable ever written for a film. “Spoonful of Sugar,” the award-nominated “Chim Chim Cheree,” and the immortal “Supercalifragilistic” are among the gems of the music track. Websites that specialize in movie trivia inform me that Disney’s favorite song for the rest of his life was “Feed the Birds,” which I will agree is tender and haunting at the same time. The Sherman Brothers were brilliant in numerous films, and their compositions shine here.
The Disney company has always been a major innovator in new effects, and they are used here extensively. This is not to say the effects are perfect – the wires used to fly Andrews onto the Banks front porch are quite visible – but the sheer joy the film exudes tends to blur over the occasional flaw. Watching Dick Van Dyke dance with four animated penguins is a high point.
This is one of a handful of films I could discuss all day, and I feel like this review only begins to explore its depths. But I won’t do that; I will let you explore it for yourself from here on out. It is a treasure, assembled with care into one of the most touching films I’ve ever seen, with a beautiful life-affirming message about the joys of children, fatherhood, and family. See it often. With the whole family. It’s rated “G,” after all.
My Score: 9
Mary Poppins
1964 / 2 hrs., 20 min. / G
Director: Robert Stevenson
The “G” in the ratings system stands for “General Audiences,” as in a film that reaches the youngest children, the oldest adults, and everyone in between. Modern studios don’t seem to understand this – most of their “G” films really need a “K” for kids, since adults will typically find the product mind-numbing. Not so with Walt Disney. Mr. Disney was the Grand Master of true Family entertainment. He knew how to find and produce stories that truly reached all ages: Eye-catching visuals for the kids, humor and poignancy for the adults (something Pixar seems to have picked up on in the wake of the Disney corporation’s floundering after Walt’s death). While I enjoy practically every feature project created during Disney’s lifetime, I have found none that so exemplifies Family entertainment as Mary Poppins.
This is a film that everyone needs to see, first as a child, then as a teenager, then as a young adult, then as a parent – and as frequently as possible in between all of those stages – for it has something to offer at every stage of life, and its offerings get richer the older one gets. Of course, there is the likelihood that the modern cynical teenager will not have the patience for the film’s cutesy veneer, but it is his loss if he does not stick around and learn something about life.
George Banks (David Tomlinson) is aptly named, as he is a banker at a prestigious London bank in 1910. His wife (Glynis Johns) is a strange blend of Vigorous Suffragette and Submissive Housewife. His children, Jane (Karen Dotrice) and Michael (Matthew Garber), look up to him and want ever so much to love him – but George does not see it. Children are to be patted on the head and sent up to bed, educated by a nanny, and generally molded by their fathers and mothers into new fathers and mothers who will then do the same to the next generation. Such is the precision a British home requires.
When the previous nanny (Elsa Lanchester) quits in a huff, George advertises for a new one – but only after tearing up the advertisement his children wrote on their own. Children could not possibly know what is good for them. (Well, I agree on a limited basis, but not to the extreme George Banks believes.) In a fun interview scene, George meets the first and only applicant for the position of nanny, Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews).
The children quickly learn something is not quite ordinary about the new nanny. After all, she literally breezed in by coasting over London using an open umbrella as a sail. She does not deign to walk up the stairs to the nursery, but slides up the bannister instead. And not ten minutes into her new job, she is pulling impossibly large objects out of her carpet bag, cleaning up the nursery with a mere snap of her fingers, and talking to her reflection in the mirror. Yes, we’ve all done that, but who among us has a reflection that answers back with a mind of its own?
From there, Mary Poppins takes the children on an outing to the park, where they meet up with Bert (Dick Van Dyke), a jovial cockney bloke who employs himself with whatever comes to mind (including narrating the film at a few key moments). He is first seen as a one-man band, in the park he’s a chalk artist, and later he’s a chimney sweep. Together, the four of them enjoy an afternoon inside one of Bert’s chalk pictures, complete with animated singing animals.
But it is not my job to tell the whole story here. In short, the seemingly frothy and pointless adventures continue, quietly building to a purpose that leads to Jane’s and Michael’s running away from their father, whom they are sure is out to destroy them. “He’s bringing the army, the navy, and everything!” Michael claims.
And thus we come to the amazing beauty of the film. Yes, all of these adventures are fantastic tales for youngsters to watch. I laughed my pre-teen self silly at the sight of Jane and Michael magically cleaning the nursery, hopping into the chalk picture, and having a tea party on the ceiling with Uncle Albert (Ed Wynn). But it was not until my late teens, perhaps even early adulthood, when I realized what was really going on.
It happens in the scene where George decides to dismiss Mary Poppins. Lecturing her on the importance of raising the children with a certain mind set, Banks is prepared to let Poppins go because of her apparently frivolous methods. But before he knows what has happened, she has pegged his unloving short-sightedness dead on, and has done so in such a way that he has no clue his soul has just been laid bare.
From there, George’s world falls apart. His children inadvertently cause a run on the bank, bringing the terror of the bank’s executives down upon George. He is called to a late-night meeting where he will be sacked, and his walk to the bank in the middle of the night, through the empty London streets, is one of the most powerful moments of the film.
And then, he gets it. He finally gets it! In the midst of the chaos his life has become, the reality of what his life should have been all along strikes him. And isn’t that often the way? When we are rising to the top, our field of vision overlooks the objects of real beauty, joy, and love that surround us. It is not until we are toppled by one of life’s misfortunes that we take time to look around and see what is truly worthwhile to our existence.
But I should back up and do my duty as a reviewer. First, in dealing with the cast, Julie Andrews (The Sound of Music) plays Mary Poppins flawlessly. I mean that. I can’t find anything to quibble about. Apparently neither could the Motion Picture Academy, as Andrews was awarded Best Actress by her peers. Dick Van Dyke (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) appears to be having an unrestrained blast in his role as the everyman who guides the story along. Linguistic purists will cringe over his version of a cockney accent, but I don’t find it distracting. And watch for his other appearance as Mr. Dawes, Sr., the role he quite begged Disney to let him play.
David Tomlinson (The Love Bug) was Disney’s every-villain for a while, and while he’s not so much a “villain” here, he does a good job as the crusty father. Glynis Johns (While You Were Sleeping) is humorous as Mrs. Banks, one moment bravely asserting that women should get to vote, and the next repeating, “Yes, dear,” to her husband in meek acquiescence.
And then there are the two children, played by Matthew Garber and Karen Dotrice (The Gnome-Mobile). They are self-proclaimed adorable children, and I agree. Matthew is quite funny as Michael, especially when he is hopelessly frustrated by his inability to snap his fingers. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, these two joined the long list of Child Stars Who Failed to Make the Transition to Adult Stars, because aside from one or two other Disney features, they are almost completely unheard of after this film.
The script by Bill Walsh and Don Da Gradi did not win P.L. Travers’ approval, but it is lively, joyous, and in the hands of director Robert Stevenson (Bedknobs and Broomsticks) is told with great enthusiasm, wit, and fun. It also approaches its point with wonderful subtlety. Although there is an episodic nature to the little outings the nanny takes the children on, all of these things slowly and quietly build to the main point without ever stating it.
The songs are some of the most memorable ever written for a film. “Spoonful of Sugar,” the award-nominated “Chim Chim Cheree,” and the immortal “Supercalifragilistic” are among the gems of the music track. Websites that specialize in movie trivia inform me that Disney’s favorite song for the rest of his life was “Feed the Birds,” which I will agree is tender and haunting at the same time. The Sherman Brothers were brilliant in numerous films, and their compositions shine here.
The Disney company has always been a major innovator in new effects, and they are used here extensively. This is not to say the effects are perfect – the wires used to fly Andrews onto the Banks front porch are quite visible – but the sheer joy the film exudes tends to blur over the occasional flaw. Watching Dick Van Dyke dance with four animated penguins is a high point.
This is one of a handful of films I could discuss all day, and I feel like this review only begins to explore its depths. But I won’t do that; I will let you explore it for yourself from here on out. It is a treasure, assembled with care into one of the most touching films I’ve ever seen, with a beautiful life-affirming message about the joys of children, fatherhood, and family. See it often. With the whole family. It’s rated “G,” after all.
My Score: 9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)