The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

The Adventures of Tintin is a fine, affectionate tribute to the Tintin comics, and visually, it’s dazzling. But the movie lacks Hergé’s spirit.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

Director: Steven Spielberg
Cast: Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Daniel Craig, Daniel Mays
Rated: PG
Studio: Paramount/Columbia
Year: 2011
US date: 2011-12-21 (General release)
UK date: 2011-10-24 (Limited release)

The Secret of the Unicorn is not the best Tintin book. It lacks the empathy of The Blue Lotus or Tintin in Tibet, or the political intrigue of many of the sharper stories. But it’s a sturdy swashbuckling adventure, an old-fashioned tale about pirates and buried treasure, so it’s not surprising that Steven Spielberg has been drawn to it.

Shortly before his death in 1983, Hergé, author of the 23 Tintin books, bequeathed his legacy to Steven Spielberg, believing he was the only filmmaker who could translate to screen his stories of a Belgian boy reporter with a funny name. Finally realizing the late author’s dream, Spielberg has invited Peter Jackson to serve as producer for this film, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn , with the alleged understanding that he’ll direct the next one in the franchise. This makes the movie one of the more exciting collaborations in recent years, both on its own merits and for what it promises.

The Adventures of Tintin, which combines three of Hergé’s works from around the same time period -- The Crab with the Golden Claws (1941), The Secret of the Unicorn (1943) and Red Rackham’s Treasure (1944) – is a respectable adaptation, which reincarnates the classic comics as a blockbuster. Tintin (Jamie Bell) is joined by most of his eccentric friends: the loyal but alcohol-dependent and fiery-tempered Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) and bungling police detective twins Thomson and Thompson (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost). The doddery Professor Calculus is somehow missing, even though his first appearance in the books was Red Rackham’s Treasure; the filmmakers must be saving him for another day.

The Adventures of Tintin is an affectionate tribute to Hergé, and it’s obvious Spielberg is a true fan. The film features clever references to the books that fans will love, and the inventive animation sequence over the opening credits could almost work as a standalone short. The use of motion-capture technology is convincing, allowing as close a resemblance to the heroes of the book as any live-action film ever will, and more expansive than traditional animation.

The movie concocts a a world bursting with color, with a wealth of appreciable detail on small and large scales: a huge freighter putting out to sea at sunset looks as spectacular as a small metal canister falling to the floor behind a cabinet. There is only a slight dead-eyed look in the actors’ faces, when the camera lingers on them a second too long. Spielberg lends some of his own distinctive touches to the visual splendor: a plot development reflected in a bubble; point-of-view shots for Snowy, Tintin’s loyal dog, as he makes his way through a busy street; a dramatic reveal of a ship’s name.

But The Adventures of Tintin also misses the feel of the comics. Not content to stick with The Secret of the Unicorn’s storyline, which is essentially an old-fashioned yarn about retracing the past, hunting for long-buried treasure and reminiscing about your ancestors, screenwriters Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish have deemed it necessary to intertwine past and present, and contrive a more modern-day villain. This is Ivanovich Sakharine, in the books merely a harmless collector, but played here by a snarling Daniel Craig as a direct descendant of Red Rackham, once the most feared pirate on the high seas. Rackham’s arch nemesis was Sir Francis Haddock, and Sakharine has apparently nursed a grudge against Captain Haddock down through the centuries, seeking vengeance against a current descendant. It’s a hammy plot element that is beneath its source material. And goodness knows why the film crams in extra characters from the books: the crooked merchant Omar Ben Salaad (Gad Elmaleh) and opera singer Bianca Castafiore (Kim Stengel) are the most prominent examples. They serve no purpose here, and will likely leave those who haven’t read the books confused.

Moffat, Wright, and Cornish also have trouble nailing comic-book dialogue, Hergé’s combinations of wit, self-awareness, and parody. While including many of Tintin and Haddock’s favorite ripostes ("Great snakes!" or "Billions of blistering blue barnacles!"), the script is sometimes reduced to stilted exposition and outright hokum: "What secrets do you hold?" Tintin exclaims boyishly, in the opening minutes, to a model ship. Once he's out on the water, stuck in a rowboat in the middle of nowhere with Haddock, Tintin asks, "Which way to North Africa?", apparently to inform the rest of us where they're headed.

Such minor absurdities fall by the wayside during the movie’s final act, when Spielberg seems to forget about Tintin altogether, and begins mapping out the next Indiana Jones movie. Spielberg's fondness for over-the-top CGI (and for excessive action more generally) here leads to a reframing of Tintin as an action hero (which he is not, in the books). When he essentially destroys a city to chase a hawk carrying a message, the film goes too far. A sequence in which Captain Haddock belches alcohol fumes into a biplane engine is similarly ludicrous, and -- most tediously -- a duel between dockyard cranes is just noisy.

These late indulgences are a shame, as The Adventures of Tintin is otherwise a modestly successful introduction to the comic books. That said, there are many more Tintin adventures to adapt. I’d be interested to see what a filmmaker could do with The Black Island, King Ottokar’s Sceptre or The Red Sea Sharks. For the next installment, assuming it is coming, let’s hope Jackson will bring his respect and faithfulness to the source material that characterized his Lord of the Rings trilogy, not the flights of fancy that dominated his adaptation of The Lovely Bones. I’m not entirely confident.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.