Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[JimLeavy59]

You gonna review Last Ounce of Courage?

 

[dell71]

You gonna review Last Ounce of Courage?

Wow. You stumped me on that one. Hadn't even heard of it and had to look it up. Can't say that it's in the plans, but you never know.

 

[dell71]

War Horse
<strong>Directed by Steven Spielberg.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 146 minutes.
Cast:
Jeremy Irvine
Emily Watson
David Thewlis
Peter Mullan
Niels Arestrup
Benedict Cumberbatch
Tom Hiddleston
Eddie Marsan
Toby Kebbell
David Kross</em>​

Of course, a horse is a horse, of course. Well, except for Joey. Joey is a bit different. After all, they made this movie about him. To be fair, it’s about him and his human Albert (Irvine). They get together when Albert’s dad Ted (Mullan) spends just about all of the family’s money on Joey at an auction. The problem is, being farmers with a particularly rough patch of land, they need a big, strong plow horse. Joey is small and sleek. Ted, a heavy drinker, only bought Joey because he sees something special in the animal. He’s just not sure what. This upsets his wife (Watson) who realizes the landlord is breathing down their necks and farming is their only source of income. They need Joey to work a miracle and plow this land. Ted has a bum leg and can’t train the horse for the job, if that’s even possible. Therefore, Albert steps up to take on the task. Quite literally through an act of God, Albert and Joey get the field plowed. The end.

Okay, that’s really just the beginning. All of that is to show us the special bond between the boy and the horse. It also scratches the surface on Joey’s incredible intelligence. The real conflict happens when World War I has come to Britain and the British army is looking for horses. Since that whole farming thing didn’t quite pan out, due to another act of God, Ted sells Joey to the army so he can pay the rent. This is in spite of Albert’s relentless pleading. The horse is off to battle while the boy, still too young to legally join the war effort, finagles his way into the service in hopes of a reunion with his one true love. Okay, I may be reading a bit much into it, but that’s the way it feels. Luckily for you, and I think for Albert, I’m not sure Joey trots that way. Thankfully, we’ll never find out for sure.

The battle scenes are harrowing. We alternate between watching Joey and Albert in their own separate dangerous situations. Many bombs go boom, kicking up much dirt as various unnecessary characters die. Even in the midst of war, Joey and Albert manage to form bonds with some of their fellow soldiers. Yes, Joey becomes good pals with another horse and even saves his equine buddy’s life. At this point, the great and powerful Spielberg commands you to cry. Disobedience will only bring about even more menacing sappiness. Never mind, you’ll get that no matter what.

If you can’t tell, War Horse is nearly two and a half hours of manipulating you to make liberal use of the tissue of your choice. The story is well-told, as is most of Spielberg’s work. However, the cheese is piled so thick it makes his last Indiana Jones movie look edgy by comparison. The difference is this movie seems to think it is not a shameless piece of fluff when that’s precisely what it is. It takes itself seriously despite the silliness of it all. Admittedly, it’s a beautiful looking movie with top notch cinematography and some wonderful individual scenes. Unfortunately, when it all comes together, War Horse crumbles under the weight of its own corniness.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Rum Diary
<strong>Directed by Bruce Robinson.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Johnny Depp
Aaron Eckhart
Michael Rispoli
Amber Heard
Richard Jenkins
Giovanni Ribisi
Amaury Nolasco
Marshall Bell
Bill Smitrovich</em>​

Puerto Rico in 1960 might not be the best place for a guy trying to quit drinking, or at least cut back enough to focus on his new job. After all, rum appears to be the most plentiful beverage on the island. The guy is Paul Kemp (Depp) and his job is reporting for a barely surviving American newspaper on the island. After cleaning out the mini-bar a few times in the hotel room the paper is paying for, his new boss Lotterman (Jenkins) moves him into a ratty apartment with two other more seasoned but cynical reporters. Shortly, Paul makes friends with some low people in high places and gets involved in a real estate scam. And yes, there’s a girl. Lots of drinking and run-ins with the locals ensue.

The real estate scam gives our hero an ethical dilemma which dominates much of the movie. Though interesting, it’s rather tame as diabolical movie plans go. It’s only a diversion, anyway. Our real focus is on whether or not Paul will be able to steal the gangster’s moll, a young pretty blonde, as cinematic rules dictate she must be. Her name is Chenault (Heard), a free spirit who takes a liking to Paul but, as indicated, belongs to Sanderson (Eckhart) who is running this get-rich-quick scheme.

As proof that the whole real estate issue is just a front for the love story, it abruptly disappears before there’s a resolution. Instead, we suddenly shift the narrative back to the failing newspaper. It’s almost as if someone realized mid-stream, there is an untapped, potentially interesting story that needs more attention and abandoned the one they were telling in its favor. This makes The Rum Diary a bit of a mess, narratively. On top of that, the ending is weak and rushed. It just kind of stops playing and gives us some subtitles that complete the tale.

Fortunately, there are several saving graces. First, as disjointed as our saga is, it bounces along in an enjoyable manner. It’s most fun when Paul and fellow reporter/roommate Bob Sala (Rispoli) are palling around, getting into one precarious situation after another. The funniest of these being how they decide to drive Bob’s car after its front seat has been ripped out by some angry locals. There’s also third roomy Moberg (Ribisi) who is only occasionally in the apartment, only shows up to work to pick up his paycheck (we find out he can’t be fired) and is always drunk. Second, the three men in these roles are marvelous. Ribisi is particularly good and leaves us wishing he had more screen time. That said, Johnny Depp is the draw. Sans his now trademark goofy wigs and cartoonish makeup he is still a joy to watch.

The work turned in by Depp and his cast mates, including the always underappreciated Richard Jenkins, means the narrative issues can be pushed to the margins as we follow their misadventures. They can’t be ignored completely since the switch in focus is jarring and unfulfilling. However, it still makes for a good time. What it lacks in storytelling acumen is made up for by giving us characters that are ultimately smart, but in a very dumb way.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Snow White and the Huntsman
<strong>Directed by Rupert Sanders.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 127 minutes.
Cast:
Kristen Stewart
Charlize Theron
Chris Hemsworth
Sam Claflin
Ian McShane
Bob Hoskins
Toby Jones
Eddie Marsan
Ray Winstone
Nick Frost
Lily Cole
Christopher Obi
Sam Spruell</em>​

The gang’s all here. Of course, there’s Snow White (Stewart) and, eventually, seven dwarves. It should go without saying that we have a wicked stepmother/Queen (Theron) and her knowledgeable, talkative mirror (Obi). Like any fairytale worth its pixie dust, there is also a prince (Claflin). Finally, there’s the guy who takes the dwarves’ place in the title, the huntsman (Hemsworth). The general parameters of the story are familiar. Mama White dies and a short while later her widowed hubby, the king, re-marries and finds himself all killed by his new bride. She takes over the kingdom, locks Snow White in a foreboding tower and brings in her mirror as her top consultant. Years later, Snow White manages a daring escape into the Dark Forest, a bit different from the most famous versions of the story. Since the queen’s powers are useless in that particular part of the kingdom, she hires the huntsman to track her down and bring her back.

Why the queen needs our heroine alive is part of the twist that provides this reimagining a darkness missing from the tale we’re used to, but a few steps closer to how it was originally told with regard to tone. The queen’s main purpose in life is maintaining her beauty, some semblance of youth and remaining fairest of them all. No matter what. To do this, she has young maidens hauled into the castle whom she robs of the qualities she desires, leaving them old, wrinkled and near death. She soon finds out that if she does the same to Snow White, she’ll no longer have that craving to satisfy.

There are some other twists, none hindering our recognition of the story we all know. The magic lies in the tricks played on our eyes. The purposefully drab interiors and pristine white snow filled exteriors make wonderful canvasses for splashes of color and quick striking, well executed special fx. All along the way we’re treated to images that seem sparse, but are deceptively lush. Our pupils dart around the screen grasping at fleeting flourishes of cgi goodness. Though not as big or overwhelming as in something like The Avengers, they’re perhaps more believable in their presentation. This includes our dwarves, all played by, for lack of a better term, normal sized actors. Apologies due to any little people who feel slighted by the phrase or being excluded from the cast. Still, it’s very nicely done.

Of course, fx alone don’t make a movie. The meat we readily chew on is the performance of Charlize Theron. She dominates the film much the way Julia Roberts does in the same role in 2012’s other Snow White flick, Mirror Mirror, but in a different fashion. Where Roberts’ queen cackles maniacally in the self-aware manner that lets us know she’s playing as much for laughs as she is menace, Theron’s queen has no clue she’s a character in a fairytale. She seethes, hisses and vampirically gains strength by literally draining it from others. Like the bloodsucker, she earns both our dread and the pity we reserve for one whose seemingly boundless power is really fueled by a fatal flaw. Perhaps, this flaw is really a thinly veiled commentary on our mass obsession with defeating Father Time. A less talented actress might have unconsciously imbued the character with more of the Roberts qualities, but being in the wrong movie, would undermine the seriousness with which this fantasy is approached. It would be like Cesar Romero’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight as opposed to Heath Ledger’s. Perfectly suited for the 1960s TV show, he’d be sorely out of place in the more realistic Gotham City. Obviously, the kingdom is not meant to be realistic but it is meant to evoke the Middle Earth of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy (and upcoming movie The Hobbit), not Gilligan’s Island.

Since we brought up vampires and less talented actresses, let’s talk about the person whose character gets top billing, Kristen Stewart. Unsurprisingly, she’s a weak link but not as much as one would think. Thank goodness for low expectations, I guess. She “Bellas” her way through another role, albeit less depressingly, as her character actually wants to live as opposed to just yearning to be undead. Our rooting for her is due to our Pavlovian conditioning to do so for “the good guy,” not because she’s the least bit compelling. Trust me, she isn’t. If there is a movie where she is, I’d have to say it’s The Runaways, an underrated biopic about the 70s all-girl rock band of the same name. Even there, Dakota Fanning acts circles around her.

Our heroine’s shortcomings aside, I find Snow White and the Huntsman an enjoyable spin on the old tale. Admittedly, Theron is hamming it up, but she is so good at it we can’t help but be spellbound. Then there are those enticing visuals. They help drive the story rather than smother it beneath an avalanche of pixels. Liberties taken with the narrative are fun, if a tad predictable. In any event, they enhance the telling of this version, not desecrate our memory of others. It is by no means perfect, but it is fun without the corniness and boring stretches of the kiddie-fied Mirror Mirror.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Another Earth
<strong>Directed by Mike Cahill.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Brit Marling
William Mapother
Jordan Baker
Flint Beverage
Robin Taylor
Matthew-Lee Erlbach
Rupert Reid
DJ Flava</em>​

It’s just been discovered that our beloved planet Earth has a twin. What’s more is it’s suddenly close enough to be visible in our sky. Young MIT student Rhoda (Marling) is so fascinated by the news she gazes up into the heavens while driving. On this particular night, she’s been doing some drinking also. Neither move is very smart, especially for someone who was accepted to the prestigious school at the tender age of 17. Unsurprisingly, she has an accident. She doesn’t have just any accident. Her faux pas results in the death of a mother and child. The family’s patriarch is left in a coma. Rhoda goes to jail.

Still guilt-stricken and withdrawn when she gets out four years later, Rhoda agonizes over a way to apologize to John (Mapother), the man who recovered from his injuries only to find his family had been taken from him. Rhoda also enters a contest to win a trip to “Earth 2” as its gotten even closer during the time she was incarcerated.

Like Melancholia, Another Earth is much concerned with the science in its fiction. It is more interested in using its premise to explore the human condition. It does so without the pending doom of the former, but still treads in some pretty murky waters. Along with her guilt, Rhonda is confused and embarks on a misguided attempt at redemption. With each of her steps down that dark path, we cringe. We know what she doesn’t: no good can come of this. We yearn for her to figure a way out of the hole she not only digs but deepens for herself. Our instinctual reaction to everything she does is to ask “How’s that gonna work out?”

As simple as our line of questioning is, it doesn’t lead to any easy answers. The ones Rhonda seems to come up with hardly seem right, this includes the one she’s most happy with. It doesn’t work out quite the way she wants. In fact, it provides us with the type of abrupt ending that may take a moment or two to “get”. Be warned that if you don’t get it, you may dismiss the movie, entirely. The same goes if you came in expecting a laser and light show. Another Earth is sci-fi for people who aren’t into sci-fi. The entire film takes place here on this Earth. There are no invading intergalactic armies nor displays of futuristic technology. This is the character study of a troubled person and a darned good one.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Amazing Spider-Man
<strong>Directed by Marc Webb.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 136 minutes.
Cast:
Andrew Garfield
Emma Stone
Rhys Ifans
Sally Field
Denis Leary
Martin Sheen
Irrfan Khan
Chris Zylka
Campbell Scott
C. Thomas Howell
Stan Lee</em>​

I suppose there are plenty of kids too young to remember the first <em>Spider-Man</em> movie even though it’s barely 10 years old and turned into a trilogy of humongous money-makers. Despite the fact that the last of them is a mess, even that one raked in plenty of dough. That one is only 5 years old. Add the fact they all play on cable fairly often. Even those kids too young to remember when any of those movies hit theaters, but interested in superheroes, have likely seen at least one, if not all of them. However, with franchise director Sam Raimi and his star Tobey Maguire no longer onboard, and new money out there to grab, the decision was made to remake, I mean, reboot the whole thing.

If nothing else, rebooting means we get another telling of our hero’s origin tale. The major aspects of the story remain the same. Peter Parker (Garfield) is a genius high-school student who ranks pretty low on the social totem pole. He manages to get himself bitten by a very special spider and develops the ability to climb walls and plenty of other things spiders can do. After his Uncle Ben (Sheen) is killed by a common street thug Peter goes through some trials and tribulations before deciding to use his powers to fight crime.

The twists in the tale are how Peter comes into contact with the fateful spider and the villain he has to battle. Both are due to Dr. Curt Connors (Ifans), a scientist working to duplicate, in humans, the ability of certain animals to regenerate lost limbs. After all, he himself only has one arm. One thing leads to another and like scientists in superhero movies are prone to do, he tests his latest serum on himself. Yes, he regenerates his arm. There’s one heck of a side-effect, though. He transforms into a giant lizard.

From there, the movie proceeds as it must. There are no surprises, particularly if you’re familiar with Spider-Man lore. Therefore, what the story is isn’t important. What’s important is how well it tells that story and, unfortunately because it’s so fresh in our minds, how it compares to an original that most of the target audience is not only aware of, but has probably seen.

<em>The Amazing Spider-Man</em> works hard to establish Peter as an emotional kid who has not only just lost his beloved Uncle Ben, but is still dealing with the death of his parents. Of course, he’s also coming to grips with the insane physical changes he’s undergone (did someone say ‘metaphor for puberty’?). On top of all this, as there always is, he’s got some intense puppy-love going on. Garfield pulls all of it off with an excellent performance. His may be better than Maguire’s in the same role. On the other hand, this new Peter is a tad too sure of himself. His social standing seems to be of little or no importance to him even though that’s an accepted part of the character’s origin and motivation.

This movie subs out one of Spidey’s squeezes, Mary Jane, for another, Gwen Stacy (Stone). I don’t have a problem with this, in principal. I get the filmmakers want to differentiate their movie from Raimi’s as much as possible. My issue is with the execution. Stone is a talented actress and does what she can, but the role is lazily written and ill-fitting the franchise. A good deal of this goes back to how Peter is presented. He doesn’t have the same angst we’re used to because a girl like Gwen is obviously fawning over him whenever he walks by. This robs their love story of any tension. There is no chasing his dream girl and she never disappoints him. The only potential roadblock is her dad, played by Denis Leary. However, his protests are of such little consequence, it neuters the climactic scene, zaps it of any emotional heft. It feels empty. This is one of the film’s major failings in comparison to the original. That movie anchors itself to a romance that feels agonizingly one-sided for much of its runtime. It is truly something for us to latch onto between action scenes.

Another big problem with <em>TAS</em> is the ease with which Peter gets used to his new powers. True, this fits in with a more confident protagonist, but there is almost no transition period for him to get comfortable with the idea of being more than human. He is instantly graceful in his new movements. There’s a brief scene full of gags about his newfound strength and things sticking to his hands. How he deals with this is never addressed, he just suddenly doesn’t have those problems. He invents both his web-shooter and the incredibly strong webbing in the space of about sixty seconds. He never has any miscues, even on his first foray into the criminal underworld. I hate to beat a dead spider, but things come too easy for this guy.

By the way, I’m torn by this movie’s use of the web shooter. On one hand, I applaud it because that’s the way it is in the comics. Unfortunately, they completely ignored it as an actual part of the storyline. In the comics, Spidey would often run out and have to reload his shooters, occasionally at inopportune times. He, and the reader, was constantly aware of how many cartridges he had on him. Here, like a cowboy in a western firing 15 shots from his revolver, we’re told a cartridge holds several hundred feet of webbing then watch him shoot thousands with no problem. Still, I like that they used the device at all. On the other hand, I always thought it was silly that Spider-Man was endowed with all of the abilities of a spider except the one we most associate with the creature. It’s like Stan Lee said ‘Sure, he can climb walls, leap several stories and lift cars, but shooting webs? That’s too much.’ This is why I thought the previous movie’s addition of organic webbing was perfect.

My final issue with the new web-slinger is actually almost identical to what plagued the original. When our hero is doing heroic things he’s way too obviously the product of a team of animators and computer whizzes. When he’s swinging from structure to structure and flipping around he seems weightless. We’re not always convinced there’s a man in the suit. Like I said, the first movie had the same problem. Raimi and his team handled it better in the following two installments, but let’s call this a wash.

For all my railing against <em>TAS</em>, believe it or not, there are things I think it does very well. One of those things is Peter’s anguish over his uncle. This is the emotional high point of the film. It’s aided by the scenes immediately before it, demonstrating his suddenly rebellious attitude and how directly he’s responsible for what happens. At the same time, due to other events in the movie, memories of his father have risen to the surface as raw as if the wound was still fresh.

Our hero’s behavior while in action is also a plus. In the comics, Spidey was always a smart alec during the action. He constantly cracked jokes annoying his adversary and amusing himself (and us). That quality is ably captured in <em>TAS</em>. It adds a sense of fun to the proceedings. The scene where a guy pulls a knife on him best showcases this. It’s something sorely missing from the first two Raimi films.

The biggest plus in <em>TAS</em>’s favor is its villain. While I like Willem Dafoe, overall, as an actor, I always thought his handling of The Green Goblin (and the writing of the character) to be ridiculously over the top, even for a comic book movie. Aside from that, he is purely motivated by greed. In the movie, Ifans, as The Lizard, is not only much more subdued, but a sympathetic character, too. Sure, he has plenty of selfishness but there are also some altruistic reasons for his actions. However twisted they may be, we understand that he truly believes he’s working for the greater good. In addition, the cgi lizard is better looking than the infinitely goofy mask Dafoe had to wear.

One last thing, this movie has the absolute best Stan Lee cameo of all the Marvel flicks. ‘Nuff said.

Okay, this went way too long. I couldn’t quite contain my passion for the character. Though I currently claim Batman as my fave superhero (do NOT tell me he’s not a superhero, not having that argument today), as a kid I actually read more Spider-Man comics than anything else. I’m dying for someone to make issues #229 and #230 from 1982 into a movie. In #230, Spidey is desperately trying to slow down Juggernaut’s march across the city. It still ranks as one of my all-time fave books. Um…scratch that. I didn’t actually mean to say that out loud. I’m not <em>that</em> geeky (laughing nervously). Anyhoo, <em>TAS</em> is a decent time-passer but doesn’t connect on the same level as its predecessor. It also feels way too soon. While it’s not a bad comic book flick, it feels totally unnecessary.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[calgaryballer]

My feeling's mirror yours Dell. I enjoyed the movie, like I enjoy all comic book movies. They have a lower bar for me. I liked Garfield as Spider-Man, I like Stone, I liked the Lizard, etc. However, I think Spider-Man is one movie where we don't NEED all the exposition on how he gets the powers. EVERYONE knows this by know. And I felt the movie got bogged down in that solely to show 'hey, we aren't Sam Raimi!'.

On Stacy I have to think that -

 

The main reason they picked her is to deal with her eventual death, something which cannot happen with MJ. Still needed to give Stone more to work with

 

[dell71]

My feeling's mirror yours Dell. I enjoyed the movie, like I enjoy all comic book movies. They have a lower bar for me. I liked Garfield as Spider-Man, I like Stone, I liked the Lizard, etc. However, I think Spider-Man is one movie where we don't NEED all the exposition on how he gets the powers. EVERYONE knows this by know. And I felt the movie got bogged down in that solely to show 'hey, we aren't Sam Raimi!'.

On Stacy I have to think that -

 

The main reason they picked her is to deal with her eventual death, something which cannot happen with MJ. Still needed to give Stone more to work with

Hmmm...never thought of that angle on the Stacy character. Thanks!

 

[Senser81]

No Skyfall or Hobbit reviews? Did I miss them somewhere in the thread?

 

[dell71]

Haven't seen them yet. Soon, hopefully.

 

[Mogriffjr]

Damn I thought I was alone in thinking Theron was GREAT in her role...she had me hook, line and sinker...funny u didn't mention much about hemsworth in the movie lol...iMO he really was a side piece to the film...

 

[j.hen]

Gwen Stacey was introduced first because he was actually Peter's first love.... She dies and he moves on to Mary Jane (who's already been confirmed for the sequel)

 

[j.hen]

And the web-shooters show that this Peter Parker kid is a fucking genius on the same level as Bruce Banner and Tony Stark even as a high schooler (something Raimi's movies completely ignored) You can't have a reboot of spiderman and not include the web-shooters.

 

[dell71]

Gwen Stacey was introduced first because he was actually Peter's first love.... She dies and he moves on to Mary Jane (who's already been confirmed for the sequel)

Like I said, no problem here. I just don't like how the character was handled.

And the web-shooters show that this Peter Parker kid is a fucking genius on the same level as Bruce Banner and Tony Stark even as a high schooler (something Raimi's movies completely ignored) You can't have a reboot of spiderman and not include the web-shooters.

I got that. My main issue is if they're going to use them then actually include them in the story. Once he invents them, they're completely forgotten about when that was never the case in the comics. They were always something Spider-Man was aware of because he had to deal with it when they ran out. Here, they never run out no matter how much webbing he uses and he uses lots and lots of it.

 

[Palooza]

Nobody groans dell in his own thread and gets away with it.

 

[j.hen]

Nobody groans dell in his own thread and gets away with it.

Point taken and groan retracted. :shifty:

 

[Senser81]

Nobody groans dell in his own thread and gets away with it.

What about Palooza?

 

[Palooza]

What about Palooza?

Yes, it is always acceptable to groan me.

 

[dell71]

The Adventures of Tintin
<strong>Directed by Steven Spielberg.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG, 107 minutes.
Cast:
Jamie Bell
Andy Serkis
Daniel Craig
Nick Frost
Simon Pegg
Toby Jones
Daniel Mays
Gad Elmaleh</em>​

We kinda sorta meet Tintin (Bell) and his dog. He buys a model ship, and people immediately start trying to buy it from him. When he won’t sell, they try stealing it. Should he get killed in the process, the bad guys won’t think it such a big deal. That’s The Adventures of Tintin in a nutshell. Actually, that’s it, almost entirely. The only other thing you need to know is eventually he teams up with an alcoholic sea-captain whom the bad guys, one of whom looks suspiciously like the movie's director, want to keep around for some reason. Lots of swashbuckling ensues.

My main problem with Tintin is that’s all there is. We get no set up and are thrust into the adventure with no emotional attachment to anything on the screen. Director Steven Spielberg is certainly no stranger to telling his story through action. He did a masterful job of just that in Saving Private Ryan. The difference is through that action, including very real looking death all around the survivors, the weariness of those men and their determination through it all we form a bond with them that submerges us in the film. Here, especially since it’s aimed at children, that action doesn’t have nearly the same weight. It’s a blitzkrieg of dazzling sights and sounds. However, like a fireworks show, when the smoke clears there is nothing there.

This isn’t to say that Tintin is a bad movie. It is not. The animation is top notch and gives us some wonderful visuals throughout. Action is pretty much non-stop so you, most likely, won’t be bored. And if you like pratfalls and slapstick comedy, you’ll laugh a lot, too.

No one, myself included, is really qualified to tell Steven Spielberg how to make a movie. I just feel he went way too fast with this one. I would love to see Tintin, and even the villains, more firmly established before we really get into his adventure. Instead, it’s like a mashup of his own Indiana Jones flicks and Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes without the heart of either. We can see many of the director’s normal touches, but it feels like a dumbed down version of his normal work like he’s pandering to an even younger crowd than his popcorn flicks usually shoot for. Ironically, his pal J.J. Abrams made the best Spielberg flick in the last couple years with Super 8. There is no question that Spielberg is a magician when it comes to filmmaking. However, this particular trick falls flat. It wants to wow us by constantly showing us our card. Unfortunately, we never get to actually pick one.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​