Daniel Craig | Film | Jamie Bell | News | Steven Spielberg | Tintin

First Look: Steven Spielberg's 'Tintin'


Empire magazine has posted the first look at Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson's Adventures of Tintin, which won't be out for another year but makes heavy use of motion capture CGI.

Said Spielberg: "The first part of the film, which is the most mysterious part, certainly owes much to not only film noir but the whole German Brechtian theatre — some of our night scenes and our action scenes are very contrasty. But at the same time the movie is a hell of an adventure."

The beloved Belgian (and gay) lad Tintin is played by Jamie Bell, and Daniel Craig plays Red Rackham.

Two more shots, AFTER THE JUMP...



Feed This post's comment feed


  1. So it doesn't attempt to be modern or relavant, just an escape to childhood past. A CGI dog flick with artsy pretensions.

    Posted by: Natira | Nov 1, 2010 10:13:16 AM

  2. Oh man, its that shitty motion-capture animation! I'll stick with my old comic books, thanks anyway.

    Posted by: naughtylola | Nov 1, 2010 10:30:38 AM

  3. It looks okay, but they'd have been better off just drawing it as a cartoon, if that's what they were going to go for.

    CGI has its places, but I've yet to see a movie that I thought was good that was fully CGI -- save maybe Avatar (which comes *awfully* close to being full CGI).

    Posted by: Ryan | Nov 1, 2010 11:01:11 AM

  4. This is looking very cool. I've loved Tintin in all of its forms and cannot wait to see this!!

    Posted by: JimmyD | Nov 1, 2010 11:10:23 AM

  5. I finally caught Revolutionary Road with Kate Winslet over the weekend, I have never seen anything that Jackson has done that is not worth seeing.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Nov 1, 2010 11:55:30 AM

  6. Mmmmmm.....Jamie Bell......mmmmmmmm

    Posted by: Henry Holland | Nov 1, 2010 12:17:53 PM


    Peter Jackson had nothing to do with Revolutionary Road. It was directed by Sam Mendes, who also did American Beauty and The Road to Perdition.

    Posted by: LJ Seattle | Nov 1, 2010 2:31:03 PM

  8. LJ, you are right, my bad. I was thinking of Heavenly Creatures. I also happened to see Lovely Bones on cable this weekend, had Jackson on the brain I guess.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Nov 1, 2010 2:51:16 PM

  9. I thought this was going to be cool until I noticed that it would be a Spielberg/Jackson work. No thank you, especially after what they have done to Star Wars (and continue to do with the 3D versions soon) and Indiana Jones.

    Posted by: Alan E. | Nov 1, 2010 3:33:46 PM

  10. Film noir and Titin do not seem to belong in the same sentence. I would have preferred either a traditional animated film to keep the comics art look or just a live action film- these CGI motion capture films just look weird when dealing with realistic characters.

    Posted by: jaragon | Nov 1, 2010 6:22:06 PM

  11. Bullshit. I had really high hopes for this, but I really should have known better with Spielberg attached. Is there anything he touches that doesn't suck now?

    I've been a big fan of the books since I was a kid, and this looks *nothing* like Hergé's brilliant art. In fact his work very proudly has almost no depth or darkness at all, which is part of its pastel-ish beauty as a comic. Noir? Fucking really?

    Let's see, what else will it lack? The artist's sense of absurdity. The strip's visual and verbal puns. Any subtlety at all. Oh, and me... watching it and letting them piss on another piece of my childhood. Screw them.

    Posted by: Ernesto | Nov 1, 2010 6:46:56 PM

  12. Jamie Bell is yummy.

    Posted by: Harry | Nov 1, 2010 8:06:00 PM

  13. @ ALAN.E

    Peter Jackson had nothing to do with Star Wars or Indiana Jones, that's George Lucas. Jackson(Lord of the Rings et al) has never worked with Spielberg before.

    Posted by: Pip Wainwright | Nov 2, 2010 4:00:43 AM

Post a comment


« «Stephen Fry Quits Twitter?« «