I’m not sure about how I feel about Spielberg’s latest flick, The Adventures Of Tintin, which is based on the beloved comic book character, Tintin, who was created by the Belgian cartoonist, Georges Remi, and known as Hergé, more than 80 years ago.

One on hand, I can’t help but be wowed by the special effects of the movie (they’re not just 3-D, they are performance captured). The mind-blowing graphics, the mesmerising sequences and the humour ensure that the movie keeps one enthralled, as we watch Tintin discover a model ship at a flea market, only to be immersed in an adventure of a lifetime. The ship carries a secret message on a scroll, you see, and as it turns out, the secret can only be revealed after two other scrolls in two identical ships can be located.

During the course of the movie, our hero faces the villain Ivan Ivanovich who is also looking for the scrolls, and in their pursuit he ventures to Bahgar (a fictitious Moroccan port which is shot spectacularly well) partly on board a ship and partly on a plane that he pilots himself.

Along the way, Tintin befriends an oft-intoxicated Captain Haddock who exclaims many Tintinphiles’ treasured phrase, “blistering barnacles!”. And as it turns out, Ivan is actually a descendent of Red Rackham, the arch enemy of one of Captain Haddock’s ancestor, Sir Francis Haddock, who hid the treasure in the first place.

But despite the suspense, action and dazzling special effects, the Tintin fan in me can’t help but feel cheated.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Tintin has been destroyed by the making of this movie, as some critics have said, but I can’t help view the movie as more or less just an conflation (read: a mish-mash) of three separate Tintin books The Crab With The Golden Claws, The Secret Of The Unicorn and Red Rackham’s Treasure, with certain characters and elements brought in from other books, all thrown in for good measure – without any rhyme or reason – such as the shrill diva and opera singer, Bianca Castifore, who does not appear in the aforementioned comic books that the movie is based on. In short, not only do I feel that the movie has not been true to the books, it lacks soul, thanks to the ‘creative’ liberties that Spielberg has taken.

One of these is Ivanovich’s character which has been transformed from a rather awkward collector into an evil villain. Another is the introduction of the Ivanovich’s falcon, his partner in crime, which is definitely not part of Hergé’s Tintinverse. Despite the fact that it flies miraculously well, and swoops rather majestically, and follows its master’s order with amazing precision, it doesn’t belong in a film about Tintin who, despite the situations he finds himself in, is a simple reporter. (The fact that we are never told which paper he writes for, or the fact that we have never seen him write a story in the comics is irrelevant!)

In fact, it would be safe to say that despite the fantastic adventures that Tintin found himself falling into in the books (whether it was reaching the moon or fictitious countries such as Slydavia), the fact remains that Tintin himself was just an ordinary chap – he could have been you or me – just a lot more agile and lucky.

And while Spielberg’s Tintin is rather fantastic, able to survive lengthy action sequences and fly an airplane for long periods of time, which makes him just a little less than a superhero, it’s not the Tintin I have grown up with and cherished over the years.

Similarly, Captain Haddock is more exaggerated in the movie. Not only does he have a Scottish accent (where on earth did he get that from?), he gives moral, motivational speeches “be true to yourself” which sound like nothing less than chalk on cheeseboard for true a Tintinphile, given the fact that the ‘real’ Captain would never utter such garbage. In fact, he would be more comfortable calling Tintin a “donkey”, a “Mister Mule” or a “Miserable blundering barbecued blister”!

And yet another unforgivable act that Spielberg is guilty of is the omission of the lovable Professor Cuthbert Calculus in the movie, since he played a pivotal in the book, and, consequently the discovery of the treasure. His prized discovery, the shark submarine is also omitted.

In short, by producing this movie in the manner that he has Spielberg has proved that he doesn’t understand Tintin in the least. (He admitted that he hadn’t heard of Tintin until he was in his 30s, and boy does it show in the movie!). And while the movie may wow the newer generation, some of us can’t help but feel that Hergé must be rolling in his grave somewhere. Not only that, it is safe to say that the Tintin in Hergé’s comic books had a lot more soul than Spielberg’s rendering of this beloved, bequiffed reporter.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Captain Haddock call Spielberg a “miserable wipper-snapper”, a “bragging nitwit” or a “two timing traitor!”

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.