Sometimes you don’t want the past reinvented because it doesn’t do justice to your mind’s history. This is one of those occasions where the filmmakers dramatically improved, although changed forever, the life of Tintin and his dog. The animated figures move like people – but even more so.

So what’s it all about?

Having bought a model ship, the Unicorn, for a pound off a market stall Tintin is initially puzzled that the sinister Mr. Sakharine should be so eager to buy it from him, resorting to murder and kidnapping Tintin – accompanied by his marvellous dog Snowy – to join him and his gang as they sail to Morocco on an old cargo ship. Sakharine has bribed the crew to revolt against the ship’s master, drunken Captain Haddock, but Tintin, Snowy and Haddock escape, arriving in Morocco at the court of a sheikh, who also has a model of the Unicorn. Haddock tells Tintin that over three hundred years earlier his ancestor Sir Francis Haddock was forced to scuttle the original Unicorn when attacked by a piratical forebear of Sakharine but he managed to save his treasure and provide clues to its location in three separate scrolls, all of which were secreted in models of the Unicorn.

As soon as you know Steven Spielberg is directing with Peter Jackson assisting in the producing department, you know you are almost certainly onto a winning combination.

Once you add Dr Who’s writer Steven Moffat and Egdar Wright, you know the screenplay stands a very good chance of being excellent. Daniel Craig and Andy Serkis provide the main voices with John Williams scoring the academy nomination for best music.

The level of fast breaking all-action-danger shows you how they managed to spend 135 million US dollars. The return of almost four hundred million suggests the investment was worthwhile.

You won’t need to be a child to be fully entertained. The only problem is waiting for the crew to produce the next two movies in the franchise. Did I mention it’s very good?

4 stars****

If you are one of the 65 million who have read Steig Larsson’s trilogy, there is a very good chance you will have already seen the first book’s movie, in Swedish, either dubbed into English or with English subtitles. You were probably worried about Hollywood getting its hands on the stories for fear of total ruination. You need not fear, they did quite a good job.

So what’s it all about?

Disgraced journalist Mikael Blomqvist is hired by Henrik Vanger to investigate the disappearance of Vanger’s great-niece Harriet. Henrik suspects that someone in his family, the powerful Vanger clan, murdered Harriet over forty years ago. Starting his investigation, Mikael realizes that Harriet’s disappearance is not a single event, but rather linked to series of gruesome murders in the past. He now crosses paths with Lisbeth Salander, a young computer hacker, an asocial punk and most importantly, a young woman driven by her vindictiveness. Together they form an unlikely couple as they dive deeper into the violent past of the secretive Vanger family.

Daniel Craig is a good Mikael Blomkvist, better than he is a James Bond with the two roles being miles apart. Rooney Mara is a good Lisbeth Salander, but she’s a long way short of Noomi Rapace’s version. Noomi was close to the book’s heroine, but Ms Mara’s Lisbeth character has been toned down somewhat. You’ll almost wonder why the movie has an R rating, compared to the Swedish adaptation. Salander is just so much more frightening in the Swedish account.
To pull a book from 500 pages and turn it into a movie at just over 2 ½ hours is difficult. The screenplay writer has a tough call on what to leave out. If you’ve read the book you will notice that Lisbeth’s security company hardly gets a mention and the mixing of the girl in London with the girl in Australia saves time and money.

The wonderful (now deceased) book author Steig Larsson has said in an interview that he viewed Salander’s character as an adult version of Pippi Longstocking. Larsson obviously has more imagination than most who have read Astrid Lindgren’s wonderful tales.

The alternative poster drove up the hype that this movie would be explosive, but it skimmed along that level. For those expecting plenty of violence, it is more implied than seen. For those expecting a sexy movie, this initial teaser poster has more sex in it than the movie suggests. You will probably have seen more in a thirteen rated movie recently. It’s only the scenes they talk about in the movie that move this to an R rated arena.

As a standalone movie, this Dragon film does well. It’s difficult to fault and builds the level of suspense you would require to be a worried audience member, but if you read the book first then you would already have a movie in your mind. If you have seen the Swedish version after reading the book, this movie will leave you wanting more, much more.

The story delves more into violent forms in books 2 and 3. You will look forward to seeing how the director and actors cope with the level of blood and gore on screen. There are sure to be two more movies to complete the trilogy, unless the 4th book is completed; then more delights will follow, but who will win the rush to promote the movie first?

2 stars**

Where did Bond go? I went to the cinema to see a James Bond movie, but I think I missed him. You’ll always know a Bond film.:

• He always says “My name is Bond, James Bond.”
• He always asks for his Martini stirred and not shaken or was it the other way around?
• He goes and visits his friend Q to look over some far fetched gadgets and we’ll know that one or two will come in useful by the end of the screenplay.
• He’ll keep looking at attractive girls who then fall into bed with him having known him for all of five minutes and for one of two reasons; one – he’s the greatest lover ever, or two – they are a foreign spy and want to trick him, but they must sleep with him first due to reason one.
• His adversary will always be larger than life and have visions of taking over the world; he’ll always show Bond how he’s going to do that at the moment just before failure.
• There will always be comedy; Bond is a cheeky chap.
• He was very British, drinking tea in the afternoon.
• He always has a long lost love routine with the office girl and she’s loved him forever.
• And he has nice cars we get to see and admire.
• We wait with baited breath for the new Bond song.

I say I missed him because none of the above came true in this latest Bond franchise.

Here’s what a friend had to say:

Bond was good, but extremely shoot ‘em up bang-bang. At times outright scary. Pierce Brosnan used to bring the style and suaveness; what Daniel Craig brings is the 1000% raw testosterone combined with an impression of emotional vulnerability that would be his achilles heel, if he had one – which he doesn’t, because he’s Bond: James Bond. (That line was missing, by the way. I mean, why mess with the formula? It’s what we want.) I did not like the fact that they were also missing the gadget section with Q. I mean, that’s worth 1/2 the price of the ticket, but it wasn’t there. All in all, enjoyed it, but thought that Casino Royale was much better. Chase scenes were AWESOME! Bond girl was fabulosa.

So true. Daniel Craig does perform well, but he’s performing a new revitalized Bond, not the Bond we all know and admired. This follows on from Casino Royale and director Marc Forster obviously believes he has a formula in much the same way Batman films have changed.

In Quantum, Bond has gone missing and we’re left with a just above average effects movie where the screenplay is full of action and not dialogue, it’s shot too close so we can’t even really see the action and one of the main bond girls (Strawberry Fields) has such a small part I couldn’t believe she was gone so quick.

Perhaps this all explains why at least four writers were involved.

The song is easily forgetable; hopefully time will ease that thought. The sales figures look good at $450 million at the box office so far; why it’s only a hundred million behind Mamma Mia!

Yes, Olga Kurylenko was striking, but she forgot to sleep with Bond.