Among the 3D films we have seen so far, this was indeed the best 2D-to-3D conversion ever made. All 3D scenes were rendered extremely well and there were very few moments where I could tell the difference. The movie was comfortable to watch, with the right amounts of depth budget. The only flaws I noticed were certain cases where close-ups of faces did not have any depth detail. There was a significant effort made for most faces, especially the ones that were very close, but not ones that were a little further back. Nevertheless, this was minor and I highly doubt that most of the audience will be able to tell the difference.

This was clearly a high-budget conversion process, and overall this is the best converted movie. Whether even at this level the conversion process can be a substitute for shooting in 3D is not clear at this point. However, I believe that there is something natural in movies that are shot in 3D that cannot be captured during conversion, given that there is a limit on the amount of time and money that anyone is willing to invest to take care of every detail such as a single piece of hair waving back and forth with the wind, or subtle changes in facial expressions when a person talks. However, this movie sets a new standard for the quality of converted 3D movies, and shows that they can reach a very high level of theatrical experience.

Rating: 4 stars

The movie had quite a few scenes conducive to 3D viewing, ranging from rock formations and rivers in the desert, warships and warriors, and close-ups of one-on-one dialog. Everything that was rendered via 3D computer graphics was done well, and the depth representation of 3D scenes was pretty good. Action shots were not too difficult to see, and although I always question the wisdom of showing action scenes in 3D with a lot of depth, the movie did not try to overdo it. The film was easy to watch in 3D and did not have many 3D viewing violations. The only noticeable problem was in the one-on-one shots, where the faces of the actors were flat and you could not see much detail. This is unfortunately true for most 3D conversions. Overall, this was a very good conversion film, but I still do not think they can reach the overall experience of a naturally shot 3D film.

Rating: 3 stars

The movie overall had a correct depth budget and was comfortable to the eyes. The native 3D shots were very realistic and provided the right degree of immersion. However, shots of people and faces appeared flat in some cases and could have been done better. In a very few scenes, it was evident that native 3D did not work out perfectly and they had to instead convert the clip from 2D to 3D and accept the typical flaws created by the conversion process. Also, there were a lot of panning sequences that were difficult to see. The movie had the typical problems found in any action scene, where there is a general blurring of depth and things are moving so fast in front of you that you cannot really enjoy the scene. Overall, this is a good 3D production, but it does not reach the quality and experience of Hugo.

Rating: 4 stars

Overall the conversion was OK. Definitely better compared to some early conversion releases. Nevertheless, I do not believe the movie created a truly immersive experience for the audience. In quite a few parts of the movie the depth was so shallow that I wondered whether it was shot in 2D and then pushed back behind the screen to appear 3D. Some scenes where the directors captured the set so they could create better 3D at the end, provided a good 3D experience. There were a lot of action scenes, which are always very difficult to properly capture in 3D. These were not any better than any other movie, and they were difficult to watch. In general, it was an interesting production since it was a conversion, but there were some techniques used to create better 3D composition in some scenes. I think it is still an open question whether the general audience can tell the difference between a converted and natural 3D production. I believe however, that if a movie is shot in both 3D and converted from 2D to 3D using the techniques used in this film, the audience will be able to tell the difference in the end, and the shot-in-3D version would definitely leave audience with a better feeling and experience.

Rating: 2.5 stars

Rating: 4 stars

One of the few things I noticed was that a number of times the depth in the characters' faces as well as their relationship with the rest of the body had some minor problems, although I highly doubt that most viewers will notice it.  Regarding the action scenes, the conversion process did a decent job, as much as anyone can do for action shots since they do not offer a good immersion experience.

In general, this was a very good 3D conversion and I think this is certainly a good indicator that the 3D conversion process, when done properly, is a valid method for creating 3D movies, especially for older titles that cannot be shot in native 3D. However, I still believe the conversion process has a long way to go to become a substitute for native 3D shooting. Whether one technique will prevail against the other will be a matter of which technology comes up with the optimal quality vs. cost ratio.

Rating: 3 stars

Being an avid Tintin fan since childhood and having read The Secret of The Unicorn book tens of times, I immediately noticed two major differences between the original book and its adaptation in the form of The Adventures of Tintin movies: the extra details in the scenes throughout the movies and noticeable deviations from the story. The director decided to move away from the abstract style of Hergé's early books to create a more immersive environment for 21st century viewers, who demand such details in modern movies. After the initial minute-long disappointment, however, I found these changes to be more welcome than not. Details such as Tintin's apartment or Marlene Pike's storage room, where Sakharine kept the second copy of the Unicorn, were interesting. However, some of the smaller details did not introduce a significant added value to the story and, as discussed below, were sometimes visually unpleasant in the 3D version.

An interesting aspect of this movie was the realism of representations of the characters. It was sometimes difficult to tell whether Tintin was an actor or an animation. Such techniques re-iterate the notion that in the near future many movies may not have real actors anymore as Hollywood can soon create fictional characters that are indistinguishable from real ones. Our favorite future characters may not be humans, but rather animated creations with certain physical and emotional characteristics. The degree of improvement between the characters in Tintin when compared to the ones in The Polar Express is amazing.

3D Effects: (4 out of 5)

The 3D effects of this movie were meticulously planned and executed. Unlike many other 3D "animations", there were very little, if any, old 3D gimmicks such as throwing an object toward the audience. In some scenes, the depth and perspective were slightly exaggerated, but this did not take away from the beauty of the 3D execution. Negative parallax (objects coming out from the screen) was sometimes present on the edges of the frames, which can be visually disturbing. Some of the smaller 3D effects that are not commonly seen in animations, although ambitious, were not necessary and were sometimes quite distracting. For example, the reflection of one of the characters in a window, the simulated lens flare, and the dust particles in the air that were flying too far off the screen were all hard to resolve and mostly distracting, especially in the close-up scene where Tintin and Captain Haddock were talking. However, the idea of having dust in the path of a flashlight was very interesting and welcome, since it not only made the scene more realistic, but it made resolving the light coming out of the flashlight easier.

It is no secret that action scenes are much harder to resolve in 3D, and this movie was no exception. The fast fighting scenes on the deck of the Unicorn along with the raging sea water were slightly difficult to see in 3D when the objects were close to the viewers. In general, the water streams were not handled as well as other moving objects. Even the slightly calmer sea toward the end of the battle scene was discomforting and unrealistic, so were the closeup scenes of the water fountain at the Sheikh's palace. It may have been better to keep the action scenes deeper inside the screen (with less negative parallax) to avoid some of the discomfort, although in general the fast moving scenes were handled relatively better compared to most other 3D animations out there.

The 3D transitions were among the most creative and visually appealing parts of the 3D effects of the movie. Although using a simple crossfade transition between the desert scene (which had a large difference in depth between the top and bottom of the scene) and the night sky (which was mostly flat) was not the best idea, some other more creative transitions that mostly involved bubbles were quite interesting. Most specifically, the transition between the Unicorn scene on the sea and the puddle on the street was something unique and very pleasant to watch.

Overall the 3D quality of this movie was very good. In my opinion, the movie deserves 4 out of 5 stars for maintaining good quality 3D throughout a wide variety of scenes, and for using creative 3D effects and transitions. It should be noted that the 3D production process is quite different between animated and non-animated movies. In animated movies, producers have much better control in creating proper 3D, whereas in non-animated titles the production process is more challenging, since it requires 3D cameras as well as the right setup.

Rating: 4 stars

Overall, Hugo has set a new standard for how 3D movies can be. Perhaps something even better will come along in the future, but for now we think it's perfect.

Rating: 5 stars

Rating: 2 stars

Rating: 3 stars