Of Puppets And Puzzles

These two vastly different movies open today at multiplexes (and some art houses in PUZZLE’s case) near us all:

THE HAPPYTIME MURDERS

(Dir. Brian Henson, 2018) 

This movie, directed by a son of Jim Henson no less, about felt getting filthy, is getting savaged by critics but it’s not really that bad. It’s a premise that’s not exactly new – i.e. underneath the warm and fuzzy front is the sleazy, foul mouthed, and raunchy side of show biz * – but it has its moments largely due to its cast made up of Melissa McCarthy, puppeteer Bill Barretta, Joel McCale, Maya Rudolph, and Elizabeth Banks.

The plot revolves around the serial killings of a ‘80s TV show, The Happytime Gang, which Barretta voicing the burnt out private detective Phil Phillips is partnered with McCarthy as Detective Connie Edwards to investigate.

Now it’s a pretty standard film noir-ish scenario which isn’t very interesting on its own, but it moves along briskly aided by a bunch of crude sight gags and tossed off one-liners. 

There are good some good ideas batted about such as the bigotry that puppets face from humans but it really doesn’t do much with that, and I wish the material was more inspired than jokes like the “asshole says ‘what?’” running gag that was old when it was used in WAYNE’S WORLD two decades ago, but for a throwaway comedy in these dog days of summer, I’ve seen a lot worse.

* Some folks are crying that this movie is a rip-off of Peter Jasckson’s MEET THE FEEBLES, which incidentally is on YouTube in its entirety right now. You’re welcome.

And now for something completely different:

PUZZLE (Dir. Marc Turtletaub, 2018) 

Kelly Macdonald (TRAINSPOTTING, GOSFORD PARK, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, Boardwalk Empire, among numerous other notable credits) is superb in this story of a lonely woman finding her niche by putting together jigsaw puzzles with an eccentric Indian inventor (Irrfan Khan *).

Macdonald portrays Agnes, an awkward Connecticut housewife, with two college aged sons (Bubba Weiler and Austin Abrams), and a mechanic husband (David Denham, best known as Roy, Pam’s ex-fiancé on The Office US), who is given a 1000-piece puzzle of a world map for her birthday, and finds that she has a skill for putting it together quickly.

Agnes visits a puzzle shop in New York to buy more puzzles and sees a flier that says “Champion desperately seeking puzzle partner.” She takes home the number in one of the film’s most charming moments she texts “Hi. My name is Agnes. I think I might be good at this. Puzzles I mean.” Her nervousness is priceless here as it’s her first text ever as she was just given an iPhone by her son for her birthday.

Agnes soon meets up with Robert (Khan), who lives in a spacious apartment in the city, and they pull their puzzle-making talents together for a shot in a competition. Agnes keeps that she’s going to work on puzzles with Robert secret from her husband, telling him she’s going to help her Aunt who broke her leg a few times a week. As one might guess, a romance develops between Agnes and Robert, whose poetic philosophy regarding puzzles makes Agnes swoon (hey, it won me over too), but it’s handled with such poignant precision that nothing cringe-worthy happens.

PUZZLE is a quiet, lovely film with a gentle, thoughtful screenplay by Oren Moverman (JESUS’ SON, I’M NOT THERE, LOVE AND MERCY). Macdonald, who should really be a household name, puts is a highly affecting performance in service of an ultimately uplifting story in which all the pieces fit together perfectly (the movie is called PUZZLE so, of course, I’m gonna work in a line like that).

So the bottom line on these two new movies is that unless you’re looking for cheap laughs, skip the filthy puppets and seek out PUZZLE. I bet you’ll be glad you did.

* Khan is also an actor who should be a household name - he's done many films for Bollywood, Britain, and Hollywood including roles in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, THE DARJEELING LIMITED, LIFE OF PI, and JURASSIC WORLD. A film that I highly recommend of his is THE LUNCHBOX (read my review).

More later...

THE LUNCHBOX Is Made With Sensitivity And Care

Now playing at an art house theater near me...

THE LUNCHBOX (Dir. Ritesh Batra, 2013)

At first, the premise of this little Indian drama may seem slight - i.e. two strangers exchange notes by way of Mumbai’s famously efficient lunchbox delivery system - but the heartfelt humbleness, likability of the leads, and overall sweetness make THE LUNCHBOX a very rich treat indeed.

Irrfan Khan, a big Bollywood star who’s crossed over to American movies such as LIFE OF PI and THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, stars as a stoic accountant living a lonely life after the death of his beloved wife. Meanwhile across town, a neglected housewife (the lovely Nimrat Kaur) hopes to reconnect with her distant husband (Nakul Vaid) by preparing a special meal as a surprise for his lunch at work.

Somehow there’s a mix-up and Khan ends up getting the stainless steel dishes of Kaur’s delicious food delivered to his workplace. When Kaur’s spouse has little to say about the meal, she realizes what has happened and sends a note along with the lunch the next day.

Khan and Kaur then develop a correspondence, revealing intimate details about their sad existences in tender, touching scenes in which the actor’s voice-overs convey a lot of sincere emotion (it’s in Hindi with subtitles, but the warmth can be strongly felt).

As Khan is on the verge of retirement, he is training a giddy over-eager assistant to replace him (Nawazuddin Siddiqui). Khan is annoyed at first by the giddy over-eager Siddiqui, but they forge a bond that goes from a mentor/apprentice type relationship to something resembling that of father/son.

Siddiqui even succinctly sums up Khan’s budding romance: “Sometimes even the wrong train can take you to the right destination.”

Khan puts in a powerfully subtle performance that really got under my skin - when he forms the tiniest twinge of a smile it can be deeply felt. The man deserves to be a major star – maybe his upcoming role in next summer’s JURASSIC WORLD will help make that happen.

Kaur also excels; you’ll feel for her when she speaks of suspecting that her husband is cheating on her. A scene where she goes to report the swapped meal mistake and is told by the carrier that the service doesn’t make mistakes, shows she has an understated flair for light comedy.

Sure it can be seen as an Indian adaptation of YOU’VE GOT MAIL (or THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER if you want to get technical), but the feature length debut from filmmaker Ritesh Batra, who co-wrote with Rutvik Oza, transcends its familiar premise terrifically.

THE LUNCHBOX (“Dabba” in Hindi) is a real charmer, made with sensitivity and care, much like the mouth-watering dishes that Kaur’s character cooks that we see stunning overhead close-ups of (beautifully shot by Michael Simmonds). It’s a satisfying feast (yeah, I know, every critic is going to use culinary jargon in their review) of a film, but it may make you really hungry for some fine Indian cuisine way before the credits roll. So plan yourself a nice Indian dinner out afterwards, and remember not to fill up on popcorn.

More later...

LIFE OF PI: The Film Babble Blog Review

     

Opening tomorrow, Wednesday, November 21st, at a theater near you:

LIFE OF PIE (Dir. Ang Lee, 2012)

For his first film since 2009’s TAKING WOODSTOCK, Ang Lee has taken what to many (including me) thought was an unfilmable novel (written by Yann Martel, published in 2001), and turned it into a vivid visual spectacle.

But much like Paul Thomas Anderson’s THE MASTER from a few months back, its beauty may not transcend audiences’ bafflement over what it’s all supposed to mean.

But let’s start with the story. In an extremely notable film debut, the well-cast Suraj Sharma plays Pi Patel, a spiritually hungry Indian boy who lives at his family’s zoo in Pondicherry, India (the opening credits contain wondrous shots of the various zoo animals).

When his family decides to sell the zoo, Pi travels with them and the animals on a cargo ship to North America. The weather gets violently rough, and the ship sinks, leaving Pi as the only human survivor stranded in a lifeboat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and a vicious Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. That’s right.

The tale is told, in feature-length flashback form, by an older Pi (Irrfan Khan) to Rafe Spall, who is only credited as “The Writer.” Thankfully, this doesn’t mean there’s voice-over narration so we’re alone with Pi and his peculiar predicament.

The tiger, mostly rendered in flawless CGI, stays for stretches under a tarp, allowing Pi space to build a makeshift raft which he ties to the boat, so that he can rest in safety.

One by one, the other animals are killed. After a series of gripping tension-filled scenes with the backdrop of the vast ocean (their journey spans 227 days), Pi and Richard Parker reach a surreal island (as if the rest of this film isn’t surreal) filled with thousands of meercats.

That’s as far as I’ll go with the plot. Largely due to the explemplary cinematography by Claudio Miranda, LIFE OF PI is overwhelmingly immersive eye candy, utilizing some of the best 3D imagery since Martin Scorsese’s HUGO. One’s eyes can get just as lost in the shining sea as Pi and his tiger companion.

However, the conclusion isn’t as succinct or effective as it was in Martel’s novel even though David Magee’s screenplay adaptation is faithful and contains the same basic material. It still works, but it was a much satisfying ending in the book. I believe that’s because the religious undertones were part of what was unfilmable in the original text.

LIFE OF PI looks like no other film in director Lee’s (who also produced) filmography. Its Spielbergian sunniness, and its soaring scope makes it stand out from his other work, though he’s come really close to this aesthetic before (see: CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON).

“Why does it have to mean anything?” The Older Pi asks “The Writer.” It’s a good question, and sure, it doesn’t have to mean anything, because there’s a huge difference between a work that’s meaningless, and a work that frees one from meaning. Although it lacks the depth of the book, and its vision may not be as infinite as the amount of digits of the mathematical constant that our hero takes his name from, it still achieves the latter.

This is a sponsored post. All opinions are my own. Photos courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

More later...