"Manchester By The Sea": Melancholy in Massachusetts

First off, writer/director Kenneth Lonergan's "Manchester By The Sea" has all the qualities any typical "Oscar bait" has -- solid writing, adept direction, lovely cinematography, and honed performances. 

The story focuses on world-weary janitor Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck). 

Lee is puttering along in life, following a lonely routine as an apartment custodian, when he receives a call informing him that his older brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) has unexpectedly passed away.

He heads to Manchester, MA, to see the body, make "arrangements," and tell his nephew Patrick (Lucas Hedges) that his father has died.

We learn through a series of flashbacks that Joe had a heart condition. We also learn that Lee had previously lived in Manchester, with a wife (Michelle Williams) and kids.

A visit to Joe's attorney leads to the revelation that Lee has been left in charge of the estate, and that he is to be guardian of his nephew. Not only is Lee surprised by this news, he is visibly agitated at the notion.

Lee and Patrick have a familiar, if uncomfortable, bond. It isn't quite that of father and son, but it works in the short term.

Lee is set on returning to his spartan existence in Quincy, while Patrick wants to stay in Manchester at his school, with his friends, and on his hockey team.

The story then veers into both familiar and unfamiliar territory. We learn that Lee has skeletons in his closet, and a problem with alcohol. Patrick is a decent teenager, but his father had been raising him alone (his mother -- played by Gretchen Mol -- left during his formative years). The boy's interpersonal relationships suggest he could benefit from a strong parental influence.

To say the film is "heavy" is an understatement.

That's not surprising given the subject matter, but the narrative -- in all its brooding glory -- is not a neatly wrapped story of redemption that audiences might desire.

Some will argue Lee's journey in the film is truer to real life.

One of the stars of the film is the picture-postcard cinematography by Jody Lee Lipes. Some attractive views of the small coastal town are strewn throughout, adding depth to the story.

I do think the story could have benefited from some judicious editing. The 2 hour, 17 minute runtime was too long for the narrative it encompassed -- you can only take so many shots of a listless Casey Affleck staring off into space.

I also felt the musical stylings in the film left something to be desired.

How you react to "Manchester By The Sea" will ultimately depend on your expectations going in.

The Affleck brothers have a penchant for doing projects that show the existential crisis of blue collar Massachusetts ("The Town," "Gone Baby Gone," "Good Will Hunting").

This film is no exception to that rule, and captures their home state in all its dreary New England glory.

Rated R, Runtime: 2 hrs, 17 min

Read my previous post: "A Tiny House Transition" 

A Tiny House Transition

The Mike family (from left):
Darren, Joey, Carter, McKenzie, Trinity, and Melody

Photo courtesy of The Big Family Tiny Life blog

Tonight, on Lifetime at 9 p.m. Central, the television series "Tiny House Nation" will feature a local family who has a tiny house dream.

In October, I mentioned the Mike family in "A 'Minimal' Blog Post" and promised to tell their story. With the help of Bridget's notes from that night, here it is.

Darren and Melody Mike have four kids – Carter, 14, McKenzie, 6, Trinity, 4, and Joey, 2. Them, and their large dog, makes a family of seven.

"I used to be that Dad who loved to shower the kids with presents at Christmastime," said Darren. "If the tree wasn't full up to the second level of branches, I felt my kids would be emotionally scarred because they didn't get enough stuff."

Melody had a different idea of the holiday: "Maybe just give three gifts."

"Are you kidding me? How can I only give three gifts?" Darren responded. He said Melody was adamant that it was important. So they tried her way and he admits he was "amazed that our kids did not suffer any emotional trauma" as a result. "They enjoyed the gifts, instead of playing with the boxes the gifts came in."

The experience got him thinking that "maybe stuff isn't what it's all about."

Melody and Darren said they eventually changed their focus to "if we give less (fewer) gifts, we can spend more money on experiences."

For Carter's birthday last year, they gave him a camping trip with just him and Darren. They purchased MREs ("Meals Ready to Eat") and did some "primitive camping." It was a memorable experience. Especially for Carter, who said, "I can't remember what I got the year before."

The Mikes determined that "stuff isn't really what matters." They said they were never "television people" - they didn't watch TV very often. But Darren is a Husker football fan and he "had to have cable since they (the Huskers) moved to the Big 10." One day, they were working on a project and turned on the TV and landed on a show called "Unplugged Nation," about families that were living off the grid. After that, they also began to watch "Tiny House Nation."

Darren had already learned about the tiny house phenomenon after seeing them on Facebook. He thought they were fascinating -- the idea of building something that was "complete, but really tiny." They watched one episode of "Tiny House Nation" and decided to DVR every episode, which they ended up binge watching.

"Melody started showing some signs of being into it," Darren said. After a few episodes, he started researching tiny houses online. He told Melody, "I think we should do this." She agreed. From that point, they started planning their tiny house transition.

At the time they participated in the Green Omaha Coalition event at Aksarben Cinema, their tiny houses were about a week from being completed, and they were a few weeks away from moving into their tiny houses. (They ended up building two independent-but-connected tiny houses.)

Darren told the story of their journey to that point. After deciding that they wanted to live in a tiny house, they sold their 2300 square foot home and moved into a 270 square foot RV, where they planned to live while they built the tiny houses. That journey is detailed in an Omaha World-Herald story from July. (An interesting aside: That story was the 12th most-viewed article on the OWH website in 2016, with more than 113,000 views.)

That didn't end up working out. Officials in the city of Valley (where the RV was parked) told them they couldn't live in the RV. So they moved into their church's building, and stayed in a two-room office. Darren said, "It was never our intention to live in the RV (permanently)." They had a plan to move out to a family farm and live in their barn while they built the tiny houses on the property. The day after they sold their house, that plan also fell through.

Melody picked up the story. "This has been a tough transition for us, for sure. We are all in. We feel called to do it. The coolest part for us is...all this stuff doesn’t mean anything. For us, relationships are a big deal. We don’t care about stuff. Life is about experiences, not stuff. You’re missing the whole part of our story. The point is that life isn’t about stuff, and it’s not about experiences. It’s about people. For Darren and I and our children, we love Jesus with all our heart. We want to spend time with people. Life is about people and relationships and not how much stuff we have."

The episode of "Tiny House Nation" was filmed a few weeks before the Mike family's appearance at the Aksarben Cinema Reel-to-Real event.

Darren said there's a scene that is always featured in the show -- the "pare down," where the family is shown getting rid of their stuff. He said he told his wife, "Okay, Melody. We are missing something, because you said you don’t care about this stuff" when she started to get frustrated. 

She replied, "Really, I don’t care about any of this stuff. There is nothing here that I couldn’t get rid off, except three items." The producers kept drilling her. Darren was like, "Really, she doesn’t care about that stuff. It was just extra stuff, and we didn’t know what we needed."

“Getting to that point was really painful. We had worked really hard to fill this 2300 square foot house. We were putting things out there that we really loved and really wanted but they just didn’t fit our dreams anymore. There was no more room,” Darren added. Even thought they didn't value "stuff" anymore, there were still things that it was painful to get rid of.

The hardest to get rid of for Darren was his guitar-building tools. Melody at the time was a personal trainer. "Our basement was a legit gym," Darren said. "We worked really hard to build it so we could have kids and (Melody could) stay home with them and pursue a career in training people," which she loved.

That was the hardest part for Melody, Darren said. Getting rid of her gym. Darren asked her about it at the time, and she said she couldn't talk about it for two days. "I'll get over it, and I'll be okay," she told him. "I worked really hard on this ... from going back to school to building the gym so I could stay home with the kids. It all comes down to what we value, so we have had to give up a lot of stuff. But if you look at it, we lived most of our life on one floor of four floors of our house. Stuff doesn’t make our kids happy." 

Melody added, "We wanted to spend more time with them -- and after that, we wanted to spend time with people and be available and make time available for relationships."

The audience at the Reel-to-Real event got the opportunity to ask the Mikes questions.

Audience question: "Do you face any issues with zoning?"

Darren: "Through random chance, we met a wonderful couple who is allowing us to put our houses on their land. We sort of got permission. We told one of the local zoning fellows what we’re doing. We refer to it (the land where the houses are parked) as 'The Meadow.'" (However, the Mikes never disclosed the specific location.)

He added, "When the TV shows come and go, you see the happy ending. The reality is, it’s not entirely legal to live in a tiny house in the U.S. It’s kind of a little scary. Some folks up in Portland, Ore. wrote an addition to the international residential code and were able to petition to have that entered into the actual international residential code this past weekend in Kansas City. The code council voted on it, and they voted to accept it. It doesn’t directly affect zoning yet, but the fact that there will be an official provision in the code allows that conversation to happen."

Darren described their setup: "We have two tiny houses — 300 square each — a mirror image of each other, except the main house has the kitchen in it and the laundry. The kids house has full size bathroom with tub and Carter’s room and a triple bunk bed for the girls. There's a home school room above it. McKenzie is in first grade; Trinity is in kindergarten. (Joey) does everything they do. They have a bathroom in their house. They have rock climbing walls, jungle gym, swings, and monkey bars. It’s like their recess."

An audience member asked about utilities. Darren responded that they have mini splits installed on both of the houses. Electric heat is not the most efficient way to heat, but they are insulated to R-22 value, so it doesn’t take much to heat it. As an additional level of redundancy, they have a gas fireplace in their house that runs off propane. They also have electricity through solar panels and batteries.

Near the end of the Q&A, Darren said the houses are on wheels, so they're "able to move them with their family." He added, "We never have to go through the painful process of moving and selling again." They designed them to what they need for their family, and what they want. But the completed houses are incredibly heavy. "We can't just hook them up to the back of the minivan." When they moved them to The Meadow, they needed a 1-ton pickup truck.

In hindsight, it's ironic that the discussion ended with the thought that once the Mikes moved into their tiny houses, they'd never have to move again.

Bridget became friends with Melody on Facebook after the event, and has been following their tiny house transition. It hasn't been smooth sailing. At all.

As yesterday's article in the Omaha World-Herald detailed, the Mikes aren't currently living in their tiny houses. They were asked to leave "The Meadow" because their generator was scaring deer away. The tiny houses are stored on a friend's land, vacant for now. Melody had put out a plea a few weeks ago for temporary housing, and they are staying in a four-bedroom house in Omaha for now.

You can read more about Darren and Melody's tiny house transition on their blog, "The Big Family Tiny Life":
http://bigfamtinylife.com

Darren had posted a blog post on Dec. 6 detailing their struggles since moving into the tiny houses:
http://bigfamtinylife.com/2016/12/06/breaking-the-silence/

As a follow-up, Bridget asked Melody to detail specifically how people could help. The result was this blog post on Dec. 8:
http://bigfamtinylife.com/2016/12/08/urgent-needs/

And a GoFundMe campaign to help them with their tiny house transition (Bridget donated):
https://www.gofundme.com/mikesgotiny

Watch the preview of tonight's episode, "It Takes Six to Tiny":

Read my latest blog post: "Rogue One": Is it the Best "Star Wars" Film Released Since "The Empire Strikes Back"...?

"Rogue One": Is it the Best "Star Wars" Film Released Since "The Empire Strikes Back"...?

SPOILERS AHEAD!!

I went to see "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" for the second time today at Aksarben Cinema. I enjoyed the movie the first time out, and had planned to take in multiple viewings. 

(You can read my recent review of "Rogue One" here). 

A number of my friends consider it to be stronger than 2016's "The Force Awakens," and some have argued it is the best "Star Wars" film since "The Empire Strikes Back."  

High praise, indeed.  

I loved "The Force Awakens," and thought J.J. Abrams did a fantastic job creating a jumping-off point for a new trilogy -- and casting a group of compelling new characters. 

But many folks I know believe "Rogue One" is the superior movie. 

They feel the writing is stronger, characters more appealing, visuals truer-to-canon, and the grittier tone more compelling.  

My friend Scott felt that Felicity Jones's Jyn Erso was a far more compelling British-brunette "Mary Sue" than Daisy Ridley's Rey in "The Force Awakens."  

It's incredible when you think about it. Especially considering that this movie featured last-minute rewrites, well-documented reshoots (at the request of Disney), and a change of composer (Michael Giacchino only had "weeks" to compose the score).  

(I outline various production aspects and foibles in my "Rogue One" preview post here). 

A number of my friends even thought my initial skepticism about resurrecting actor Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin via CG was too nitpicky, and suggested it was fairly effective (if not perfect). Recreating 1977 Carrie Fisher, on the other hand...  

So...did a second viewing of the movie convince me that "Rogue One" is superior to "The Force Awakens," and the best of the films behind "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back"...? 

First things first -- I enjoyed "Rogue One" even more the second time around, and noticed a number of subtle things I didn't the first time -- like the fact that the X-Wing pilot with the call sign "Red Five" died in the movie's final battle sequence, which explains Luke Skywalker getting the designation in Episode IV.  

You'll also notice more subtle things, such as actors sporting mustaches (a nod to the look and feel of 1970s and 80s movies), and the fact that Cassian Andor's blue parka in the early part of the movie looks similar to Han Solo's on Hoth in "The Empire Strikes Back."  

People have remarked how much Mon Mothma in "Rogue One" looks like the actress who portrayed the character in "Return of the Jedi." Genevieve O'Reilly isn't the same actress, but she did portray Mon Mothma in 2005's "Revenge of the Sith."  

Thanks to "Rogue One," the Force now has its own "Hail Mary, Full of Grace..." mantra with "I am one with the Force, the Force is with me"...

Because "Rogue One" is a secondary story in the saga, Lucasfilm chose not to give it a crawl, but it did include the blue text that read "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." 

I understand the rationale for not including an opening crawl with John Williams's iconic theme, but I still missed it... 

The movie really follows a "less is more" style. I don't know if that was by design, or if the Disney brass wanted it to fit within a particular runtime.  

(If you watch the various pre-release trailers, there are numerous scenes/clips that didn't make the final cut of "Rogue One").  

There is part of me that has wondered if the filmmakers ever planned to have Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor escape the battle on Scarif. 

According to this article on "The Verge," director Gareth Edwards suggests that the main characters were set to survive in the original script (he had assumed that Disney wouldn't be sympatico with them dying), but that they never filmed such an ending.  

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/20/14022380/rogue-one-ending-original-different-gareth-edwards

Honestly, the film was probably more effective with the core group becoming martyrs to the cause.  

Edwards has managed to make a movie that many fans find to be incredibly compelling -- and at the zenith of what this franchise has to offer.  

As to whether or not this film is the best since "The Empire Strikes Back"... 

I don't know if I can quite pull the trigger on that sentiment. I think "Rogue One" benefits from less pre-release hype, and I think production news over the summer might have tempered expectations to a more realistic level.  

I will say that "Rogue One" is incredibly good, and shows how compelling the prequel trilogy could have been in the hands of a better writer/director (sorry, George).  

Is it better than "The Force Awakens"...? 

Both are very different movies, with different goals. I liked each film a lot, but for different reasons.  

What I can say is that this "new generation" of "Star Wars" movies appears to be in good hands... 

..and the fact that I'm having this debate with myself is a good sign (and need to see it again).  

Read my previous post: "Rogue One": The Prequel "Star Wars" Deserved

"Rogue One": The Prequel "Star Wars" Deserved

First and foremost, "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" is a fast-paced adjunct to 1977's "Star Wars" -- a visually handsome movie that focuses on action and keeps needless exposition to a minimum.

It is not a "reboot of the past" like J.J. Abrams "The Force Awakens." 

Rather, it is its own concoction and serves as more of a tribute, careening its way around the galaxy, adding depth and texture to the franchise.

It is the movie equivalent of a kid's adventure created with Kenner "Star Wars" action figures back in the 1970s and 80s. 

Those of you who have seen various World War II "men on a mission" movies (like "Force 10 From Navarone," "The Dirty Dozen," and "Where Eagles Dare") will recognize the direction "Rogue One" is headed. 

The story focuses on Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), a girl whose father Galen (Mads Mikkelsen) is the scientific mind behind the Death Star. She is forced to fend for herself as a small girl when her father is forcibly taken by Imperial Director Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn) to complete work on the planet-killing weapon (Jyn's mother is killed in the process). 

Jyn ends up being raised by a band of revolutionaries, led by Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker). 

Fast forward 15 years. Jyn is being held captive by Imperial forces. She is freed from captivity by the Rebel Alliance with the hope that she can track down her father, so they can put a stop to work on the Death Star. 

She is teamed up with rebel Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and a reprogrammed Imperial droid called K-2SO (voiced by "Firefly's" Alan Tudyk) for the mission. 

I won't give you a blow-by-blow rundown of what transpires next, but you can see where the story is going -- tracking down clues and bits of information in an attempt to find Galen Erso in order to thwart the Death Star from wreaking havoc on the galaxy...

"Star Wars" aficionados will find a number of "Easter eggs" strewn throughout the film. Casual observers likely won't notice, and generally won't have the "depth of knowledge" to see all the trinkets that tie into the next movie. 

"Kyber Crystals" are also referenced in the movie (Jyn has one on a necklace). I first read about them in Alan Dean Foster's 1978 SW novel "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" (although they were spelled differently). 

Some of the other attempts at continuity between movies are less than effective. 

For example, there is a CG version of a long-deceased actor who appeared in "A New Hope." We've seen that technique employed in movies like "Tron: Legacy" (to create a young Jeff Bridges) and "Captain America: Civil War" (to create a young Robert Downey Jr.). 

The tech behind such additions is better than it used to be, but is still not quite lifelike. 

Darth Vader also appears in a couple juicy scenes (as shown in pre-release trailers). The moments with Vader worked well, and filmmakers even included red-tinted eye lens on his mask, as they did in 1977's "Star Wars." 

The challenge with any prequel -- especially one bookended on both sides by other movies -- is the fact that there is little wiggle room for filmmakers to tell a story. 

To be honest, part of what made 2015's "The Force Awakens" so intriguing was the fact that it presented mysteries for viewers to chew on -- something that was done to great effect in 1980's "The Empire Strikes Back." 

Disney/Lucasfilm is set to start filming a story focusing on the early life of Han Solo in 2017 -- which has the potential for a bit more space to breathe in terms of plot/character development. 

Overall, "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" is an entertaining entry in the "Star Wars" saga. While it might not be the best film of the franchise, it is the best prequel story, and has a pounding pulse that should please ardent fans and casual holiday moviegoers alike. 

Rated PG-13, Runtime: 2 hrs, 14 min

Read my previous post: Not Enchanted by "Fantastic Beasts..." 

Not Enchanted by "Fantastic Beasts..."

Let me start by saying that I am an ardent fan of author J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" saga, and felt that the eight-movie run of movies based on her seven-book series ranks as one of the great fantasy franchises in my lifetime.

There is a quality to those stories that is very relatable -- students going to school, purchasing school supplies, dealing with difficult teachers, homework, family crises, ne'er-do-wells, bullies, love, hate...

Those stories had a beating heart.

Not only that, the three main protagonists -- Harry, Ron and Hermione -- were incredibly compelling characters.

In my mind, that's what made the Potter franchise stand out from other "youth driven" fantasies.

Considering Rowling's talent for compelling narrative, the movie "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" (Warner Brothers' launching point for a new Potter prequel franchise) is confounding to me.

Opinions are all over the place on this movie. I know some who loved the movie, and I know others who were just "whelmed" by this latest entry.

Count me in the latter category.

In a nutshell, the movie follows Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a wizard from England who travels via ocean liner to 1920s New York City. He is on his way to Arizona to return a magical beast to its native land.

He carries a leather suitcase along with him, and the magical piece of luggage features heavily into the plot. Not only does the bag contain magical creatures, there is more to it than meets the eye (think the TARDIS in "Doctor Who") -- there is an entire animal sanctuary inside this humble case.

Scamander has been traveling the world documenting magical creatures -- the resulting book is mentioned as a textbook in the Harry Potter series.

When one of Scamander's creatures -- a ferret-like Niffler -- escapes from his case, and when his misadventures to regain the creature results in him switching bags with a "no-maj" (the incredibly boring U.S. name for a muggle, or non-magical human), and when he is arrested by a demoted auror (think immigration officers in the wizarding world) for not being registered in the U.S., the adventure ensues.

But what ensues is a rather bland journey through wizarding politics in the United States, lack of magical acceptance in the 1920s, and various hijinks involving Scamander's CG pets on the loose.

If you ever thought to yourself, "ya know, all that 'backstory library research' Hermione Granger did in the books would make a great movie," then this is the movie for you.

In that regard, the movie feels at times like the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy, where great attention was given votes in the Galactic Senate, the dealings of the Trade Federation, disgraced politicians...

While some of that appeared in the previous Harry Potter saga, the strong mythic "hero's journey" plotline kept things from getting too bogged down in minutiae.

Part of the problem here is the fact that the cast is older in "Fantastic Beasts," and Redmayne isn't the presence he should be.

While I am sure he was playing the role as prescribed, there needed to be more.

What felt fresh and natural in the "Harry Potter" movies felt forced and warmed-over in this outing.

And, as was the case with the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy, things oftentimes feel too "insider" in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them."

Unless a viewer is already versed in the "Wizarding World of Harry Potter," they could be somewhat befuddled by the whole thing.

The main aspect lacking in the movie was the joy imbued in those early Harry Potter stories.

I have heard that Warner Bros. plans to make this into a five-movie series. I'm not sure what direction Rowling plans to go, but they need to tighten things up, and create characters and stories that are more relatable and compelling.

See "Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them" for yourself. Let me know what you thought in the comments below.

Rated PG-13, Runtime: 2 hrs 13 min

Read my previous post: The Return of an Old Favorite 

The Return of an Old Favorite

History is littered with the corpses of products that are no longer made.

Some of them have been rescued from the chopping block at the eleventh hour (Hostess/Twinkies), while others have been resurrected from the ashes. This is one of those stories.

The tale begins in May 2015. Bridget was scrolling through Facebook, as she too often does ... and came across a post that sent her clicking through to IndieGoGo -- which, if you're unfamiliar with it, is a crowdfunding site.

A favorite from -- well, not childhood, exactly, but young adulthood for sure -- was coming back -- if it got enough support.

The thought of an ice-cold bottle of Wild Cherry Clearly Canadian was enough for her to pull the trigger.

She ordered a single case (12 bottles). For $30, she was in. It was May 27, 2015.

But that was just the beginning. Not long after she ordered, FoodandWine.com published an article about the old favorite's return:
Clearly Canadian Is Back in Production, Set to Arrive By August

But clearly, it wasn't that easy.

As detailed on the Clearly Canadian Facebook page, problems ranged from their original bottler shutting down to the final issue -- a delay in receiving the shipping boxes. Angry crowdfunders whined, complained, made threats, and cajoled. Early on, a single Facebook admin deftly responded to the replies. Later, Bridget read that a team of volunteers had taken on the task. Still, it was a difficult task -- appeasing customers who had waited years -- in almost all cases -- for the product they had ordered (actually, to be fair, on a campaign they had funded…they knew it wasn't like ordering a case from Amazon).

It's in such demand, in fact, that a single case of Wild Cherry Clearly Canadian was -- as of this writing -- available on eBay for $200. That's crazy. But that's how desperate some people are to get their hands on this clear elixir. (To be fair, that case hasn't sold yet. But that's what they're selling it for!)

All was forgiven late Tuesday afternoon when the UPS truck pulled up in front of our door.

This is what the box looked like:

It included these clever hashtags:

... which Bridget couldn't wait to tweet about:

I've been waiting 18 months for this! #soworthit #ClearlyCanadian #ClearlyInMyHands pic.twitter.com/rOT8eM376X

— Bridget Weide Brooks (@bridgetabrooks) December 6, 2016

I then proceeded to unbox it:

And then we took photos of the bottles before trying it. Wild Cherry had always been her favorite flavor. Clearly Canadian will be produced in five flavors: Wild Cherry, Mountain Blackberry, Country Raspberry, Orchard Peach, and sparkling water.

Love the logo!

The distinctive glass bottles were back!
The manufacturers said they could have chosen plastic bottles,
but that wouldn't have been authentic to the brand. 

Bridget said it was as good as she remembered. I'm writing this on Day 3 after receiving it, and we still haven't finished the remains of the first bottle. We're savoring it.

Because Clearly Canadian isn't back in stores yet.

That's their next step. They are asking supporters to give this flier (below) to local grocery stores and big box retailers. National distribution is the plans.

But it might be a little while before the distinctive glass bottles make their way to your local Wal-Mart or Hy-Vee store. After all, it took just about 18 months to fulfill our IndieGoGo order. Bridget hopes they'll have it in Omaha by the time the pool opens next summer. Because there's nothing that says "young adulthood + summer" like Clearly Canadian.

Enjoy this early 1990s Clearly Canadian commercial. The YouTube caption says it was one of the first full CGI commercials that ran on television.

Check out my previous blog post: Arrival: The Latest Sci-Fi Escher Puzzle

"Arrival": The Latest Sci-Fi Escher Puzzle

Since 2013, the autumn movie season has seen a string of high-profile science fiction releases -- one coming to theaters each year like clockwork.

Sandra Bullock's "Gravity" ushered in the trend, followed by Christopher Nolan's heady "Interstellar." Last year we were graced with the whip-smart survival flick "The Martian" (based on the brilliant novel by Andy Weir).

These movies have steered more toward the quiet, intellectual side of the science fiction spectrum -- more "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" than "Independence Day." The films have garnered awards nominations -- "Gravity" and "The Martian" were both nominated in the Best Picture category at the Oscars.

Keeping the streak alive in 2016 is director Denis Villeneuve's "Arrival."

The film is based on the story "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang.

Following form, it is a brooding and cerebral science fiction film that plunges our world (and the film's main characters) into a space-induced existential crisis.

Amid all the other bombastic sci-fi and fantasy films unleashed at the box office each year, it is nice to "think" at the movies every so often. And "Arrival" certainly exercises the synapse.

The film follows Louise Banks, a sullen linguistics professor who is called upon when 12 mysterious spaceship pods arrive at various locations across the globe.

It's a classic setup -- seen many times in this genre and various sub-genres.

Amy Adams plays Banks -- sans makeup and uber-melancholy.

Gingers have become "de rigueur" in this latest string of autumnal sci-fi films -- Jessica Chastain in "Interstellar" and "The Martian" -- and, like her predecessors, Adams does a solid job winding her way through well-tread territory.

We learn early on that Louise Banks is a lone soul -- a single woman whose teen daughter died via terminal illness (the audience is led to believe it is cancer). Banks is grieving at the loss, and appears to be floating listlessly through life.

Banks's fate changes when -- while teaching a college linguistics course -- news breaks that alien ships have appeared at various points on the map.

The world develops a case of "tunnel vision" surrounding the arrival. Panic, fear and anxiety set in -- despite the fact that the alien ships seem benign.

Banks is soon approached by Col. Williams (Forest Whitaker), who needs her help finding a way to communicate with the aliens.

She soon accepts the government's overtures and heads to rural Montana, where one of the alien ships is located.

What follows are several cryptic in-ship encounters between Banks, her fellow team members, and the aliens -- seven-legged creatures dubbed "heptopods" (which look like walking squid with rhinoceros skin).

The heptopods communicate using dark smoky circle symbols that look like a cross between coffee mug rings and Rorschach patterns – and Banks and mathematician Ian Donnelly (a somewhat miscast Jeremy Renner) do everything in their power to decipher the symbols.

In a number of these "alien invasion" movies, a scant amount of time is spent deciphering languages. Oftentimes, a plot device is used to expedite the process and get to the meat of the narrative.

Not so with "Arrival." The crux of the film is deciphering the language.

Many will ruminate on whether or not "Arrival" is successful on that point.

As Banks points out during the film, "language is messy."

In my humble opinion, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" offered one of the more novel ways of communicating with other-worldly visitors (John Williams's five-note tune was brilliant).

To go any further in analyzing plot points would be to give too much away.

"Arrival" eschews big moments and head-slapping epiphanies for subtle progression and gentle twists.

There are aspects of this movie that reminded me of the aforementioned "Interstellar" (although, "Arrival" doesn't strive for the grandiosity and spectacle of Christopher Nolan's epic).

Rather, both films employ mind-bending plot points that twist and turn like Dutch artist M.C. Escher's "Relativity" lithograph -- looping infinitely along.

In movies such as this, the journey is as much the reward as the destination.

"Arrival" achieves a relative balance in terms of being both hopeful and tragic. In that regard, it might be the perfect "zero-sum game"...

"up's down, down is out, out is in
time falls, water crawls, are you listenin'?
stairways circle back to where you been
stairways circle back to where you been
stairways circle back to where you been"
-- Escher's World, Chagall Guevara (1991)

Rated PG-13, Runtime: 1 hr, 56 min

Trailer:

Check out my previous blog post:
"Allied: Being Good at This Kind of Work Is Not Very Beautiful"

Allied: "Being Good at This Kind of Work is Not Very Beautiful"

As the end credits rolled on Brad Pitt's new spy drama "Allied," I saw a familiar name at the helm -- Director Robert Zemeckis.

While he might not be part of the public zeitgeist like Steven Spielberg, Zemeckis has produced, written, and directed some of the most popular and influential films of our time.

This is the filmmaker behind the "Back to the Future" trilogy. He won an Oscar for directing "Forrest Gump." He also directed "Cast Away," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "The Polar Express."

In many respects, his filmography has been "Spielberg-lite" -- popcorn movies and family films, along with robust, crowd-pleasing dramas.

So I was somewhat surprised to see his name attached to a throwback spy drama set in World War II.

More to the point, "Allied" is a small, quiet movie about a British spy named Max Vatan (a wing commander in the RAF from Canada) whose wife (a French Resistance fighter) is suspected of being a sleeper agent colluding with the Germans.

"Allied" begins with Vatan (Brad Pitt) parachuting into the deserts of 1942 French Morocco during the height of World War II. He is set to rendezvous with fellow spy Marianne Beausejour (Marion Cotillard). Together, the two pose as a married couple, and maneuver their way toward an assassination attempt of the German ambassador stationed in Casablanca.

The pair becomes romantically entangled during the mission, culminating in Max's hasty proposal to Marianne during a tense getaway sequence.

From there, we see the two marry in London, have a baby (Marianne gives birth in the streets of London during the middle of a bombing raid), and forge a spartan domestic life together.

Their idyllic existence is thrown askew when Vatan is approached by his superiors in the British military -- who inform Max that Marianne is suspected of transmitting military secrets to Nazi Germany.

They order Max to aid them in running a "blue dye" operation on his wife -- leaving a piece of fake information in the home, and seeing if she transmits it.

From there, the story steers its way into Hitchcock territory, and the viewer is presented with clues, red herrings and contradictions as Vatan tries to learn the truth of his wife's identity.

"Allied" at times feels like it would have been better suited to the look and feel of classic romantic thrillers of the 1940s and 50s -- you can almost envision Pitt and Cotillard on black-and-white film, lit "noir style," with soft lens filters capturing their every move.

To say the film is quiet is an understatement. There is little in the way of musical score in the movie, and ambient noise is kept to a minimum.

The film's retro vibe is somewhat marred by a string of f-bombs (unnecessary), and a couple uncomfortable sex scenes (also unnecessary). Zemeckis and company should have played things straight in this instance.

Whether or not today's audience will embrace a film that gently sprouts like spring tulip is another issue entirely.

What cannot be denied is that Zemeckis manages to ramp up the narrative in a manner that deceptively pulls along the viewer.

And as the story reaches its zenith, you find your mind swirling and churning. 

Here's the teaser trailer:

Rated R, Runtime: 1 hr 56 min

The Crown: How Is This Latest British Emmy Bait?

The British are coming! The British are coming! 

Let's face it, the British have once again invaded entertainment.

Ever since our fair shores were graced with Harry Potter in the late 90s, our colonial forebears have seen a resurgence in the world of filmed entertainment.

Lady Mary and the brood at "Downton Abbey" became a major hit in the states, our "inner Anglophile" bubbled to the surface, and studios have decided to infuse entertainment with a healthy dose of Britannia...

PBS has increased its profile -- and lowered its average viewer age -- with ample helpings of new shows co-produced with the BBC and ITV.

The two latest "Star Wars" films feature plucky, young, brunette protagonists -- both Brits, and both with smokin' hot accents.

Superman is played by a British guy.

Batman used to be played by a British guy.

And streaming services have long attracted subscribers with cult British faves like "Doctor Who" (a show Bridget and I grew up watching on our PBS affiliate weekday afternoons).

It's a wonder we haven't traded in "My Country 'Tis of Thee" for "God Save the Queen"...

Netflix is certainly paying honor to the queen with its ambitious new series "The Crown" which debuted this month on the streaming giant (a co-production with Sony Pictures).

This stands as Netflix's most ambitious drama to date. The budget for the 10-episode first season is a reported ~$150 million, and you can see every penny dripping in muted majesty on screen.

The first season is centered in the 1950s, and focuses on the rise of Queen Elizabeth II, after the death of her father, King George IV.

Claire Foy plays Elizabeth, and does a wonderful job navigating the treacherous world of a staid monarchy struggling to stay relevant in a changing world. Foy provides a pitch-perfect performance as a young monarch struggling to realize her idealist views as they are tamped down by long-held traditions and laws put in place by parliament and the Church of England.

Matt Smith (best known for his gangly portrayal of the titular character on "Doctor Who") plays Elizabeth's husband Lord Philip Mountbatten -- who is seen as both an ardent supporter and perpetual skeptic of the royal way.

The production is lavish and compelling. Each episode (roughly 58-minutes each) is as much it's own mini-movie as it is a chapter in this serialized series.

The sets and scenery are gorgeous, as are the costumes featured.

This featurette illustrates the care and detail that went into the costumes employed in the series: 

There is a melancholy tone to the post-World War II Britain seen in "The Crown." And while that makes this period drama less frothy than an offering like "Downton Abbey," it is an imminently binge-worthy drama with its own driving pace and structure.

Pieces of history are woven throughout the show. While this could have been heavy-handed and trite, the filmmakers had a deft touch with the material, and each instance is used to further the subtle character development.

"The Crown" was created by Peter Morgan, and is based on his stage play titled "The Audience." Morgan also wrote the Oscar-nominated screenplay for the movie "The Queen," which focuses on an older Elizabeth.

You can tell throughout the 10-episode run of "The Crown" that Morgan knows this territory well. His scripts are razor sharp, and the large cast avoids coming across as caricatures during the unfolding narrative -- which is a danger with this sort of material.

I don't want to give away too many plot points. I'd rather let you watch the show without any major spoilers.

The rumbling pulse of "The Crown" is provided by Winston Churchill, played in all his gruff, curmudgeonly glory by John Lithgow. The tired old war horse -- who likes to remind those he encounters that he saved the world from fascism -- serves as sort of an odd, arms-length mentor to Elizabeth. He provides the most lively performance in the production.

As the show delves into the drama surrounding the royal family in the 1950s, it is made all the more fascinating with the knowledge that Elizabeth is still the queen, and her husband Philip is still alive in "Merrie Olde England." In fact, the couple celebrated their 69th wedding anniversary two days ago.

It is with a certain amount of regret that I tore through "The Crown" so quickly. It will be another year before a new season is available.

"The Crown" is definitely worth your time -- elegantly drawn and crafted with care. 

Long live our noble queen...

Where to Watch: Netflix (Streaming Subscriptions)
Number of Seasons: 1
Number of Episodes: 10
Rating: TV-MA