TEMPE, Arizona -- Mostly, I'm posting this review as practice.

Practice? Yes, it's spring training, and this new platform is just as new to me as it is to you. I've had a little practice on a beta version, but you wouldn't want to see some of the stuff I posted there.

So, having gone to see "U23D" tonight, I thought I'd post a quick review, just to give you something to read before tomorrow morning's game thread, and also to give me some posting practice.

This movie was filmed during the 2005-2006 U2 Vertigo tour, and they chose to film a show in Buenos Aires, Argentina -- maybe because it was at a huge outdoor stadium that seemed to seat about 100,000. Even the general admission pit seemed to have far more people than the USA arena shows. I saw three of those shows -- two at the United Center, one at Madison Square Garden, and reviewed them here and here.

This film captured the concert experience perfectly, especially with the 3D feature (I was glad to see it here in Arizona, because had I seen it at Navy Pier in Chicago, it would have cost an extra $12 for parking). The most effective use of the 3D was when they had shots from behind the audience in the pit looking toward the stage. When they'd jump up and down it felt like they were sitting in the IMAX theater right in front of me. Pretty cool. If you're a fan of U2 you should see this film; if you're a fan of IMAX films, you should also see this film. I've heard U2 is back in the studio making new music this year and may go on tour worldwide again in 2009.

Nice way to spend an evening on a Cubs spring training off day. Back to the fray in the morning.

Many of you may have seen Will Smith's new star vehicle already; in case you haven't, here's a quick review of this holiday-time action film.

This is the third time that a film has been made based on Robert Matheson's 1954 novel: "The Last Man On Earth", starring Vincent Price (about the last actor I'd think of when I think of this role), was made in 1964, and the 1971 film "The Omega Man", with the second-to-last guy I'd want in that role (Charlton Heston).

The basic story, if you have been avoiding entertainment shows, trailers and magazines for months: a scientist (Emma Thompson, who is uncredited) has found a viral cure for cancer. Unfortunately, it backfires and three years later it has killed off 90% of humanity, and 99% of the rest (along with many animals) have been turned into pale, hairless zombies that jump around every corner and yell like lions (how else would you make this a horror/action flick, without loud noises at unexpected times?).

Smith plays Robert Neville, a colonel in the military whose wife and child are being evacuated from Manhattan before it is quarantined (I won't ruin the method if you haven't seen the movie -- the scenes of evacuation and quarantine are shown in multiple flashbacks that Neville has in dreams). He winds up as the last living human in New York -- every single other being has been infected.

The rest of the film shows various fights he has with the zombies, his attempts to find a cure for the infection, and most affectingly, his relationship with his dog, who is also immune -- mostly. The two of them ride in various vehicles through a New York covered with weeds and with buildings half-destroyed.

That's the coolest part of this film -- the CGI effects, both how they made NYC look abandoned (apparently, they got permission to shut down streets for long periods of time, and actually imported weeds from Florida -- those aren't CGI), and the zombies.

The rest of the movie -- not so much. There are quite a number of plot holes and questions raised that, if you got a reasonable answer to them, would make you say, "This writing is ridiculous!" But that's not why this movie is entertaining. Like many of its type, its purpose is to provide 101 minutes of escapist entertainment on a weekend evening. And it accomplished that goal quite well. Will Smith is excellent as usual; there aren't many speaking roles in this film, and one of the other ones goes to another survivor who shows up, suddenly (and if you think too much about how she gets there, you'll drive some more holes through the plot), and from there, the film drives to a relentless, and actually somewhat happy, conclusion.

AYRating:

There is a gesture -- a physical gesture -- made not far from the end of "Juno", the only interaction in the entire film between two major characters, which is so tender, so sweet, and so appropriate, it sums up nearly the entire story of this film.

"Juno" could have been a formula film with stereotyped characters, because it is about teenage pregnancy. Instead, what we get is a comedy -- don't get me wrong, there are some hilariously funny lines in this film -- that's also real, because the characters don't react in the way we have come to expect characters in this situation would react. They react like real people, and the result is, we wind up caring deeply about what happens to them.

The basic plot: Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page -- and in this age of bad girl actresses like the Spears girls and Lindsay Lohan, it's refreshing to see someone of this generation with this sort of talent, and who's apparently hardworking and normal; Page ought to be nominated for Best Actress for this role) has sex with "her best friend". It's her first time (and his, too) and, naturally, she gets pregnant. Paulie, the best friend (Michael Cera), isn't at all what you'd expect from a character like this. He's quiet and sweet and is on the track team (apparently, what attracted Juno to him in the first place was his legs), and as we find out, Juno really does love him, and not in the way you see most teenagers "love" in the movies.

When Juno (and we also learn from the film why she has this unusual name) tells her father (J. K. Simmons, who played the editor in the Spiderman films) and stepmother Bren (Allison Janney) about this, their reactions set the tone for the entire film. While Bren and Juno are shown to be at odds over many things -- not uncommon for stepparents -- you can also clearly see that Bren loves and cares deeply for Juno.

Juno eventually decides she wants to have the baby and put it up for adoption, and she and her friend Leah find (in the "Penny Saver"!) a couple who have placed a classified ad looking for a baby.

And once again, this couple isn't what you'd expect. Juno and her family aren't exactly from "the wrong side of the tracks", but it's clear that they live in modest circumstances, while the potential adoptive parents, Mark (Jason Bateman) and Vanessa (Jennifer Garner, in a part far different from her usual adventure roles), live in "Glacier Estates", an upscale subdivision. There's obviously something uncomfortably wrong with this relationship when we first meet this couple -- but it doesn't take the turns you think it's going to; even when the film appears to be going in one direction, the characters don't act in stereotypical ways. Eventually, Juno and Vanessa run into each other at a mall and what happens there will astonish and delight you.

And there, I'll stop; the only thing that remains to be said is that every single character in "Juno" feels real, not acted; the story is human and believable. It doesn't feel written or acted, it feels lived. You'll understand the motivations and actions behind every scene. Jason Reitman, the director (who also directed the comedy 'documentary' "Thank You For Smoking"), doesn't hit one discordant note, and his use of music is, well, just perfect.

Run, don't walk, to see this film. It will leave you smiling. And keep your eyes on Ellen Page, who is all of 20 years old (though the character she plays in this film is supposed to be 16). She is a major talent.

AYRating:

Tired of reading about steroids and the Mitchell Report?

Yeah, me too.

So while we wait for the expected announcement later today of the Kosuke Fukudome press conference, I wanted to tell you about "The Great Debaters", which will be released to theaters on Christmas Day. I had the opportunity to see a DGA sponsored screening a couple of nights ago.

The movie, based on real events, stars and is also directed by Denzel Washington, who plays a professor and debating coach at Wiley College, a black college located in Marshall, Texas, a small town not far from Shreveport. The year is 1935, and it's the Jim Crow South -- we see events that both define some of the political movements of the day (Washington's character, Mel Tolson, gets involved in union organizing), and we are constantly reminded that the "Negro" (that term is just beginning to replace the somewhat pejorative "colored" as the "correct" term of the times to refer to black people) is put in what white people feel is his "place".

Tolson holds tryouts for the debate team, and winnows the students down to four -- one of whom is someone who's clearly had a troubled past, one who can't stomach Tolson's political views and quits the team, a female student, and the fourth, whose character is only sixteen in the film, Denzel Whitaker, a 17-year-old actor who looks fourteen. The young Whitaker plays this young debater with great dignity and class; in the film his father, a doctor played also with the same quiet dignity by Forest Whitaker (who, despite a resemblance to Denzel Whitaker, is NOT his real-life father), both keeps him in line as a father would have in the 1930's, and also strongly encourages his education, in a belief that education can actually help him rise up out of the situation he was born into.

Tolson hones the debaters' skills and they begin to win debates against similar black colleges. When they try to arrange matches against other schools, they meet with the subtle racism of the time. At last, Oklahoma City University agrees to debate them, the first white college to do so, and while the debate is going on, half the white audience walks out.

The characters are well-drawn and speak realistic dialogue that doesn't sound like "movie dialogue". The climax of the film comes when Harvard University, whose national championship debate team has heard about Wiley's debate winning streak, invites them to come to Boston to debate them. No spoilers here -- go see this film, which has terrific performances as always by two of the best actors of our time, Washington and Forest Whitaker, and keep your eyes on Denzel Whitaker, who nearly steals the whole show from his elder counterparts. There will be Oscar buzz about this film, and justifiably so -- one of the best of the year.

AYRating:

This weekend, we await the Fukudome Decision, and in many parts of the country, the weather's going to be rotten.

That makes this a good opportunity for me to say: Go see this movie! "Atonement" is a wonder, filled with beautiful period costumes, great settings (from an English country house to World War II France), and great acting by some of today's best young actors (Keira Knightley, James McAvoy).

But the real stars of "Atonement" are the three actresses who play the protagonist, Briony Tallis -- first, as a 13-year-old girl, then as an 18-year-old who has reason to spend the rest of her life "atoning" (thus the film's title), and finally, in a virtuoso performance by Vanessa Redgrave, nearing the end of her life.

Here's the basic plotline: the 13-year-old Briony is a precocious young girl who has written a play, which is supposedly going to be performed by her and a couple of her young cousins, visiting at the English country house in pre-war 1935. The cousins are bored, and so Briony sets her sights on the activities of the adults in the house, including her older sister Cecilia (Knightley) and Robbie (McAvoy), the gardener's son who has been sort of adopted by the family, a brilliant mind who they have put through school.

Events are witnessed by Briony, which she interprets through her 13-year-old mind, and which we later learn through flashback and a different character's perspective, aren't the way they seemed. Then she does something (and unlike some other reviews, I'm not going to tell you what) based on seeing something falsely, that tears the entire family apart, and creates the reasons for the "atonement".

That brings the story into the war years, and director Joe Wright ("Pride & Prejudice") pulls no punches in showing us the horrors of war, both through the characters' eyes and through one incredible, long tracking shot which ends up on the beach at Dunkirk. Terrific stuff.

The real stars of this film, as I said, are the three actresses (Saoirse Ronan, Romola Garai, and Redgrave) who play Briony Tallis. Each hits exactly the right note for the character at the age she plays her.

There's already Oscar buzz for this film and when you see it, you'll see why.

AYRating:

While we await the beginning of the Winter Meetings today, and perhaps some fruitful additions to the Cubs or trades, here's what I did last night... went to see "Before The Devil Knows You're Dead"; one review I saw told me that this title comes from an old Irish toast (that I had not heard before):

Quite a number of characters in this film would need every one of those 40 years. Though there are not many likeable people here, you wind up feeling sympathetic to at least some of them, because what happens tears apart an entire family. It's not so clear that this family was very close to begin with, but by the end of the film, several of them wind up dead... and beyond that, I shouldn't tell you more.

The basics of the plot are: Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Andy, an accountant at a business that's in trouble seemingly in part because of his own actions. He's also a drug addict who needs money. His brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) also needs money, because he's months behind on child support to his ex-wife (played with a real hard edge by Amy Ryan, who was so good as a lowlife mom in "Gone Baby Gone").

And so they hatch a plan to get some money. It involves a robbery that just can't go wrong. Andy has it all planned out, and they'll clear an easy $60,000 each, enough for Hank to clean up his debts and for Andy to run off to Rio with his wife Gina, played sexily by Marisa Tomei, although it's not really clear that Gina loves, cares or even wants to be with Andy, based on the fact that she's also sleeping with Hank.

(No, that's not a spoiler.)

Anyway, we wouldn't have much of a story here unless the robbery went wrong, and indeed it does. And if I tell you more, that would be a spoiler, and so I won't. Suffice to say that the boys' father Charles (Albert Finney) gets involved in investigating this crime and is shocked by what he finds. The hoary old phrase, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive", came to my mind in thinking about the multiple deceptions by virtually everyone in this film.

By the end six people are dead and there's a satisfying, but not really happy, ending.

It's told largely in flashback, though not through what you'd consider to be a "traditional" flashback technique. Instead, we see the botched robbery and then a series of flashbacks showing what led up to this occurring, from several different characters' viewpoints, with different time frames. It's a fascinating technique and not one you'd expect from an 83-year-old director (Sidney Lumet, who might get a DGA Award or even an Oscar nomination for this film).

Hoffman's great, as always; Hawke plays Hank perfectly, greasy and slimy; and Tomei slinks around the screen (amazing -- she's 43 years old), making you wonder what she's doing hanging around with this crowd.

This movie may have been overlooked because it's only in limited release, but if you have a chance, go see it.

AYRating:

It's a slow weekend, so I'm going to try this again, even though last time I reviewed a film you all flamed me. This time, I think your reaction will be different, because I saw two spectacular films recently; one of them you've probably seen already, the other you haven't, because "The Kite Runner" hasn't yet had its general release.

"The Kite Runner" was the special screening many of us in attendance at BlogWorldExpo got to see the night before the conference opened, at a small theater tucked away behind (but not connected to) the MGM Grand Hotel on the Las Vegas Strip.

I can't say enough good things about this film. It's a fictionalized history of what happened in Afghanistan from the mid 1970's to the present day, but that's too simplistic a summary. It shows this history through the eyes of two young boys, who become friends even though one of them is the son of privilege, and the other is the son of a man who works for the other's father as a servant. There's more to this relationship between the two boys, and I cannot divulge more without spoiling a lot of the point of the film. Anyway, the title of the film comes from the "kite running" that young boys do as a pastime in pre-Soviet Afghanistan. When the Soviets take over in 1979, the privileged family flees, eventually settling in northern California. Years later, the boy, now a man, marries (outside of his ethnic group, which causes further friction), and for reasons I can't say because it would be another spoiler, feels compelled to return to Afghanistan to see what's become of his country and also to rescue a young boy.

What we see is depressing, as the full force of the Taliban has now come into play (the scene is set not long after the 9/11 attacks). Another connection between the Taliban and the earlier conflicts, involving the man now from California, and someone who was a tormentor -- and involved in a truly disturbing scene involving the two boys -- in the earlier Afghanistan, is revealed.

But that's just the nuts and bolts of the history. Mostly, this is a story about people -- about real human relationships. I hesitate to use the word "heartwarming", because that sounds so sappy, but it truly is.

After the screening we were fortunate to have a Q&A session with the film's lead actor, Khalid Abdalla, who is probably unknown to you unless you saw "United 93", where he played the hijacker Ziad Jarrah. Abdalla's background is fascinating -- he is of Egyptian descent, born in Scotland, but as he told us, his parents "are from Illinois". He told us about how he prepared for the film, learning how to speak Pashtun, immersing himself in the culture of Afghanistan. None of the film was actually shot there, given the dangers that still exist in that country. But Abdalla reminded all of us that the film is, as the official site says, about friendship, hope and redemption. That sounds like a PR agent's line, but you'll find that it's really true.

The director, Marc Forster, has done recent films such as "Finding Neverland", "Monster's Ball", and "Stranger than Fiction" -- nothing that can be typecast, and he isn't here, but this film may gain him an Oscar nomination. It will be released nationwide on December 14. Don't miss it.

You may have already seen American Gangster, but if you haven't, don't miss it either. You probably already know the basics of the story, based on real people: Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) is a drug lord in 1960's and 1970's New York, based in Harlem, said at the time to be more powerful in drug running than the Mafia. Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is a small-time New Jersey police detective, who stumbles on what Lucas and his gangs are doing and faces an uphill battle trying to convince his bosses, New York detectives (who at one point tell him that "anytime he crosses that bridge into NYC, for anything, they have to tell them"), and federal authorities that they've got a battle to stop drugrunning that they've never seen before.

What really makes this film isn't the nuts and bolts, it's the performances of Washington (supremely confident, until his own mother shouts him down) and Crowe (quietly confident, knowing he's right, even when staring down a federal prosecutor played chillingly by Roger Bart, better known for comedic roles in "Desperate Housewives" and "The Producers"). They are not only believable, but even though they have two of the most recognizable faces in American acting today, you don't see them, you see the characters they are playing.

Warning to the squeamish: this movie is extremely violent, with several up-close shootings. Nevertheless, those are not gratuitous; they are all germane to the story and to show how ruthless Frank Lucas and his gang were. Richie Roberts, small-time detective, wound up helping to put a pretty big dent in drugrunning in NY and NJ in the 1970's; over 100 people were sent to prison as a result of his work and. Ridley Scott ("Alien", "Blade Runner", "Thelma & Louise", "Gladiator") directed, and he too may have an Oscar nomination headed his way. Don't miss this one, either.

AYRating for both films:

I wasn't going to post anything about this movie, which I saw on Friday night, but it's a sloooow Sunday -- apart from some rumormongering which you can discuss in this diary -- so I thought I'd go ahead and review this film, even though I know, just know, I'm going to get flamed. So read first, then fire away.

I had recommendations to see this movie from everyone from co-workers, to my dad, to Roger Ebert, who gave it a rare four-star rating.

But I'm here to tell you that I hated this movie; I almost walked out two or three times, and I never do that, even when I see something I don't particularly like.

Here's the basic plot: Clayton (George Clooney) is a "fixer" at a major law firm in New York; he's supposed to clean up messes that others make. The firm is trying to finalize a multi-million-dollar settlement against a large corporation that's supposedly environmentally conscious, but has done some not-so-kosher things.

That doesn't matter. What does? Nothing, really. In this movie there's a scene where Clooney runs up a hill, stares at three horses, and his car explodes. We see this twice -- once in flashback at the start of the movie, then once near the end, when it's sort of explained why the car explodes, but not why the horses are there. Further, this happens right after he is sent to the suburban Westchester County (you are told this, obviously, to let you know that the man is wealthy) home of a man who's very powerful but has done something bad, and Clooney's being asked to fix it.

Does this whole scene mean anything? Nope, it's absolutely 100% irrelevant to the plot.

There's a scene where another man runs naked through a parking lot in Milwaukee. So what? you're saying, and you'd be absolutely right. This same man entices a teenage girl to come from her home in rural Wisconsin to New York. No, it's not for the reason you're thinking.

Clooney's character owns a restaurant/bar. Or owned it, past tense. He's lost a lot of money there because of his brother. Does that matter? Nope. (Well, it does because this character had to be introduced so he could pick up Clooney after his car blows up.) Anyway, he spends a lot of time in underground poker games in Chinatown. Does this matter to the plot? Got me. He's divorced, and he goes to his kid's birthday party, and his (Clooney's) father makes a heartfelt speech. Does that matter? Nope. Clooney also drives his kid, who's about eight, to school, and swears up a storm in the car, about nothing in particular. Does this matter either? Nope.

Nothing really matters in this movie. It has a terrific cast -- Clooney, Tom Wilkinson (as the guy who runs naked -- he also winds up murdered, for no particular reason, either), Sydney Pollack, and Tilda Swinton. That doesn't matter either. These characters all have spiffy lines of dialogue, but they seem to be talking at each other, not to each other, as if they are all acting in a vacuum hoping to pick up an Oscar nomination.

Even the one climactic scene, where Swinton (who plays, with lips pursed so tight you wonder how she can even eat, the head lawyer for the large corporation) and Clooney talk at each other in rapidfire dialogue, and when I thought, "Finally! Maybe this will make some sense!", ends (Spoiler alert!) in a hurry when the cops suddenly swoop in and arrest all the bad guys.

I left shaking my head wondering why I had wasted two hours of my life. This is the worst movie I have seen in years. Don't go, don't watch it on HBO when it comes there in a few months, don't get it on Netflix.

OK, flame away.

AYRating: Zero

The Cubs are home for the winter, and there was a three-day break between baseball games this week, so I figured it was time to catch up on the movie-watching I'd pretty much put aside for the summer.

There is a scene of such touching poignance near the end of "Feast of Love", that completely redeems this film and all its various relationships and troubles.

Not that this is a bad film -- it isn't; I liked it very much. Morgan Freeman, who's great in everything he does, may have scored himself another Oscar nomination; he plays a college professor who has suffered a terrible tragedy in his family. He tries to assuage this in part by hanging out at a Portland, Oregon coffee shop, run by Greg Kinnear, who's married but whose wife leaves him for another woman -- just about right under his eyes; we all see it coming but he doesn't. I always think of Kinnear as the guy who was an entertainment reporter and late-night talk show host; but he's also had outstanding acting roles and done them well (he was great in "Little Miss Sunshine" and is just as good here).

The movie is about love and how it is viewed by all of us -- there are characters in this film of all ages (some in their early 20's) and walks of life (lawyers, professors, workers at Wal-Mart) -- and not every situation succeeds, as we might expect in a film of this nature. There are breakups and connections, some made, as in real life, by a chance meeting. Roger Ebert thinks this sort of thing is contrived. I didn't. The movie felt real, with people in it who react like real human beings, not actors reciting dialogue.

Well worth your time.

AYRating:

"Across The Universe" is directed by Julie Taymor, whose first big film was "Frida", the movie about the life of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo -- which started as a biopic, but turned into a riot of color and art, celebrating Kahlo's life. (Salma Hayek, who played Frida, makes a cameo appearance in "Across The Universe".) Taymor is also the director of the Broadway stage version of "The Lion King", where she used a similar concept of color and movement to put on the stage a cartoon film that I wouldn't have thought adaptable to Broadway.

In this way, "Across The Universe" is a celebration of the Beatles. There are thirty-three Beatles songs in this movie, all sung by the characters within (one of whom, a Ken Kesey-like hippie, is played by U2's Bono). The songs pop up naturally in the course of the action (in a similar fashion to the hit stage musical "Mamma Mia"), which is loosely based around the entire 1960's and how our culture changed from the button-down strait-laced attitudes of the 1950's, to the counterculture hippies of the 60's and early 1970's. Vietnam becomes a centerpiece, as one of the characters is drafted and sent there, and others become radicalized and protest. There's an Englishman who comes from a working-class background, but knows he has an American father (who fathered him right after World War II and then abandoned his mother and returned to the USA); he comes in search of him and stays to become part of the entire "scene" -- much as the Beatles themselves created that scene.

All of the characters are named after people in various Beatles songs (there's Jude, Prudence, Sadie, Rita, and Lucy, among others) -- the Englishman, Jude, is played by an actor (Jim Sturgess) who bears an eerie resemblance to Paul McCartney.

In addition to the story itself, there are allusions to every Beatles movie, both in content and the way they're shot, and sly little asides to Beatles songs that aren't sung (one character literally "comes in through the bathroom window", and there's a scene, easily missed if you're paying attention to something else, which pays homage to "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", and Joe Cocker, who did a top-10 cover of "With A Little Help From My Friends" in 1970, makes a cameo appearance, among many, many other such scenes).

Some reviewers hated this movie. But Ebert, who lived through the time -- Ebert was, strangely enough, born on exactly the same day as McCartney, June 18, 1942 -- understands the subject matter and how and why it's handled this way much better. I'm not suggesting that you have to be over 50 to appreciate this film -- but if you are younger and didn't live through this era, go in with an open mind. It's not a film with a traditional narrative, and you may have to suspend disbelief on a few things inside. But I loved it.

AYRating:

Since the Cubs had the day off yesterday -- and apparently, I didn't miss much by missing most of the Brewers' 13-5 blowout of the Cardinals -- I decided to take in this new film, particularly since it was free (a DGA sponsored screening).

It begins with two events that seem completely unrelated: a Russian gangster is savagely murdered (recommendation: if you see this movie, see it before you eat, because there are some extremely stomach-churning killings) by someone who appears to be his ally (this sort of thing happens several more times in the film). Right afterwards a pregnant young woman comes into a pharmacy, bleeding; she gives birth and then dies.

These events become related because of the midwife who delivers the baby, Anna (Naomi Watts, who is spectacular in the role) -- her father, now deceased, was Russian. We learn that she was married, but now divorced, she lives with her mother and an uncle who spends most of his time drinking and criticizing everything in the household.

We meet some more people connected to the first murder when Anna finds a diary that the pregnant young woman had kept -- in Russian -- and inside is a business card from a Russian restaurant. The owner of the restaurant, Semyon, who seems at first a kindly old man (Armin Mueller-Stahl), turns out to be the ruthless leader of a gang of London-based Russian gangsters. The movie is not only set in London, but mostly filmed there as well -- it never seems to stop raining in this film, yet another way the dark mood is set.

Younger members of the gang include Semyon's son Kirill (French actor Vincent Cassel, so good in Ocean's Twelve and Thirteen) and Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen).

And here I should probably stop, because if I tell you more, I'd give you too many spoilers. Suffice to say that Anna and the gang members come into contact because of the diary, and for a very long time not much seems to happen -- but in one specific scene, one event reveals why certain characters have acted the way they have, and everything falls into place.

This is a very violent film -- not for the squeamish -- and in addition to several very bloody throat-slashings, there is an already-notorious fight scene in which Mortensen, naked in a bathhouse, fights two knife-wielding thugs.

But the story is well-crafted and the acting is top-rate and director David Cronenberg (who did "A History of Violence", "M. Butterfly", and "The Fly", among others) has hit all the right notes. Well worth seeing, even if you have to avert your eyes for the bloodier scenes.

AYRating:

I'll have the usual game post this afternoon. Go Cubs!