Somehow I missed this on Thursday, but apparently so did everyone else, since I didn't see it linked anywhere. Roger Ebert was hanging out at a post-production studio in Chicago, watching the restored new print of The Godfather, when he was unexpectedly joined by Larry and Andy Wachowski, the famously inaccessible duo behind The Matrix, Speed Racer, and (people forget) Bound. Afterward, he got a chance to chat with them -- not in a conventional interview setting, complete with a hovering publicist (the brothers don't do that, remember?), but over a beer.

Ebert was impressed with the "zillionaires": "Nice people. Friendly. No Hollywood attitude." He writes that "[t]he blogosphere paints them as mysterious recluses, which may add to the legend but doesn't match the reality." But their being nice and friendly doesn't make them any less mysterious and reclusive: I'd wager that Ebert only ran the piece because of their reputation for not giving interviews or talking to anyone in the press.

Anyway, it's really interesting to "hear" them speak, though they mostly talk about the difficulties of keeping a moving 35 mm shot in focus and the brilliance of Coppola's Godfather shot selection. It's funny how keeping silent for a while will make such brief, mundane snippets into objects of arcane fascination. (Though since I think the Wachowskis are pretty formidable visual artists themselves, I find their perspective on that sort of thing interesting in its own right.)

No photo, of course; all you get is that old shot of the two admiring a Matrix comic book.

It must be said, right off the bat: We all have bad days, we all behave obnoxiously sometimes, and (once in a while) we all do really stupid things that we regret big-time three seconds later. Having said that, it simply must be asked: Lou Lumenick ... what the &%!#$ing &$)# were you thinking? I hesitate to even write about this story, but since a dozen other movie sites have picked up on it, we'd be a little tacky if we just brushed it under the carpet. Plus, hey, it's interesting.

Anyway, according to various sources, NY Post film critic Lou Lumenick got into a brief altercation with Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert during a press screening at the Toronto Film Festival. More specifically (and allegedly, I suppose I should say), it seems that Lou ignored numerous shoulder taps from Roger, and then -- in a fit of full-bore film critic snittiness -- whirled around and landed a half-solid pop on Ebert's noggin, er, knee. The weapon was some sort of portfolio or rolled-up program.

For his part, Roger Ebert has been (as usual) the epitome of class. At first he tried to keep the situation quiet, but once word got out, he penned this explanation. And since the guy already has a Pultizer, I say he now deserves a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Because let me tell you right now: If I was struck silent by a throat malady and the PROFESSIONAL FILM WATCHER in front of me refused to turn around and at least acknowledge my simple request, well, then I suspect we'd be reading blog posts about how "Cinematical Film Critic Scott Weinberg Just Wrapped a Fire Hydrant Around the Head of an Unidentifiable Man."

And for HIS part, Lou Lumenick has remained distressingly silent. Whether or not the guy was dead-wrong or drop-dead apologetic, there's no excuse for him not addressing the story by this point. Something along the lines of "Dear sweet lord, was I an asshole the other morning. I'm really, truly sorry" published on the New York Post editorial page should just about do it. Me? I'd have written that email six minutes after the incident occurred. Before sending it to every movie site, blog, and message board in the universe.

As an opinionated cinephile, Roger Ebert has every right to dislike 3-D movies. And recently, on his blog, Roger Ebert's Journal, he wrote about such disfavor. Basically, in response to accidentally missing the press screening for the new animated 3-D flick Fly Me to the Moon, he admits that, because of a certain prejudice against the format, he likely wouldn't have enjoyed the movie anyway.

My issue here is not to attack Ebert's opinion or his belief that after half a century of dissatisfaction with the format he's never going to change his mind about it. He's free to express both. And while I disagree and am disappointed, I would never claim that Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. He's certainly smarter about film than I'll ever be, and his opinions are far more respected than my own.

However, Ebert is also one of the most widely read film critics in the world, and therefore he is a pretty influential person when it comes to the subject of movies. And I would hate for moviegoers to dismiss the new wave of 3-D movies simply because of Ebert's stance on the format. So, I merely intend to respond to his opinion with an opinion of my own, as apparently one of the wider read gushers on the topic of digital 3-D.

Leave it to Roger Ebert to compare the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics to the Nazi propaganda doc Triumph of the Will. In a blog entry, Ebert wrote in part: "The closest sight I have seen to Friday night's spectacle, and I mean this objectively, not with disrespect, is the sight of all those Germans marching wave upon wave before Hitler in 'Triumph of the Will.'"

In context, Ebert was addressing the "astonishing" $300 million show featuring "thousands of painstakingly drilled performers" who had spent "four months in rehearsal. Eight hours a day." His fascinating article includes thoughts on the opening ceremony, the challenge for any nation to ever equal the ceremony, much less surpass it in spectacle, the individual vs. the collective, and China's capitalist leanings.

At heart, of course, Ebert is a film critic, and he notes the direction of Zhang Yimou (Raise the Red Lantern, House of Flying Daggers) and the costumes designed by Eiko Ishioka (Mishima, The Fall). Triumph of the Will may still be fresh in his mind as a point of comparison because he wrote extensively about it again in June as one of his "Great Movies."

I played sports before movies lured me to the dark side, so when I was younger I related to the Olympics as a budding athlete. That was a long time ago, but I did watch a little Olympic badminton * and cycling before heading out to see movies this weekend. Have the Olympics distracted you from movie watching?

* UPDATE: Spelling corrected and link added. Thanks to ML for the gently-worded comment.

What is the appropriate reaction to have when a movie you love, adore, and cherish is somehow ... improved? I know, it's a strange feeling. I happen to think my all-time favorite film (A L I E N) is much better in its theatrical version than in its extended -- but where Aliens is concerned, I much prefer the longer version! It's something you have to approach on a case-by-case basis, of course, and it's the sort of movie-nerd activity that should be attempted only by those with a lot of free time -- or someone who gets paid to write about this sort of stuff. (Fortunately I am both.)

So it was with MUCH enthusiasm that I sat down with the brand-new Director's Cut of Dark City, a film that I absolutely love a whole lot -- and I know I'm not nearly alone when I say that. Like many of the finest sci-fi films, Dark City was pretty much overlooked for a good long while -- put once it hit DVD and heavy rotation on the cable channels, the sci-fi freaks found a film worth watching and re-watching, to say nothing of analyzing, deconstructing, and debating. And so I happily continue that trend by explaining what the fans will find in New Line's very impressive new Dark City package...

What do you do when you don't have the Ebert and you don't have the Roeper of At the Movies With Ebert and Roeper?

CNN reports that Richard Roeper, the Gene Siskel replacement who has been co-hosting the show since 2000, has declined an offer to renew his contract. After 8 seasons, he's heading on and his last stint on the show will air August 16-17. Roeper says that Disney offered to extend his contract, and he "opted to wait. Much transpired after that behind the scenes, but an agreement was never reached, and we are all moving on." For Richard, that means going to new reviewing pastures. He says that he will be co-hosting another reviewing show, and "will be free to share the details on that program in the near future."

With both of the hosts gone, what happens now? A show with recognizable celebs and guest hosts? Nothing? According to a statement from Roger Ebert, the era is over: "After 33 years on the air, 23 of them with Disney, the studio has decided to take the program named Siskel & Ebert and then Ebert & Roeper in a new direction. I will no longer be associated with it."

It's not entirely shocking news, but it does feel sad. That being said, Roeper isn't the only one with some future plans. Check out the statement after the jump and see for yourself.

Boy, Roger Ebert sure hasn't lost a bit of his sense of humor over the past couple years of medical trials and travails. Today on his blog, er, journal, Ebert gets around to writing a review of the Canadian film Young People F*cking, which he headlines with "Ok, here's your f***ing review." I almost spit my iced coffee all over my laptop screen when I saw this entry because, while I'm sure Roger is perfectly capable of spewing out the f-word on appropriate occasions, he's just ... well, he's simply not the sort of guy one imagines going around randomly dropping the f-bomb.

The filmmakers, no doubt, will be thrilled that Ebert reviewed their film, and more so that he quite liked it. He points out the title could be something of a distractor from a film that's he calls "good-humored, thoughtful, observant." My favorite part of his review, though, is where he notes: "With an admirable sense of symmetry, Gero follows these four couples (and a threesome) through six stages of f***ing, which he identifies as prelude, foreplay, sex, interlude, orgasm and afterglow. That seems like a pretty comprehensive list, omitting only Sending Out for Chinese."

It's hard to say which event in midtown Manhattan on Thursday night was cooler: New German Cinema legend Werner Herzog in conversation with director Jonathan Demme at the Times Center, or the two crazed climbers who attempted to scale the New York Times building right next door just a few hours earlier. In some ways, the two occurrences worked together: It was later announced that one of the climbers did it in order to raise awareness about global warming, a relevant issue for anyone interested in Herzog's latest film, the remarkable Antarctica odyssey Encounters at the End of the World. Like most of Herzog's documentary work, it's a brilliant amalgam of gorgeous imagery and Herzog's personal philosophies. Not a scientist himself, he spends time in their company down south, seeking to understand their behavior ("Is this a big moment?" he asks when they nonchalantly announce the discovery of a new bacterium).

Demme, admitting that he and Herzog had just met earlier in the evening, opened the conversation by reading an effusive letter to Herzog written by Roger Ebert after the critic discovered that the director dedicated Encounters to him. Herzog seemed displeased that Ebert printed the letter ("Those things should stay between two men") but had only praise for his friend. "I salute him, a good soldier of cinema," he said. "We have very few left."

Ever the astute observer, both of movies and of real life, Roger Ebert posted on his shiny new blog today a great post wondering what Hillary and Bill: The Movie might look like. Ebert talks about great political movies of the past, especially noting two of my own faves, Barry Levinson's Wag the Dog and Warren Beatty's fantastic Bulworth (two of the best political movies ever made). He ponders what a movie -- a narrative, not a documentary -- following the private moments of Hillary and Bill Clinton, during the last days of this seemingly endless primary campaign, might look like. Ebert writes:

Yet there must have been private moments of despair. The two realists, as able as anyone to read the trends, must have spoken privately about their shrinking options. And on Tuesday night, as Hillary's double-digit lead in Indiana dwindled to very small single digits, there must have come a time when one of them said, "We've lost this thing."

What were those moments like? What kept them going between themselves? Did they encourage one another, or was there an unspoken pact not to voice the unspeakable? Was there blame when Bill had one of his unwise moments? Did their shared past, of success and scandal, enter into it, or were they absorbed in this moment?

In answering those questions, there you would find the movie.

.

Count me among the ranks of drooling Dark City fanboys. The original DVD is a prized possession of mine -- aside from being a good transfer of a great film, it also features one of the best commentary tracks I've ever heard (thanks Rog!). There had been whispers of a Director's Cut DVD as early as 2005 and as late as three weeks ago. Now, courtesy of Ropeofsilicon, we have hard facts.

The new disc will hit on July 29th, in both standard and Blu-Ray formats. The new cut isn't just a "little longer," as previously reported, but 15 minutes longer -- 111 minutes instead of 96. And you can see the beautiful new cover art below the fold. No official word on the other rumored additions Scott talked about earlier in the month -- a new score, new special effects, new interviews, a possible theatrical re-release -- but since those had come from co-writer David S. Goyer, we can assume that they're forthcoming (except the theatrical re-release, which seems like wishful thinking). Warner Bros. did say that the DVD will include "new special features."

Director Alex Proyas, meanwhile, is back in the sci-fi saddle, working on the intriguing-sounding Knowing with Nicolas Cage. A movie of Dark City's caliber is unlikely, to put it mildly, but we can dream.