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."

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.

I said goodbye to Urbana Sunday, after a fun-filled time at the 10th annual Ebertfest. Saturday's schedule was packed with a marvelously diverse slate of films, starting off with Ang Lee's Hulk. Now, I am admittedly not a comic geek, and I like smart, artsy films, which is probably why I'm in the minority in enjoying Lee's take on the Hulk story.

I've never understood the hate for this film; there are some great shots in the film and it's artistically beautiful. Plus, I like how Lee explores the father-son and anger issues underlying the origin story in the film. The audience at Ebertfest, at least, was very enthusiastic in their response to Lee's film; it may well have been the most positive audiene reception he's had for Hulk since its inception.

Here are a few pics from the fest, more after the jump ...

%Gallery-21690%

I arrived in lovely Urbana, Illinois late Wednesday night after being grounded by a thunderstorm and missing my connection in Chicago, but all is well now that I'm here for this lovely little fest. The heart and soul of Ebertfest, of course, is Roger Ebert, who is sadly absent this year due to fracturing his hip while doing physical therapy trying to get strong enough to be here.

Roger has written on his own blog about his sadness at not being able to be here to enjoy the films he programmed and to see his many friends. Those of us who are here for the fest feel his absence. Last year, he sat in the back row of the Virginia Theater, ensconced in the recliner brought in for him, where he sat flanked by his nurse on one side and wife Chaz on the other, and his warmth and enthusiasm radiated through the stately theater. This year, the chair sits empty, and though he is here in spirit, that gentle, humble presence and ever-ready smile are keenly missed, though everyone here, of course, is more concerned about his health than anything else.

Roger Ebert is, by far, the most recognized name in film criticism. He started writing about film for the Chigaco Sun-Times the year before I was born, won the Pulitzer the year I turned eight, and he's been at it prolifically ever since. The man sees more movies and writes more reviews than just about anyone I know, and he's barely let the past year-and-a-half or so of illness and rehabilitation put a dent in his workload.

Monday, with typically little fanfare, Ebert took on even more work, this time in the form of a blog added to his website. He's calling it "Roger Ebert's Journal," and his first entry is about leading a delegation of the Urbana High School Science Fiction Club to a speech by Sir Arthur C. Clarke at the University of Illinois. (Can't you just picture him as the leader of a sci-fi club? I can.) Ebert shares a little slice of movie history in the post, talking about the Cinenamia CD-ROM (kind of a precursor to IMDb), of which Clarke was apparently quite fond.

The best part for Ebert's fans is that, in addition to being able to read more of his excellent writings, he's left comments open on the blog. So pop on over there, read his inaugural post, and give him a warm shout-out in the comments. Welcome, Roger, to the fast-paced world of film blogging. We at Cinematical give you our warmest welcome, and we'll be keeping an eye on your journal to see what you're writing about, in between churning out all those reviews.

Roger Ebert's January announcement that he was going in for another major surgery began a long and disquieting silence. As the reviews he had written in advance started to run out, with no updates on his health and more and more of the content on his website being contributed by its steadfast editor Jim Emerson, some people began to worry that something was very seriously wrong. March saw the announcement that Ebert would reappear for his annual Overlooked Film Festival in Urbana-Champaign, but there was still no word from the man himself.

Yesterday, much to my relief, a typically funny and self-deprecating message from Roger appeared on his site and in the Sun-Times. It confirms his planned appearance at Ebertfest in late April, and, better yet, announces that he will return to reviewing movies shortly afterward. The bad news is that the surgery didn't restore his ability to speak, which will for the moment preclude Ebert's return to his TV show where Richard Roeper has been valiantly trying to hold down the fort. (Is anyone still watching?) That aside, though, the dispatch is overwhelmingly good news.

Editor's note: Roger Ebert, in spite of health problems last year, was at Ebertfest from start to finish last year, and Perfume was one of the films screened there. You'll find links to our coverage of last year's fest after the jump.

After so many years of watching movies, Roger Ebert, 65, knows that the show must go on. And so he has announced his plans to appear in person at the10th annual Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival, a.k.a. Ebertfest, which will take place April 23-27 in Champaign-Urbana, home of the University of Illinois.

Ebert has rarely made public appearances in recent years due to thyroid cancer, which has robbed him of his voice. He is still selecting this year's lineup, culled from films he has reviewed and has deemed overlooked in some form, but he has definitely announced a rare 70mm screening of Kenneth Branagh's magnificent 4-hour Hamlet (1996). (It's the only movie ever made with a lousy performance from Jack Lemmon and a brilliant one by Billy Crystal.)

Who is Charlize Theron to know which of her movies are good or not? During a recent interview in Esquire magazine, the actress had the following to say about Reindeer Games, one of her early films: "That was a bad, bad, bad movie. But even though the movie might suck, I got to work with John Frankenheimer. I wasn't lying to myself -- that's why I did it. I mean, he directed The Manchurian Candidate, which is like the movie of all movies." Okay, let me stop you right there, Charlize. Have you actually seen The Manchurian Candidate? It's a movie where Janet Leigh plays a Chinese workman. Frankenheimer was an artist of the absurd, and sure, Reindeer Games doesn't work on traditional dramatic levels -- you don't care a lick about what happens to any of the characters -- but you can't watch that movie and not know that the director is completely, deliberately trying to screw with your head. Frankenheimer knew exactly what genre conventions he was working with in this film, and he decided to explode them.

In his negative review, Roger Ebert noted that "just a nudge and the movie would fall over into self-parody and maybe work better. But I fear it is essentially serious." Fear not, Roger. This is not a serious movie, but yes, it does require the characters to act serious, because they think they're in a Christmas-themed gangster plot -- how else should they act? For those who haven't had the pleasure, Reindeer Games opens in prison as Rudy (Ben Affleck) is about to be released from prison. His cell mate, Nick, has an ultra-hot girlfriend on the outside -- yeah, right -- and after Nick is stabbed to death, Rudy upon his release decides to tell the girl he is Nick. She won't know the difference. Turns out the girl, played by Charlize, has a crazy criminal brother played by Gary Sinise who has designs on Nick-Rudy. And that's only the beginning. The movie ultimately pulls rug after rug out from under us, becoming more ludicrous in the last thirty minutes than any serious-minded movie in crime picture history.