University of South Carolina Libraries
THE GAMECOCK ♦ Monday, March 25, 2002 5 ' CONTACT US THEY SAIDIT NIELS BOHR: An expert is a person Story ideas? Questions? Comments? who has made all the mistakes that E-mail us at gamecockmixeditor@hotmail.com can be made in a very narrow field. -. ....^- - - - --- E.T.: THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY A BY TUG BAKER THE GAMECOCK A young boy walks out to his shed to investigate a noise. The “creature” responsible is just as scared and nervous as the young boy. They run into each other and’ scream as their lives suddenly collide, and together, Elliot and E.T. jumped right off the screen and into the hearts of millions. Still one of the top-grossing films of all time, Steven Spielberg’s “E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial” is now 20 years old, and that means that it’s time for an anniversary re-release. In that time, it has become an undeniable fixture in the wonderland of popular culture. “E.T. phone home” is probably a more recognizable phrase than “Here’s looking at you, kid.” The film generated a plethora of merchandising tie-ins, most recently a “Furby” E.T. doll. Deny it all you want, but you saw “E.T.” when you were growing up. Whether you liked it or were scared by it, I guarantee it enthralled your young mind like no other movie had. Beyond captivating children, “E.T.” was a movie that could be appreciated and loved by people of all generations. The trick to this captivating phenomenon lies beyond the cute story of a boy and his alien. If the film only concentrated on being “cute,” it would have left out the scenes where the scientists take E.T. away or the strange and somewhat frightening connection between E.T. and Elliot that causes Elliot to get drunk in class when E.T.chugs beers at home. These are just a few of the aspects that make the film so memorable and enduring. The entire idea of “E.T.” is a backdrop for the most personal story Spielberg has ever attempted. No, he was not visited by aliens when he was a child. But his parents did divorce when he was 10. It's this idea of a child searching for answers and dealing with self imposed guilt that drives “E.T.” E.T. himself (herself?) is physically separated from his family, and this links the two characters. To further involve the audience and give them a sense of connection, Spielberg shot most of the movie from very low angles. These point-of view shots give the audience a sense of how E.T. and Elliot see the world. Suddenly, not only are E.T. and Elliot connected, but the audience is, too. There are a myriad of other topics concering “E.T.” to discuss: “E.T.” as a reworking of a classic B-movie alien story, E.T. as a Christ-like figure or other Biblical symbolism. However, a more appropriate discussion would be the merits of changing the film's content for the re-release. While no one has a problem with the additional footage being added to the film, there has been a major controversy over some of the changes that Spielberg has made to the film’s original content. In the Halloween scene, where Elliot’s mother calls his brother a “terrorist,” the possibly offensive word has been replaced with “hippie.” Thankfully, the rumors that the kids’ favorite “penis breath” line had been removed are false. Finally, the guns have been digitally edited out of the hands of the policemen who are chasing the kids and replaced with walkiertalkies. Spielberg has apparently been waiting to take out the guns since the movie was first released, and the “terrorist” comment was removed for obvious reasons. While these changes may not seem too bothersomeTo some, there arejnany movie buffs out 1 there who have a big problem with such conspicuous edits. While their argument does have some merit, Spielberg is hoping the extra footage will be the real draw. Included in this new version is a bathtub scene and more of Drew Barrymore as an adorable 6-year-old. Beyond this, the geniuses over at Industrial Light and Magic have “touched up” a few things here and there but have gone to great lengths to make sure the changes aren’t noticeable to the untrained eye. While the “E.T. 20th Anniversary Edition” will draw huge crowds of young children who may have never experienced the film, it’s certain there will be a number of adults, from college students to grandparents, who will return to see the film for its ♦ E.T., SEE PAGE 6 PHOTOS COURTESY OF UNIVERSAL PICTURES Above: E.T. interacts with technology for the first time as he and Elliot are startled by the telephone. Right: Gertie and E.T. play dress up for Elliot. « Responding tochanges in a classic BY CARRIE PHILLIPS tup: uahcogk In the wake of the Qscars, the re-re lease of “E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial” reminds us of how science fiction/fan tasy movies have always been a staple of classic American cinema. But the classic has never received the “official” recognition of a Best Picture Academy Award. Elliot and E.T. were back in the the ater Friday, and though the academy - did not deem it worthy, the movie still stands in many people’s minds as one of the greatest ever made. The re-re lease featured digital film restoration and added scenes. Audiences seemed to enjoy the film overall, although there were, some mixed reactions to the “improvements.” “T+ timp iiipP op op pVi/\ nxininol ** said Terrie Stafford, who saw the* movie during its original release in 1982. She and her husband, Pat Stafford, both USC alumni, thought the new scenes added to the quality of the movie and that the computer-en hancement of E.T.’s facial features made his emotions “much more vivid.” A moviegoer who would only iden tify himself as Magnolia Fan disagreed. “What it boils down to is that you have about 16 men who worked really hard on making E.T.’s face look realistic in the original version. How would you feel if some 22-year old kid with a Mac ‘improved’ in an hour what it took you years to learn how to perfect?” Former USC student Tyler Mitchell responded to the timeless qualify of the film. “It was a good reminder what it was like to be a kid,” he said. “It brings a lot of stuff back.” Mitchell came to the movie with Sherri Fletcher, who simply said, “I thought it was awesome!” Fletcher, who said she has seen “E.T.” 57 times, enjoyed the additions to the film. “I thought the added scenes ♦ CHANGES, SEE PAGE 6 MOVIE REVIEW ‘Blade IF will appeal to fans of original BLADE II Starring Wesley Snipes Film dishes out buckets of blood for fans of gore BY BROOK BRISTOW THE GAMECOCK If you liked the original “Blade,” based on the Marvel com ic book, you’ll probably like the sequel. “Blade II” is the follow-up to one of 1998’s surprise hits. With almost no promotion, “Blade” was one of the year’s top grossing movies. It was a cutting edge comic book come to life. In this vampire tale, Wesley Snipes was the half-man/half-vampire hero. Known by those who fear him as the Daywalker, he waged a war against an underworld of vampires. The storyline for “Blade II” is more of the same, with only a little variation. The story revolves around Blade trying to find his mentor, Whistler (Kris Kristofferson), who seemingly died in the first “Blade.” Blade locates him and brings him back to his lair, where we meet Scud (Norman Reedus), inventor of all things anti vampire. When a new breed of vampires known as the Reapers, led by vam pire Nomak (Luke Goss), threat ens the vampire race and later the human race, Blade is drawn into a tag team with the monsters he hunts. He sees it as a way to learn more about them and their hide outs, and as an opportunity to kill them all later. Vampire lord Pox (Thomas Kretschmann) and his daughter, Nyssa (Leonor Varela), offer to join up with Blade. They have as sembled a crack assassination unit known as the Bloodpack. The team was being trained to kill Blade but, now, they fight the new vampire race with him. David Goyer, the the man who brought us “Blade,” “Dark City” and “The Crow,” brings a great visual story with a so-so plot. Of course, don’t be surprised when he pens “Blade III,” unless movie PHOTO COURTESY OF CHRIS HELCERMANAS-BENGE/20TH CENTURY FOX Tom Green was Worst1 Actor for “Freddy Got Fingered.” Cited for Worst Screen Couple was “Tom Green and any animal he abuses.” PHOTO COURTESY OF KRT CAMPUS Wesley Snipes battles vampires as Blade. He is joined In the sequel by a team of vampires called the Bloodpack. audiences’ enthusiasm for blood on-screen slackens. Guillermo del Toro does a good job of directing “Blade II.” It is vi sually stylish. The camerawork and special effects, in the vein of “The Matrix,” make “Blade II” a fun movie to watch, if you like sav age movies. Snipes is well-versed as Blade. He and Kristofferson do well with their roles, as does Goss. There ap pears to be a love interest devel oping between Blade and Nyssa, but nothing ever comes of it. It probably would have been better left out. Pardon the pun, but with its blood and guts, “Blade n” is a good action movie. It is a great guy ♦ BLADE, SEE PAGE 6 Razzies award worst in film BY DAVID GERMAIN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SANTA MONICA, CALIF. - Tom Green needs all five fingers to count the number of movie booby-prizes he received for “Freddy Got Fingered.” His much-reviled comedy was named Worst Picture of last year Saturday at the Golden Raspberry Awards, an annual spoof held on the eve of the Academy Awards. Green also was chosen as Worst Actor and Director for “Freddy Got Fingered,” shared the Worst Screenplay award with co-writer Derek Harvie and was cited for Worst Screen Couple — “Tom Green arijl any animal he abuses.” Green became the first actor in the 22-year history of the “Razzies” to show up at the group’s ceremony to collect his prizes — gold-painted, raspber ry-shaped trophies. “I’d just like to say to all the other nominees in the audience, I don’t think that I deserve it any more than the rest of you,” Green said as he accepted the worst picture award. “I’d like to say that. I don’t think that it would be true, though.” Green, dressed in a tuxedo, rode up in a 1960-era luxury car, stepped out of the back and then rolled a length of cheap red carpet to walk on as he entered a magic shop with a small theater used for ♦ RAZZIES, SEE PAGE 6 OSCAR WINNERS Here are results from the 74th annual Academy Awards, broadcast last night on ABC. All the winners can be found at wvyw.oscar.com. BEST PICTURE “A Beautiful Mind' Produced by Brian Grazer and Ron Howard BEST DIRECTOR Ron Howard “A Beautiful Mind” BEST ACTOR Denzel Washington ‘Training Day” BEST ACTRESS Halle Berry “Monster’s Ball" BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Jim Broadbent ‘ “Iris” BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS Jennifer Connelly “A Beautiful Mind” BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM Aron Warner “Shrek” BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM Danis Tanovic “No Man's Land: Bosnia and Herzegovina” BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE Jean-Xavierde Lestrade and Denis Poncet “Murder on a Sunday Morning" BEST MUSIC (SCORE) Howard Shore “The Lord of the Rings’ BEST MUSIC (SONG) Randy Newman “If I Didn’t Have You’ from ‘Monsters, Inc." v GRAPHIC BY MARTHA PHOTO COURTESY OF KRT CAMPUS BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY Andrew Lesnie “The Lord of the Rings’ BEST FILM EDITING Pietro Scalia “Black Hawk Down’ BEST VISUAL EFFECTS . Jim Rygiel, Randall William Cook, Richard Taylor and Mark Stetson “The Lord of the Rings’ BEST ART DIRECTION Catherine Martin (Art Direction) and Brigitte Broch (Set Decoration) “Moulin Rouge" BEST COSTUME DESIGN Catherine Martin and Angus Strathie “Moulin Rouge" BEST MAKEUP Peter Owen and Richard Taylor “The Lord of the Rings” BEST SOUND Michael Minkler, Myron Nettinga and Chris Munro “Black Hawk Down” BEST SOUND EDITING George Watters II and Christopher Boyes *Pearl Harbor” BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY Akiva Goldsman “A Beautiful Mind” BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY Julian Fellowes “Gosford Park” f WRIGHT AND DAVID STAGG/THE GAMECOCK