The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, March 25, 2002, Page 5, Image 5
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