E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982): Favourite Films Series

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982): Favourite Films Series

Steven Spielberg has made four films focused on the subject of extraterrestrials, and given his age, I think this year’s Disclosure Day might be the last one of its kind from him. It’s five films if you count Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (though most wouldn’t—I think those creatures were considered ‘interdimensional beings’ or something like that, anyway), but many still cite his first effort, 1977’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, as the greatest one. I tend to disagree. While I appreciate Close Encounters and have grown to appreciate it more as I’ve gotten older, I find it lacks some relatability and an emotional core. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is not just my favourite Steven Spielberg alien movie because of nostalgia, but because it still stands out as one of the most unique tales of an alien invader ever to grace the silver screen.

I remember renting the VHS of E.T. from the video store when I was about seven: the perfect age to see this film for the first time, especially for a kid interested in science fiction like I was. I watched it by myself while my parents were out one night, and I distinctly recall being utterly convinced of the film’s outlandish events, as well as emotionally invested in the plight of the kids and E.T’s attempts to evade the government and reconnect with his people. What I don’t remember, though, is whether I saw the original version or the much-maligned special edition when I watched it for the first time. I didn’t even know there was a special edition released in 2002 until many years later, after I bought the 30^th anniversary edition Blu-ray, and discovered the Blu-ray only contained the 1982 version, luckily. As an adult I have only ever seen the original version, and suspect that was the one I saw as a kid, as well, for I do not have any recollection of the off-putting CGI shots of E.T. that were added later (particularly him in the bathtub), or any of the other digital alterations. 

I’m surprised Spielberg was bothered by so many of the shots of the animatronic creature, for I still find the majority of them hold up reasonably well. Beyond just the effects, the cinematic language of E.T. is rich and oh so very Spielbergian. Right from the opening titles in that unique purple font (I can’t think of any other movies to use purple for credit text) there’s this air of mystery and intrigue, and any shot that’s at night looks incredible, not just in the early scenes when E.T. isn’t fully revealed yet. I don’t think I had a concept at such a young age that the same guy who made Jurassic Park and Jaws, two other films that would go on to become favourites of mine in the years to come, also made E.T., but looking at it now, it’s clear why E.T. was so inspirational to filmmakers in the 80’s and beyond. While it is a mix of science fiction and fantasy elements, the family drama at the story’s core is what has given it lasting power, even though Henry Thomas as Elliot or Drew Barrymore as Gertie are not what people usually think of first and foremost—they think of the spaceman after which the film was titled. 

Spielberg’s first major blockbuster success was Jaws, and one of the feats he accomplished on that film was making an animatronic creature genuinely terrifying. The shark in Jaws evokes an emotional reaction from the audience, and making audiences emotional with non-human characters is something he has done on many other occasions throughout his career, but E.T. might be the quintessential example of this. E.T. is not simply a creature effect, he is a character, and one the audience actively sympathizes with. Sure, he’s just this weird little guy, but his big, round eyes and his other just-human-enough-features like a simple mouth and grasping fingers on two hands make him relatable enough on a visual level that his simple agenda, to get back home to his people, is easy to buy into, and we can accept that the human characters would willingly help him and become emotionally attached to him, as well.

Obviously one of the most famous moments from the film, if not the most famous moment, is when E.T. lifts his finger and points toward the sky, eventually finding the words to articulate “E.T. phone home.” What I find funny is that everyone remembers this crucial moment, but they seem to forget that it happens during the scene when E.T. is dressed up like a little old woman with a wig and a dress! For all its atmospheric mystery and suspense in act one and somber sadness in act two and heart wrenching catharsis in act three, Spielberg cleverly doled out family-appropriate humour throughout the film, through a mix of dialogue, situations with E.T., and kids keeping secrets from adults.

One part I remember being highly amused (and fascinated) by when I first saw it was when E.T. raids the fridge while Elliot is at school and gets drunk, which in turn makes Elliot act drunk in the classroom. If you look at his body of work, Spielberg clearly has fascinations with numerous unexplainable phenomena, and this was the first time I encountered the concept of a psychic connection in a film, although E.T. and Elliot seem to connect on more than just that level as the film progresses. The part that makes me consistently laugh the hardest every time, though, is when they dress E.T. up like a ghost in a bed sheet for Halloween and pass him off as Gertie so they can sneak him past their mom. Specifically, it’s the moment when she takes their picture, and the flash makes E.T. fall backwards in a daze. It’s this blending of different emotional moments that ultimately defines E.T’s success, to me. It hits the high highs and the low lows, ending with that tearful sendoff to cement the story in your heart with that fantastic John Williams theme absolutely blasting through the speakers.  

If I were to be critical of anything in E.T., I would say that while Henry Thomas is fantastic in the lead role as young Elliot, he comes off as a little loud and annoying at the incitation of the film, but I see it now as somewhat intentional, to help emphasize his role in the family dynamic and show he’s an outsider seeking a companion. I also find the scenes of E.T. being probed by doctors when he’s sick to be a little drawn out, but this might be a byproduct of having watched it over and over so many times. I seem to recall the first time I watched the movie finding the government invasion of the home quite disturbing and really thought E.T. might be dead, which made his resurrection all the more exciting and the ending that much more impactful. While I do love the E.T. theme by Williams, I wouldn’t say it’s one of my favourite overall soundtracks for a Spielberg/Williams collab, but I doubt either instance of Elliot riding his bike up into the sky would be quite as impactful and wonderful without that theme. If I haven’t said it before, I’ll say it here, as so many others have said before me: John Williams and Steven Spielberg are one of those ultimate combinations of talent to produce nothing short of pure magic.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a movie I find many people remember fondly but forget to revisit as they age, so take my word for it that it hasn’t lost an ounce of what made it so special when it was first released. I often think of John Carpenter’s The Thing when I think of E.T. because The Thing came out two weeks after E.T. and was the polar opposite for depicting what is essentially the same concept: visitation by a lifeform from another planet. Both are great, but The Thing was not well received upon release because everyone was still so wowed by E.T. at the time. The Thing is an alien movie that’s a favourite in my head. E.T. is a favourite in my heart.

“I’ll be right here.”

More Confounding Film Ratings (Part Two)

Part One: https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2026/04/confounding-film-ratings-part-one.html

 

Last time I mainly looked at violence and coarse language as factors in what determine a film’s rating, and how sometimes a rating can seem too harsh or oddly forgiving. Another factor that determines a film’s rating is sex and nudity, which the ratings associations are much quicker to condemn with 18-A or R-ratings or even the dreaded NC-17 if either are prolonged or graphic enough.  

In part one I covered a movie I showed to a class, but I remember when I was in school being shown Romeo and Juliet (1968) in grade nine English class and all the boys grimacing at the scene when Leonard Whiting’s Romeo gets out of bed and his bare buttocks is shown without cutting away. I also remember gawking at Olivia Hussey’s exposed breasts, but in retrospect, I find it insane that either actor was shown nude at all, not just because of the film’s rating, but because they were both underage when the film was shot. The ratings for this movie hurt my brain. It’s 18-A in BC (understandable), but PG in Manitoba/Ontario, and originally rated G in the US, then only bumped up to a PG in 1973! I think the argument was that the nudity was so brief it wouldn’t bother many viewers. I also think my teacher went off the American rating when considering which version of the movie to show our class.  

Romeo and Juliet’s nudity really isn’t that graphic, and while the film obviously deals with the sexual relations between the characters, the nudity itself is not overtly sexual—a distinguishing factor that the ratings associations watch for. For example, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) is rated R in the US/14-A in Canada, mainly for coarse language and violence, but there’s also a scene of full male nudity from the back, which I remember walking in on at age seven while my parents were watching it and being very confused by, as Sam Rockwell hides behind a fridge door to cover himself. It’s not sexual nudity, so no 18-A rating here in Canada. There’s one very famous movie from my lifetime, though, that somehow got away with a PG-13 rating despite featuring a level of nudity that has earned pretty much every other movie I can think of an R.

James Cameron’s Academy Award-winning Titanic (1997) is, surprisingly, one of few films from the director that features much notable nudity, and yet is also one of the few that isn’t R-rated. The other nude scene from him that comes to mind is in The Terminator (1984), which is also rated R for repeated profanity and bloody violence. Titanic carried a price tag of 200 million dollars, so I suspect the more accommodating certificate was negotiated in order to turn a greater profit, and I’m sure that helped immensely, but I’m also sure some viewers were taken aback when they saw Kate Winslet’s breasts, buttocks, and even a hint of her pubic hair. It wasn’t the first time she had decided to bare it all for the camera, and it wasn’t the last time, either, but it is curious that the MPA decided to overlook such explicit nudity this one time. Regardless of how brief it is, the nature of the nudity is still pretty sexual, which is the primary red flag for the MPA when it comes to uncensored human anatomy. Titanic is another of those instances where the rating varies in Canada. It’s 14-A in BC, but only PG in Alberta and Ontario.

I remember picking up on the fact that Deadpool 2 (2018) was rated 14-A in Canada whereas the first Deadpool (2016) carried an 18-A rating—the higher age rating being less common for most movies in general, but especially uncommon for superhero movies, even with that much swearing and violence—and correctly predicted there would not be as much sex or nudity in the sequel. I’m certain the overt female nudity in the strip club scene in Deadpool is what earned it the more restrictive rating. The ultra-gory violence, though? Oh, yeah, that’s fine. Occasionally, non-sexual nudity can still make its way into a movie with a rating lower than an R, such as with The Fifth Element (1997), Critters 2 (1988), and Dragonslayer (1981). A weird exception, though, is John Hughes’ directorial debut, Sixteen Candles (1984). It’s 14-A in Canada, but only PG in the US (from a pre-PG-13 era), with uncensored female nudity! It’s not part of a sex scene, but Hughes clearly meant for it to be provocative. Most of Hughes’ movies had appropriate ratings after this, except for Weird Science (1985), which somehow snuck some more nudity in and got away with PG-13.

Another exception to the rule of thumb for nudity is the Canadian film Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2000). This is another one I’ve shown to students for its educational value, having first seen it myself in a film class in university, but I only show it to grade twelve students because of one scene in particular with full frontal male nudity. It’s not sexual in nature, but it certainly is explicit! The male protagonist runs completely naked across the frozen tundra for several minutes, and later, there is some female nudity as well, though ironically not during the sex scene, which is mostly obscured through low lighting. Atanarjuat is rated 14-A in Canada, but R in the US.

I remember buying the DVD of the classic dinosaur film The Valley of Gwangi (1969) and laughing out loud at the rating it sported on the back. It was rated G for General Audiences! This means anyone of any age can watch a T. rex devour people off horseback, kill other dinosaurs, complete with blood oozing from their fatal wounds, and even violently kill an elephant which screams in agony! But it’s all okay because the special effects are dated and there’s no coarse language or nudity, so it couldn’t possibly upset anyone, right? I get that ratings are supposed to protect viewers, in a sense, and give parents an idea of how to guide their kids, but I find it funny when the rating fails to do so sometimes. I was sure caught off guard by the bare buttocks of a cave woman in When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth (1970), considering it had a G rating, too!

Zombieland (2009) confused the hell out of me for years by making me misremember what Anaconda (1997) was rated. Emma Stone has a line about her first R-rated movie being Anaconda, and for a while, I was gaslit into thinking it was among my own first R-rated movies, too, but that line was a flub. It was rated PG-13 in the US and 14-A in Canada. In that same genre, I saw Deep Blue Sea (1999) at age eight, because it was only rated PG, and it wasn’t long after that I saw Lake Placid (1999), which was 14-A, but I rented it from the video store with my mom, so was able to watch it no problem. Both were pretty violent, and both were rated R in the US, but why the different ratings in Canada? I can’t think of much to differentiate them in terms of animal-on-human violence, but maybe there was a little more profanity in Lake Placid? I can’t keep up with this nonsense.

I’ll probably find another reason to come back to movie ratings again one day, but I think this is enough for now. There are plenty of other movies with far lower ratings than what they should have received, given their content, but not as many movies rated higher than necessary, I find. For more reading on movie ratings, click the link below!

https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2023/11/do-people-care-about-movie-ratings_20.html