6
Wednesday, June 4, 1997
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
recycle
recycle
It bears repeating!
recycle recycle
UPCOMING
6/12 SHALLOW
6/13 FROGPOND
6/14 MU 330
6/29 GUIDED BY VOICES
SAVE THE BIG BUCKS!
Lost World falls short
In what is by far the worst movie of the year — and easily the most feeble in Spielberg's amazing career – The Lost World inexplicably stands to make more moolah than any other film in cinema history. And I'm not a happy guy.
By Jeff Ruby
Kansan staff writer
Shame on you, Steven Spielberg.
I'm not even going to try to review it here, since virtually every living being on earth has either seen it already or knows it's about a bunch of dinosaurs attacking a bunch of morons. I just need to vent for a minute or two.
Am I the only one in the world who hated this film? When the blessed final credits rolled after two hours and 15 minutes of agony, the rest of the dino-hungry audience walked out high-fiving one another. I excited the theater feeling more exasperated than Dennis Rodman's therapist.
Maybe it was my horribly queasy hangover. Maybe it was the harshly uncomfortable seats at Lawrence's new Southwind 12 theaters. Or perhaps it was the unbearable shrill DTS sound attacking my poor eardrums from all angles like a pack of angry velocipiators. Whatever the reason, The Lost World was probably the most painful single moviegoing experience I have ever endured. Even the Junior Mints made me sick.
After I joined the ranks of zillions of Americans curious enough to sit through the sequel to 1989's entertaining Jurassic Park, I tried to put my finger on why I hated Steven Spielberg's new film with all my heart. The answer was simple: The Lost World is an atrociously poor movie.
Jeff Goldblum, Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore are decent character actors, but I sure hope they were paid plentifully to be made fools of by Spielberg. Now that my amazement with the dinosaurs' realism has long passed, what more reason is there to sit through an inferior version of the original film? I guess the rest of the country is still mesmerized by a bloodthirsty T. Rex poking its head in a window.
It's remarkable what people will put up with just to see
MOVIE REVIEW
dinosaurs. Why are we so fascinated with these toothy beasts? So they're big. So they're angry. So they roamed the earth a long time before we did. That's no reason for us to fork over $92 million in four days to watch supposed smart scientist-types doing insultingly stupid things around the brutes.
I can forgive Spielberg for this half-assed effort only because of his accomplishments of the past. But if he even pretends that he's proud of this movie for being anything but a wallet bulker-upper, I vow never to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark again. All I could think throughout The Lost World was the fact that Schindler's List was only a couple of movies ago for Spielberg. That's akin to Michelangelo, after putting the finishing touches on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, deciding it would be a really good idea to do a painting of dogs playing poker.
Spielberg has said that his wish is to be the biggest moneymaker in movies. This I can accept. What I can't stand is seeing him craft formula movies with his eyes closed, when he is capable of so much more, simply because he knows he has happy go-lucky, turn-off-yourbrain-at-the door moviegoers in his pocket.
And why do we buy into it? Because there's nothing better to see? More likely, because we have stopped demanding well-made movies and now are willing to forgo things such as dialogue, characterization and plot development, as long as we get a heaping helping of neato special effects.
Call me a cantankerous old curmudgeon, but this isn't enough for me. I'm not charmed enough by dinosaurs to be punished with recycled themes, no plot and painfully drawn-out scenes. That trailer-hanging-over-the-cliff bit lasted at least 15 minutes when 45 white-knuckle seconds would have sufficed.
Thank you for indulging me. If you disagree, as it seems millions of Americans do, you are contributing to the demise of American cinema.
Then again, so am I.
Renovations raise questions concerning asbestos safety
By Tamara Miller Kansan staff writer
While the Crumbling Classrooms project continues to spur renovation in buildings across campus, construction in classrooms that contain asbestos has administrators and students concerned.
"We are taking every protective measure to ensure that no one is exposed," said Mike Russell, director of the department of environment, health and safety.
Asbestos is a natural mineral that was used in buildings throughout the 1970s for insulation and fire protection. The mineral was linked to lung cancer and banned in the mid-1980s by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Patricia Denning, an internal medicine specialist at Watkins Memorial Health Center, said asbestos posed a health risk.
Inhaling microscopic asbestos fibers for many years causes fibers to get lodged in the outer lining of the lungs and cause mesothelioma, a cancer malignancy, Denning said.
EPA regulations require buildings containing asbestos to be identified and monitored by the University of Kansas. If asbestos fibers become airborne because of damage, the asbestos must be removed.
Because many campus buildings
contain asbestos, the University has adopted a strict removal program. Thorough surveys are performed every six months to monitor the asbestos in campus buildings, Russell said.
When rooms with damaged asbestos are renovated, the asbestos is removed and the area blocked off. Air inside the affected space is filtered and checked by a system that calculates the number of airborne asbestos fibers.
Rooms containing undamaged asbestos are maintained and monitored. As long as the asbestos is in good condition, there is no threat, said Johnell Fendley, KU Environmental Program manager.
Others do not agree.
Kristina Hartman, Clifton junior, worked for the department of biology through her sophomore year. She said asbestos should be removed completely.
Asbestos
Russell said the University was more cautious than the EPA required. Federal policy allows for 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic foot of air.
"A plastic sheet and a sign is not going to protect me from microscopic fibers," Hartman said. "If they are already in there for renovations, why don't they remove the threat altogether?"
"The federal action level is a 0.1.
Asbestos was first recognized as causing lung cancer in ship builders during World War II.
- Smoking increases the likeli-
hood that asbestos will contribute
to lung cancer.
Asbestos can cause pulmonary fibrosis, a disease in which the lungs lose elasticity, which decreases oxygenation
Symptoms may not be recognized for up to 15 years.
but for our workers, its a 0.015." Russell said. "We tend to be more protective than federal regulations require."
Because Crumbling Classrooms is such a large project, an outside agency, Association Insulation, has been contracted for asbestos removal, Russell said.
Russell said high costs were the primary factor against complete asbestos removal. He estimated the project could cost up to $50 million.
Russell said the chance of getting lung cancer from asbestos is one in 10 million. He also said students should concern themselves with more pertinent health risks.
"I'd tell them to quit smoking," he said. "I'd tell them to worry more about driving their cars."
Upcoming Summer 1997 Sports: Sand Volleyball, Softball, and Tennis Singles
All leagues will be self-officiated and FUN!
Please bring your team's entry fee, player names, KUID numbers,and team availability to the Managers' Meeting.
Sand Volleyball $25
Managers' Meeting: Thursday, 6/5
4:00 pm,159 Robinson
Play Begins Week of 6/9
3 on 3 Outdoor Basketball $25 Managers' Meeting: Thursday, 6/5 4:30 pm,159 Robinson Play Begins: Week of 6/9
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE OFFICE OF RECREATION SERVICES: 864 3546, 208 Robinson