Godzilla

Emmerich is a megalomaniac and I must admit that I rather enjoy watching his destruction of our Mother Earth. Because this usually concerns the USA (very satisfying), and this time round more precisely it was New York where he let that famous lizard reap havoc. But what is the point of all that destruction and breathtaking special effects if the picture doesn’t come out with anything new? Nick Tatopoulos is the spitting image of Daniel Jackson from Emmerich’s previous work, Stargate, and we even come across O'Neill here, now demoted to sergeant, but I think you know what I’m getting at. And it’s the same with the entire story which, despite being nice to look at, continues in the same old rut that we have seen a million times before. So, thanks to the excellent special effects and Jean Reno, Godzilla is a relaxing movie where you can see another of Emmerich’s many ways of “How to Destroy America". Nothing more, nothing less. And what about the end? I’m sincerely intrigued to see if anybody lets themselves be talked into filming Godzilla 2. They should jump at the opportunity. Or rather not? ;) (06/08/2006)

Godzilla is a bland cocktail of popcorn entertainment mixed up from dozens of older films about all kinds of lizards. Matthew Broderick is uninteresting in the lead role, Maria Pitillo is hysterical and the irradiated lizard, as tall as a mid-sized skyscraper, passes through the narrow tunnels of the New York subway without a single tremor or sound. So why am I giving Godzilla three stars? Because that’s the average between one and five. The duo of Roland Emmerich/Dean Devlin gets one star and the visual-effects masters get five. As does the laid-back Jean Reno, who justifies his participation in this fiasco with his sense of responsibility for the nuclear test explosions carried out by his native country in French Polynesia. (11/04/2002)

Roland Emmerich disregards the basic rule of kaiju films and immediately presents us with the monster in the first few minutes. He loses out on a strong weapon this way, which unfortunately falters over time, even with moments that are quite intense. This could still be overlooked if it weren't just nonsense with a big monster, where most scenes don't make much sense and are piled on top of each other just because of the writers. Godzilla from 2014 isn't brilliant, but it understands the genre much better and updates it for the modern era. (28/05/2014)

Roland Emmerich's penchant for monstrous effects in films without any stable meaningful plot was already evident here with Godzilla. This movie is actually a lot of scenes that were done to suit the director regardless of whether or not they make sense. Virtually all of Godzilla is about decent visual and sound effects with enjoyable music. That's all I can see! The script and the actors ... let's be honest, this is not how solid movies should be. Perhaps the only excuse is that it was a blockbuster that eventually flopped so badly that no further sequels could be made. Too bad, the ending was really a gateway to the next installment. In short, a technically proficient film, but artistically rather bland. I still watch it once a year, though. (29/08/2010)

It's big, it's stupid, Roland Emmerich filmed it. No, I didn't pick that guy out, I didn't know who filmed it at first, but when I looked at this gentleman's filmography, everything was clear to me. What I don't know is how someone can spend that kind of money to promote a film in which "it's going to be big and it's going to stomp everything and sell like a plastic figurine on Uncle Donald's menu," was probably written in the script. Why Jean Reno plays in such a wretched role is a mystery to me, but then again, everyone needs to make a living... This Hollywood direction of "a lot of effects, not enough story" is an atrocity that I will avoid in the future. At least Peter Jackson and his King Kong will set a new standard. Roland, dear boy, you don’t have that much of a lack of talent to be funny like Ed Wood... You have a deficiency that bothers. (25/01/2004)