Godzilla

I don't know if the film has matured, or if I have, either way, whatever qualms I had with Emmerich's Godzilla are gone. It's an excellent disaster comedy with consistently impressive visual effects that can be compared to Independence Day without exaggeration, thanks in part to Arnold's excellent score. (23.10.2009)

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)

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)

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? ;) (07.08.2006)

Godzilla is a hit, but a slightly questionable one. It can never be taken seriously, even a little bit. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems that way (the music, the script), but if you consider the cast and the overall atmosphere, it is clear that they all had a great time on set. Technically, it is very variable, with almost perfect static shots of Godzilla in the city alternated with striking computer-generated scenes of fast chases between skyscrapers. Logically, the movie is very silly (Godzilla moving in underground tunnels?), but as an entertaining break and a showcase of all possible and impossible effects, why not? Is not that often that you see a devastated Manhattan. Roland Emmerich wanted to entertain, not frighten. (07.05.2005)