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 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)

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)

I actually enjoy Emmerich's much-maligned "Zilla." As a kid, I was obsessed with this film, and even though that obsession has waned, it's still a fun kaiju flick I like to revisit every now and then. Despite the long runtime, the movie moves along well, with an engaging plot, decent effects, and likable characters. It's the perfect movie for a laid-back Sunday afternoon. No brainpower required. (21/04/2018)

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)