Skip to main content

He’s from France.


Godzilla
(1998)

Critics and audiences roundly trounced Roland Emmerich and his then writing/producing partner Dean Devlin for their follow-up to Independence Day, but I never really got what was supposed to be so terrible about it. It’s a competently made monster movie. Sure, they’ve given him a curious redesign (as if they wanted their lizard to give off a gumby vibe of not being that bright really, and with a strangely humanoid gait to enable him to run really fast). And they’ve shifted the focus away from the monster while constructing every plot beat according the Spielberg Handbook for the Devoid of Inspiration. But it’s no worse than Independence Day, surely?


Well, it’s certainly no dumber. And it displays either a sense of humour about the perceived artistic failings the duo are guilty of or a bit of spiteful payback, depending on your perception (given Emmerich’s movie legacy, I find it hard to believe he lacks an extremely well-developed funny bone); the mayor and his assistant are named after critics Siskel and Ebert, who eviscerated their previous pictures. And they stuff the film with in-jokes and references (just one instance; Broderick’s character listens to Danken Schoen in the lift, the tune he performs karaoke to in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off). And the glee with which the director destroys American landmarks is infectious; it’s especially amusing, as he never seems to tire of such obliteration. That said, it’s curious to behold the mass destruction of New York in a post 9/11 environment.


But the displeasure that greeted Godzilla must have been partly down to the filmmakers’ lack of reverence for the titular character. Who knows if original writers Ted Elliot and Terry Rosio (the Pirates of the Caribbean movies) were more respectful since, although they received a credit, Devlin and Emmerich reportedly started from scratch. Much like J. J. Abrams and Star Trek, the director is said to have not much liked the original. In that sense, Abrams got lucky with the response to his divergence from lore. I have to admit, I’m sympathetic with Emmerich. I can’t see what the big deal with monster movies is past the age of seven anyway. Apart from anything, how do you crack the nut of making them work plot-wise? Peter Jackson certainly came a cropper with King Kong. And all Abrams and co did with Cloverfield was to redo Emmerich’s Godzilla with a found footage gimmick and added nastiness.  There’s a vague attempt to show a bit of sympathy for the beast at the end, and they make him out to have a fair bit of grey matter, but mainly he’s just a giant scaly wrecking ball. Pacific Rim is the latest to tackle big monsters (with big robots to boot); it will be interesting to see how it fares, not least in terms of whether the story goes anywhere interesting.


Emmerich and Devlin’s solution to plot problems is to take the formulaic approach. They copy Spielberg. There are numerous shout-outs to Jaws and Jurassic Park here, even to Close Encounters of the Third Kind (the stranded shipwreck in an early scene). The old man fishing on the pier is a comedy riff on the shark movie, of course. As is the mayor’s denial of the dangers of the monster. Meanwhile, rain-drenched New York is a direct steal from the sodden breakdown of Jurassic Park. Emmerich isn’t stupid; he saw how much better the T-Rex looked when battered by the elements, so he puts Godzilla in a permanent downpour.  Indeed, Godzilla looks like one of the wettest films ever made to be set on dry land (the cast wore wetsuits throughout – Matthew Broderick unknowingly sported his back-to-front until Hank Azaria set him straight). And, when you see the monster swimming, your mind can’t help but reference the previous year’s aquatic xenomorphs in Alien Resurrection. And what are the baby Godzillas, if not a unsubtle recreation of Jurassic Park’s velociraptors?


It’s difficult to fault Emmerich’s approach to special effects. There’s a reason he pays attention to Spielberg; both are adept at integrating them with the main action, ensuring physicality and suspension of disbelief.  He goes for practical work as often as not (including extensive use of models) and his choices tend to pay off. Although, revisiting the film, it was surprising how extensively he uses back projection (another film “recent” film its use has been very obvious is Aliens).


The duo play lip service to the atomic origins of the monster with a credits sequence showing archive footage of nuclear testing, and then they show Broderick investigating giant earth worms (if only!) at Chernobyl.  But having organised the threat and scale of their monster, I completely get the decision to switch focus to the baby ‘zillas in the latter half of the film. They are able to interact directly with the human cast, and you can see that Emmerich is much more engaged with their dramatic potential than daddy/mummy’s stomping round the streets of the Big Apple. Basically we see a stir-and-repeat of the climax of Jurassic Park, with more cheesy jokes. Ironically it’s easily the best section of the movie, and it also yields the bigges laugh (Broderick’s lift scene).


The assembled cast includes some curious and offbeat choices. Broderick makes an affable lead, coming on in Richard Dreyfuss in Jaws mode as the dedicated boffin. Jean Reno is endlessly watchable no matter what he does, and sportingly takes a role that blames the French (not America; it’s lily-white!) for nuclear testing run amok. Azaria brings an appealing comic sensibility, while Maria Pitillo is cute but lacks presence. It doesn’t help that she is foisted with an unsympathetic character; it seems that the reward for dumping your boyfriend in favour of your career, then screwing him over for a big break, is that you get promoted and he readily takes you back. Michael Lerner’s enjoyably bombastic as the mayor, while Kevin Dunn adds colonel to his CV.


David Arnold’s score isn’t all that; it’s as formulaic as the plot and character beats. But Godzilla’s greatest sin is that it’s called Godzilla; it isn’t a truly lousy film. Really, the Golden Razzie nominations seem like hyperbole based on fan response, rather than reflecting a big pile of crap. But then, I admit, I don’t think I’ve seen a Roland Emmerich movie that hasn’t entertained me. I haven’t seen one that’s very good either, of course.


Godzilla was expected to be the biggest movie of 1998, but it only came in ninth in US. Worldwide, it was third, which suggest popular perception of its failure is not the whole story. Nevertheless, on a cost vs profit scale this was no monster smash. Like the Planet of the Apes reboot, this was one where fan indignation outweighed reasonable box office returns. I suspect that if there had been plaudits all round follow-ups to both would have been forthcoming. In Godzilla’s case there were plans for two sequels. Godzilla reboots in 2014…

*** 

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism