Godzilla (1998)

Dr. Niko Tatopolous (Matthew Broderick) is drafted onto a team that is investigating attacks by a giant monster. They quickly discover that a huge, radioactive lizard does exist and it is heading toward New York. Waiting in the city is Tatopolous’s ex-girlfriend, Audrey Timmonds (Maria Pitillo), who is trying to get a break as a news reporter, and her cameraman friend, “Animal” (Hank Azaria). Also headed to New York are French spies, lead by Philippe Roache (Jean Reno), who are interested in the monster.

Godzilla is discussed as a reboot/remake of the Japanese monster, but really we should go back one more step. The 1954 Godzilla was inspired by The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953), and so is this newer version. A nuclear bomb causes a dinosaur-like creature to arise and create a bit of minor mayhem before making its way to New York. It is countered by a small team of scientists and military folks within the larger government response. And of course, things don’t go as planned. That’s The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, so this Godzilla gets its name fairly, but not because it is the child of the Japanese films, but rather because they are brothers, both children of an American B&W stop-motion picture.

And it does its parent proud. It’s a little silly and a lot of fun. The characters aren’t multi-layered, but then that’s hard to find in a monster movie. They also aren’t drab, which is equally hard to find. They serve their purpose, without ever feeling unnecessary, as the humans do in so many Godzilla films. And the monster destruction is jubilant, if you happen to be the kind of person who finds crashing through buildings and downing helicopters the definition of a good time. I am that kind. The FX work is great; the big beast would have taken the blue ribbon if Steven Spielberg hadn’t set the bar impossibly high a few years earlier with Jurassic Park.

So, a fun, dumb, Saturday afternoon movie. But it didn’t do well among two groups: film critics and geek fanboys, and in this strange case, they’ve gotten the general population to go along with them. Critics were going to hate it. These kinds of exuberant destruction flicks tend not to have acting and dialog that deserves an Oscar. But that’s really beside the point; no matter what went up on screen, Godzilla was not going to get critical approval. Roger Ebert loathed it, but that was a given before he saw it. The characters of Mayor Ebert and his aid Gene are in the film because of the pair’s disdain for Independence Day and Stargate. Things have changed in the nearly twenty years since Godzilla came out, and newer critics are more likely to accept a giant monster or science fiction action flick, but not so then. And it shows in that most of those reviewers who despised Godzilla were, like Siskel and Ebert, equally negative toward all the works of the directing/writing/producing team of Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich. And that makes sense. Any criticism you can level against Godzilla goes double for Independence Day. Silly characters making some jokes in the midst of battle? Check. Pauses for triumphant shots or gratuitous destruction? Check. A lead actor not bothering to play his character? Double check. Devlin and Emmerich have a style that makes all their films a good time, and pretty much the same. If you don’t like Independence Day and Stargate, then yes, Godzilla isn’t for you as they are three of a kind.

I like them all.

The fanboy criticism was (and still is) much sillier. While they pick at the film here and there (which generally fails the moment they admit to liking Independence Day), their real complaint is that the monster isn’t “their” Godzilla. What I find peculiar is that people are willing to admit that out loud. If I was afflicted by any such thoughts I’d keep them to myself, or perhaps only bring them up in therapy session. My guess is if Devlin and Emmerich had given the film a different name (“Zentra the Radioactive Monster”), the fanboys would have loved it, and I’ve had as much admitted to me. But since it wasn’t, they are offended that the monster doesn’t mirror the one with the same name from their childhood. It is hard for me to argue against such a ridiculous position as I find this need for sameness and fear of any change to be foreign and juvenile. But it is at least amusing to look at that unchanging Godzilla from their childhood. In the Japanese films, he’s been created at least five different times. He was a violent force of nature, and then a defender of Japan before becoming a cuddly friend, an anti-pollution activist, and an abusive father. At one point he could chat. Another time he became the physical form of the angry ghosts of WWII dead. Most recently he started out as a shark-type creature before mutating and gaining the ability to shoot lasers from his back plates. A collection of ghosts is far more of a change then making him smaller and subtracting his fire breath.

So I reject the stupidity of the fanboys and disagree with the old-school film critics. Godzilla is a lively romp and an entertaining time.