Roland Emmerich's Godzilla (1998) - King-Sized Box Office Mistake

Come on, it's not in the sky! No. It's coming out of the water with a shriek that makes your vertebrae grind together. Yeah. It's Godzilla, the fire-breathing, nucleur-produced King of the Monsters. He's been in a slew of movies, and he is one of the many cultural icons of Japan. In 1998, director Roland Emmerich gave American audiences an American remake of the original Godzilla film. It was met with harsh criticism then, and it is still derided today.

Discussing the history of the Godzilla franchise in Japan would take way too much space here. Fortunately, a few online reference tools, like Wikipedia, can help. The Angry Video Game Nerd has put together a video compilation of Godzilla's history this month, called Cinemassacre's Godzillathon. If you're want to learn more about Godzilla's history, I recommend you go to Wikipedia, or cinemassacre.com and check it out.

Well, the idea for an American version of Godzilla was floating around Hollywood for a while. In 1992, the rights to produce a film were secured from Toho (Godzilla's film company), but number of different opinions and the like would push off production until 1997, when Roland Emmerich sat down in the Director's chair. Emmerich his producer Dean Devlin had produced a big hit with the film Independence Day. It seemed like a good idea. But the final product would be so derided by fans and critics that Toho would rename the titular creature of Emmerich's film "Zilla," because it took the "God" out of "Godzilla."

It's amazing how hated this film is. I was 15 when I saw it. I didn't much like complex plots or characterizations. I just wanted to see a monster film. So I liked it to some degree. In the years that followed, after hearing so much sharp rebuke, and of course growing up a lot more, I've come to take a long at this film. Why is this film so bad, or shall I say, so hated?

I think any remake, sequel, prequel, or import will face criticism, no matter how good or bad it really is. Emmerich's Godzilla falls into at least two of these categories, thus facing an uphill battle. But to their credit, Emmerich and Devlin produced a hated film that had some very good elements. The plot was decent enough, and the creature's history was mostly kept intact. Godzilla was still lizard mutated by nucleur testing and fallout, only this time by the French in the South Pacific.

The film uses a visual style much like Emmerich's Independence Day. Scenes of helicopters chasing Godzilla through made me think of those infamous airbattles with alien craft. Even the color of the creature's skin reminds me of those slimy tentacled ET's. For one, I think this is not bad. I expect movies made by the same person to have similarities. Just look at Tim Burton's films. Visual similarities give a director his own unique feel, and let's you, the viewer, know that it's his film. Consider it a visual signature, if you will.

There's a decidedly more human element to this film. No, the Japanese films often focused more on the human characters, too. This is far from unique. But in this film, the human characters entirely dominate the film. There are a number of sub-plots and backgrounds explored that it's easy to forget what we're watching. This is probably the film's greatest advantage and greatest fault simultaneously. Really, the human characters are handled fairly well. Some are just colorful comic relief, for sure. But we don't want to see people, do we? We want to see a big ol' lizard go knocking down buildings.

I feel the same about the titular creature. Really, I like the look of the guy. It's more modern, more realistically reptilian, and it moves like a real dinosaur. Actually, it's more like Jurassic Park than Godzilla. That's the big problem here. This creature is great, but he's not Godzilla. Fans accept no substitute. You just can't beat a guy in a rubber suit.

So what's my final verdict on this film? I say this. The film itself is awesome. It's just another monster mash. The problem is the name. If it had any other title, it wouldn't be nearly as hated. It's just not Godzilla. Call it anything but that. In fact, the movie could actually work with just a change of title and a few references fixed. It really wouldn't be too much work. Ultimately, that's where I rule on this one. I love the film, but it's not Godzilla. It's just a big lizard in New York.

I do give the marketing wizards high praise for their work on this film. I remember Emmerich's Godzilla having one of best marketing campaigns ever. There were crushed cars set up in London advertising the film. And I don't mean just one or two. Then Taco Bell got in on it. One of the biggest advertising icons at the time was the Taco Bell Dog. The commercial featured the Dog calling "Here Lizard, Lizard, Lizard." with a couple of tacos in a box-trap. Upon finally seeing Godzilla, the Dog simply says, "I think I need a bigger box." It was great. If only Pets.com and Geico had jumped on board. . .