Embrace your creed

The term of re-watching films has a new meaning for me as a film could be entirely different when you watch it again as an adult.  Sometimes a film from your childhood is good because of the sentimental value it means to you and not because of the film itself.  I cannot deny that I myself always yearn for childhood reminiscence but this predicament has lead me to be more encouraged when it comes to re-watching films; to appreciate it in a different perspective represented within the story.  To be frank though, what lead me to re-watch Roland Emmerich's take on the Kaiju is my newly found fandom of Godzilla.  Another reason is to learn and boy did I learn a lot of things while watching this.  Thus let's move on the review.

Man vs Mankind's ego 

Being mutual brings a lot of good things; teaching you the bigger picture of the problem.  Admittedly, I kept comparing it to Gareth Edward's Godzilla.  Make no mistake, I'll compare it nonetheless because it's suppose to be an adaptation.  But in this section, I'll try to appreciate it as it is.  As a stand alone film (As in without the Godzilla's legacy weighing it down), it doesn't take itself seriously.  Of course, the premise is mankind versus monster but the character developments and silly humor wasn't engaging.  The beginning of the film really pulled me in; showcasing that old 90's film feel.  It all went away when Zilla (A rename given by Toho since their copyrights with sony had expired) comes into the picture because the way that the characters react to it was so unrealistic.  The only character that felt real was Kevin Dunn as the Colonel.  Everyone else didn't take the disaster seriously and to make matters worst, we're presented with a love story that's just ridiculous.  The politicians in this film are portrayed as if the city is run by a 16 year old.  Was it suppose to be a social commentary for politicians? Dr. Niko Tatopoulous , played by Matthew Broderick, felt like a zombie; making no expressions or reactions of what a sane man would do in such predicament.  He was there as a coincidence; no analogies, no strong relationships, no social commentary.  He was there for the sake of being there! In this incarnation, Zilla is a product of a nuclear explosion and throughout the story, he was presented as a threat to the extinction of human species.  However, it didn't felt like humans versus an apex predator.  Mankind was represented with the worst kind of people.  I wanted mankind to loose.  During the death scene of Zilla, suddenly we're shown that Dr.Niko sympathizes Zilla.  Where on earth did that come from? There were no establishment of the character's caring nature towards the creature.  Either that or I couldn't tell it by his face.  This flick feels more like Man vs their ego.  Hear me out, Zilla exist because of those nuclear bomb tests and now they want to destroy it.  Jean Reno's character, Philippe' Roachee, was from French secret service.  Instead of preventing or taking responsibility of Zilla, the French tackles the situation secretly; failing to gain information of the creature's habitat prior to the Manhattan attack.  It was even established that they knew long before the United States did.  And Dr. Niko's speech of human extinction seems narcissistic.   There you go, man and their ego.   

   Using the Godzilla's name

This is an adaptation and I try to be open minded; venturing into the director's perspective of the literature.  But this isn't a different perspective of Godzilla.  It's basically Jurassic Park.  How do you expect me to accept it as it is when the story itself is weak.  I have to give credits that it did--in a way-- follow the plot of the first Godzilla film in 1954; only the plot and not the substance.  What's amazing about Godzilla is that he has character even though he's a non-talking giant lizard.  This could just be a spin-off of Jurassic Park and would still work.  The whole giant monster feel was almost diminish when the human characters were chased by baby Zillas; straight away taking us away from the basic premise and into a new one.  How was it there were baby Zillas? Were there two Zillas? The Zilla reproduced Asexually...

...WHAT?!

 REALLY?!

Sure! Why not?! For the sake of the plot, it's a he that reproduces asexually by laying freaking eggs! That fact is obviously a sad plot device just to give a little more action and that's not a good thing.

The design

But I can't deny the good design of the creature.  It's pretty smart that the sleek and thin design was used in Zilla's arsenal; enabling him to move quicker in the city.  The design also gave it a more dangerous looks with it's long neck and thicker jaw line.  That's the only positive thing I can give.  Job well done to the designer.

Verdict

There's only one good thing I'd gain from this flick and it's that I learn a few pointers in storytelling; especially if it's a disaster movie because I have no knowledge in writing such genre.  To conclude, I give Zilla a harsh 2/5 for reasons mentioned above.