The “disaster movie” is mostly dead. The genre that seemingly defined the 1990s with titles like Armageddon and Independence Day, wasn’t new at the time but it was more explosive than it had ever been. The genre dates back as far as 1933 with Deluge, which was based on the 1928 S Fowler Wright novel of the same name. In it, we follow a group of survivors in New York City after a series of natural disasters including an earthquake. It blended model shots on a green screen with footage of actors to give the illusion that the monumental damage was happening on a large scale, a practice that continued well into the 1970s. With the boom of technology in the late 80s/early 90s, films began to experiment with CGI, leading to a landslide of titles in the latter half of the 90s. However, there is a noticeable drop-off in disaster movies as the 2010s approach, with it practically becoming dormant once the modern superhero blockbuster arrived in 2008. One man who didn’t seem to get the memo is Roland Emmerich, director of such disaster classics as 1998’s Godzilla and the aforementioned Independence Day.
His latest project is Moonfall, which follows a small band of heroes as they attempt to fix the moon’s orbit, which has unexpectedly changed course. As with previous Emmerich titles, there are three key elements at play – namely the characters, the destruction, and the overall message. Our heroes are a disingenuously disgraced ex-astronaut, his former co-astronaut, and a conspiracy theorist-who will end up having his theories proven. The first two characters are practically to be expected in a plot like this but it’s the surprisingly correct conspiracy theorist who serves as the main protagonist. He’s fun, quirky, and astoundingly likable for somebody who constantly praises Elon Musk. It would have been easy for Emmerich to make this guy the butt of all jokes and the movie’s own personal punching bag but instead, he chooses to humanise him. It’s a respectable decision and one that pays off.
The conspiracy theories themselves are wild. The classic “moon is a hologram” and “moon landings were faked” are tossed aside for stellar megastructures. It’s a new angle for this genre that allows for a vast array of imaginative ideas and grandiose shots. The reason for the moon’s orbital change is an issue slightly closer to home than expected, featuring the classic sci-fi message about how untrustworthy AI is. Here is where Moonfall’s message finally comes into view, although it’s a little blurred by the sheer madness occurring on-screen. Even when his message isn’t 100% on point, Emmerich’s destructive capabilities are never questionable. While the main trio head moonward, the remainder of the plot follows their families back on Earth. This leads to some great character work, especially from Micheal Pena, as well as some astounding shots of the moon from the ground. Shots like this are why films like this are best experienced in a cinema. It’s all about the spectacle, which is something Emmerich continues to expand upon.
Moonfall may not be his crowning achievement but it’s wholly unapologetic about what it is…an experience.
*This piece is comprised of my reviews for Independence Day and Independence Day: Resurgence with an additional conclusion*
The age of the “Popcorn Movie ” appears to have been forgotten, left behind in pursuit of the “Blockbuster Movie” Which, I think, is a real shame. These were simple films which lacked emotional depth and existed purely to entertain people. With the turn of the century came a change in film critique and the expectations placed upon films. Entertaining people no longer seemed to be enough. This forgotten art form would not go quietly into the night, it would not vanish without a fight and so in 1996, Independence Day graced our screens. It then returned in 1998 with an Extended Cut, which I believe to be the best of the two- and so that is the cut I am reviewing.
Independence Day tells the tale of humanity’s attempt to survive alien annihilation, through an American-centric lense, focussing on a core cast of characters. They can only resist with their wits, their resilience and many, many missiles. With a runtime of two and a half hours you may think that Independence Day is too long, but it does a superb job of filling that time with suspense. The first alien saucer doesn’t emerge- from the atmosphere in a cloud of fire- until 23 minutes, and the iconic moment where they fire their lasers isn’t until 50 minutes. What follows is how the characters react to this, and by 1 hour 15 minutes, they have made it to Area 51 where the next half hour is a preparation for the climactic battle. This battle becomes our sole focus for the last 40 minutes from both Earth’s atmosphere and inside the mothership. The aforementioned scenes have some of the finest and most recognisable cinematography of the 90s, in a display of practical effects and matte paintings that served the original Star Wars trilogy so well. Not every single effect holds up perfectly even by the standards of 1998, especially the matte painting of Air Force One, but that encapsulates it as a product of its time. The film also appears to be an encapsulation of every space/sci-fi film that has come before it. There are moments that are reminiscent of scenes from Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, among others.
The soundtrack more than makes up for any “imperfections”’ with a score provided by both a large orchestra and choir that seems to inspire courage. The main theme is one of the most badass instrumentals ever composed, while the more sombre moments seem to invoke a wish to survive. This pairs well with what I believe to be one of the finest speeches ever written, delivered with passion by Bill Pullman. Perhaps the most bizarre part in all of this is that the big speech, the other dialogue, and even the story and characters, are built on clichés. You’ve heard this kind of rousing speech, you’ve seen this level of destruction, you’ve met these kinds of characters… and yet, somehow, Independence Day is the perfect delivery of all of them. Bill Pullman is the perfect president, Jeff Goldblum is the perfect computer nerd, Will Smith is the perfect marine, Judd Hirsch is the perfect Jewish parent, and Randy Quaid is the perfect… drunk redneck.
This film was made at just the right moment in history. Any earlier, and it would have been just another action flick. Any later, and it’s the early 2000s. Let us not forget that this was the first film to completely obliterate the White House. In fact, that was one of the main selling points. That simply would not happen in a post 9/11 America, despite White House Down‘s best efforts. Independence Day is one of the last pure films, made in a time before the world was gripped with fear and movies were expected to challenge us. Not only that, but it encompasses the purest human objective- survival. This film may be American and there may be no escaping that fact, but I have always seen the climactic battle as a human achievement. As a great man once said:
“We will not go quietly into the night, We will not vanish without a fight. We’re going to live on. We’re going to survive. Today we celebrate our Independence day”
This call to arms is a declaration of survival in the face of almost certain annihilation and that “our” is all inclusive. Humanity is aiming to be free of all tyranny and, as the sequel will show, they succeed.
With this action packed disaster epic taking the world by storm, calls for a sequel were loud and continuous. These calls would not be answered for over 2 decades but this doesn’t mean that the franchise was lying dormant. 3 novels were released in 1996, 1998 and 1999 with an Omnibus Edition featuring all 3 in 2016. The first – Independence Day – was a novelisation of the film including the previously unseen original ending. The second – Silent Zone – was a prequel focusing on the life of Dr Brackish Okun (portrayed by Brent Spiner in the film) as a scientist in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s. The last – War in the Desert – focuses on the two Royal Air Force officers seen receiving morse code in the film on July 3rd. There were also several video games on several different devices released during this period, including the now defunct Independence Day: Online which billed itself as a direct sequel to the film. Then in 2011, news came that Emmerich was returning to the world he had created with a two-part sequel that he had tentatively titled Independence Day Forever. Despite Will Smith not returning due to salary disagreements and only one part of this epic being greenlit by Fox Studios, work began on what would soon become 2016’s Independence Day: Resurgence.
Set 20 years after the first film, we find humanity under attack from the very same alien race as before- having received a distress beacon from the previous mothership. This mothership comes with a much bigger and deadlier ship known as a Harvester which immediately obliterates a large section of the Earth just by landing. It is up to our new team of heroes and some of our old favourites to, once again, save our planet from extinction. Much like its predecessor, Independence Day: Resurgence sets up the main characters before wreaking havoc. This includes Dillon Harper and Patricia Whitmore, who are the children of the previous protagonists Captain Steve Hiller and President Thomas Whitmore as well as Patricia’s fiance Jake and his best friend Charlie. This is a perfect amount of characters to focus on, and I think the film would have been less plot-heavy if it had focused solely on them. However no sequel would be complete without some returning faces so we welcome back ex-president Whitmore, Dr Brackish Okun, David Levinson and Julius Levinson. On paper, this may seem like a lot of characters, but Independence Day: Resurgence manages to divide its time equally between them. The returning characters actively drive the plot forward instead of hindering it, except for Julius who is just here because we’d miss him if he wasn’t, while the new characters do most of the actual alien fighting. This film also never uses the original movie as some kind of crutch by making constant references to keep you invested. There is the obligatory Will Smith cameo via painting and a nice little gag where the White House isn’t destroyed (which looks a little silly but is worth it to me) but that’s about it. The film manages to stand on its own.
There were several large complaints levied at Independence Day and not all of them are unfair. Mae Whitman portrayed a young Patricia in the original film but she is replaced by Maika Monroe for this instalment. They are both solid actors and media outlets proclaimed that it was industry beauty standards that were to blame, although Emmerich has stated that Whitman opted not to read for the role. Whatever the case may be, it would have been nice to have her back. There are also claims that this film is dull and lifeless, which I disagree with. There are no facts to spout here, it’s just personal opinion and mine happens to differ from the majority. There are two genuine issues with Independence Day: Resurgence and the first is the treatment of Dr Brackish Okun, who is joined this time around by his life partner Dr Milton Isaacs. The issue here isn’t that they’ve put gays in my alien movie (obviously), the issue is that you can’t really tell they’re gay. I can tell that these two men are an item through their affection and use of “babe” but a straight person could easily spin this as two campy bros. This would be enough of an issue itself, but the novelisation states their relationship explicitly in the book’s second chapter. During Milton’s visit to a comatose Brackish, which is present in the finished film, we are given this:
“They hadn’t been open then- in 1996 it was a different time, and fraternization among staff was frowned upon no matter what gender the fraterniser may be. To be gay at Area 51 was to be discreet.”
The second issue is the character of Charlie who is given a love interest in the form of Chinese pilot Rain Lao, however I am using the term “love interest” very loosely. Charlie seems to feel like Rain owes him a relationship and is very quick to suggest that they “get a drink, maybe fall in love” which is not how you should talk to someone you just met. He comes across as obsessed and Rain makes it clear that she has no interest, but at the end of the film she agrees to date him anyway. Women are not some prize to be won and I don’t see how Emmerich felt okay adding this sub-plot.
I adore the original Independence Day and I’ve revisited it every July 4th for over a decade, despite being British. I have a soft spot for this sequel and have taken to also watching it every July 4th. Sometimes I wonder how much more I’d enjoy the latter if they’d just let gays be gay, but perhaps that was something the three-quel would’ve explored. Sadly that third film never arrived to this film being considered a box office failure and now, with the acquisition of Fox by Disney, I suppose it will never happen. That sucks.
The Independence Day franchise is a peculiar thing. The original exists and is loved on it’s own merits but the sequel can’t exist without being compared to that original phenomenon. The sequel is something that creator Roland Emmerich worked on for a long time but the version he envisioned wasn’t what we ended up getting. Remakes and sequels were definitely gaining more notice in the 2010’s so I can see why it would get approval from the studio at this time but, realistically, it probably needed more time. The original managed to capture lightning in a bottle and I think, with a bit of work, it could have been done again. It’s now been several years and, whilst Emmerich has reiterated his interest in a three-quel, it has not appeared. Disney continues to sit on one of it’s largest IP’s and, if they continue to do nothing with it, I hope we can at least get a conclusion in the form of a novel or graphic novel. I feel like every story deserves to have its conclusion told, regardless of quality, and I’m getting real sick of companies not allowing that to happen.
I will continue to watch this duology year after year and I’m sure that many others will too. I will continue to enjoy them, despite several flaws, because they continue to entertain me. It will be really interesting to see how this franchise is viewed going forward because, if Star Wars has taught me anything, audiences are willing to forgive. I guess watching these films year after year has convinced me that humanity is inherently co-operational.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Before starting, I’d like to make a quick distinction. I see the American Godzilla and the Japanese Gojira as two separate entities. As a result I will be referring to them by their localised names whenever they arise.
A film’s marketing is as important, if not sometimes more important, than the film itself. Hollywood has seen as much good marketing as it has bad, with “good” and “bad” films fitting into both categories. A good film can be tonally misrepresented by the marketing or by spoiling a major plot element. For example, the marketing for 2011’s The Cabin in the Woods did both by touting the film as a generic horror film (despite actually being a sarcastic critique of the genre as a whole) while spoiling one of the film’s larger plot twists. Meanwhile, a bad film like 2017’s Justice League can have millions of dollars spent on it, and have brand deals with companies like Gillette and Mercedes-Benz. There has been some brilliant marketing in recent years like 2008’s Cloverfield (which refused to show you the monster) and 2009’s Avatar (which was all about the CGI) but, to me, the greatest marketing campaign ever devised was for 1998’s Godzilla.
It was decided by director Roland Emmerich, and later agreed upon by studio executives, that if Godzilla was the biggest draw for the film then it would benefit them to not show audiences beforehand what he looked like. This was the first time that Toho Studios had allowed anyone else to use the famous kaiju, and it was well-known that he had been given an American redesign, but in a time without social media, you would only see him in official marketing materials. If you wanted to see Godzilla, you would have to see Godzilla. However, this doesn’t mean that there was no marketing campaign, in fact it meant quite the opposite as you couldn’t escape the tagline “Size does matter”. It was attached to a huge number of banners plastered on public transport and on buildings like a bus with “His foot is as big as this bus” or a building that said “He’s as tall as this building”. This gave an impression of Godzilla’s size without giving away the specific details and it worked, with the film taking in $74million in its first week. This “Show less, not more” technique would be applied to the 2014’s Godzilla and the aforementioned Cloverfield, although without the signs.
Reputation is also vitally important when it comes to films, and with Godzilla there were two reputations at stake. The first was that of the titular character, and the second was of the film’s director Roland Emmerich. Gojira has been widely popular since his debut in Toho Studio’s 1954 film of the same name which had birthed a franchise 22 films strong in 1998. The character was conceived with the American Atomic Bombings fresh in the public psyche, as a warning about nuclear weapons and radioactive fallout, with Gojira himself born from overexposure to radiation. The Gojira franchise was distributed in America by entrepreneur Henry Saperstein, who was constantly asking that America be allowed to make a Gojira film of their own. After 10 years of pleading, Toho finally agreed and in 1992, the project landed at Tristar Studios where it cycled through several directors before coming to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin in 1996. Their pitch featured a more realistic Godzilla in comparison to the much sillier and rubber-suit looking Gojira, with a design concocted by Patrick Tatopoulos. Supposedly, the reaction from Toho was one of bewilderment. After some executive deliberations it was decided that this film and characterisation kept the spirit of Gojira and would be allowed to continue. Regardless of how you felt about Godzilla‘s director, this was the very first Hollywood Godzilla film, with a brand new creature design that had been approved by Toho Studio. It was huge news.
Roland Emmerich, who had been assisted in script writing by Dean Devlin, also had quite the reputation by 1998 having already directed 3 Hollywood blockbusters. Universal Soldier, Stargate, and Independence Day had all released to mediocre reviews, as would Godzilla and all the films that followedbut after 3 films, it was hoped he could break the cycle. The main criticisms of Emmerich’s work are that the characters are bland and that the writing is cliched, which is true, however nobody does either of those things as well as Emmerich does whilst still providing an entertaining film. He has said in interviews that he does not allow these criticisms to bother, him because he only aims to provide enjoyable “Popcorn Entertainment”, which is a view I can’t help but respect. I have always enjoyed that aspect of his work, with Independence Day being a 4th of July tradition for me despite being British, but there has always been a deeper meaning to his works too. Emmerich uses his work to spread awareness of Climate Change, and to expose how unprepared the government would be in response to a doomsday scenario. These would be key plot elements in later films like The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 but it’s still present here in Godzilla. This may be a big, dumb monster movie, but it features a creature born of nuclear radiation and a US Army that causes more destruction than the Kaiju they’re trying to murder… so it’s clear that Emmerich has more on his mind than “big creature go smash”.
With the high reputation of Gojira, the not-yet terrible reputation of Emmerich and the stellar marketing, audiences flocked in that first week to see Godzilla, but ultimately, it wasn’t enough. People expected a serious movie akin to Gojira but they were instead greeted by high-octane popcorn entertainment. The audiences were packed in the first week, but once word got out about how “bad” the film was, box office dropped 59% in the second week. This kind of drop-off can be catastrophic to a film’s monetary intake, and reputation, with Batman and Robin suffering a worse fate at a drop-off of 63% in its second week. I think it’s definitely worth noting the similarity between these two specifically because Batman and Robin was also directed by a gay man, and was less gritty than audiences were expecting. I’m not blaming homophobia for how poorly these films did, but I think it would be ridiculous to rule it out as a factor.
The plot of Godzilla follows Dr Niko Tatoplous as he is hired by the US Military to investigate some colossal animal-like damage. This leads to a reunion with his ex-girlfriend Audrey who is attempting to become a serious reporter, and an encounter with the French Secret Service whose radiation led to the creation of Godzilla. It also leads to a tremendous amount of destruction in New York and a Maddison Square garden full of sequel-baiting Godzilla eggs. The most interesting aspect of Godzilla is that it really doesn’t need to feature the titular kaiju at all because this film would work better (and might have been received better) as just a regular monster flick, like Cloverfield. The message of Gojira (Nuclear Stuff Bad) is still there for sure, but Godzilla looks so different from his Japanese predecessor that he might as well be a completely different creature and, again, I wonder if the film would have been received better that way. Emmerich wrote a script specifically for Godzilla, so it wasn’t a script he was going to write otherwise, but if you took that script and changed the name of the creature you’d be greeted with a heck of a good monster movie. Of course, given the similarities to Gojira, Toho Studios could have probably sued and won but this is the movie they gave the greenlight to. I think that the portrayal of Godzilla is many people’s biggest issue with the film, Emmerich aside, and I can understand that. As a pretentious young teenager I certainly did my fair share off ribbing, but if you can get over yourself and see this as just a big monster movie, I think you’ll end up having a good time.
The other most interesting aspect is the portrayal of legendary film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. They do not appear in the film, however the Mayor of New York and his aide are modelled and named after them. Mayor Ebert is an angry, often impatient man who will say and do whatever is necessary to make himself look good while Siskel is his “Yes Man” who is too cowardly to disagree with anything Ebert says. It’s good satire, if not a little surface level, of the two men most critical of Emmerich’s work. In response to their appearances in the film, they claimed that the film doesn’t go far enough in criticising them, and that they should have been squashed or eaten. It’s an interesting point, but with the benefit of hindsight, there’s probably some justification for why their characters were allowed to survive. It’s possible, given this was supposed to be the first film in a trilogy, that their characters would have made a return to be humiliated further. I think it’s also worth noting that Toho Studios supposedly provided Emmerich with a dossier of “Do’s and Dont’s” for Godzilla, with one of those stipulations being that he couldn’t eat people- only fish. That’s right, one of the major criticisms people had came from a Toho decision. You can hate this film all you want (and people do) but Toho is not totally blameless.
The fallout from Godzilla is as interesting to me as the film itself. The film ends with the death of the titular character on Brooklyn Bridge, but with the survival of one of his many eggs. (He reproduced asexually, It’s a little bit Jurassic Park). There was a script treatment written for Godzilla 2 by Tab Murphy which featured Godzilla’s offspring battling a massive insect in Australia, but due to a lack of enthusiasm from audiences and the studio execs, the project was shelved. Godzilla 3 would never receive so much as a vague plot outline and the rights to a Godzilla sequel would eventually expire in May 2003. However, this would not be the end of Tatopolous’ adventures. As with so many 80’s and 90’s films, from Ghostbusters to The Mask, there would be a spin-off animated children’s series. Godzilla: The Animated Series aired on the Fox Kids network in 2000, which followed Tatopolus as he raised the final Godzilla child to defend New York from various threats. It is not a show that I have seen, so it is not a show that I will be passing judgement on, but it sounds like exactly the kind of thing I would have loved as a child.
This wouldn’t be the end of Godzilla’s Hollywood career either, as his rights were later picked up by legendary pictures who launched their “Monsterverse” in 2014 with Godzilla. It’s worth noting that the ideas planned for Godzilla 2 would find their way into this Monsterverse with Kong: Skull Island pitting the titular ape against giant insects although Australia and Godzilla Junior are yet to make an appearance. I’ve seen several reviews for Godzilla (2014), as well as watching it myself, and the general consensus seems to be that it was boring despite the final 15 minutes where Godzilla finally appears. A lot has been said of Godzilla (1998) and much has been done to distance it from Gojira, with Toho Studios referring to this iteration as Zilla, however you can’t tell me that it’s boring. I, and many others, have had a lot of fun watching this film and I’ll continue to enjoy it for years to come.
In 1996, director Roland Emmerich took the world by storm with his action packed disaster epic Independence Day. Calls for a sequel were loud and continuous, but this doesn’t mean that the franchise was lying dormant. 3 novels were released in 1996, 1998 and 1999 with an Omnibus Edition featuring all 3 in 2016. The first – Independence Day – was a novelisation of the film including the previously unseen original ending. The second – Silent Zone – was a prequel focusing on the life of Dr Brackish Okun (portrayed by Brett Spiner in the film) as a scientist in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s. The last – War in the Desert – focuses on the two Royal Air Force officers seen receiving morse code in the film on July 3rd. There were also several video games on several different devices released during this period, including the now defunct Independence Day: Online which billed itself as a direct sequel to the film. Then in 2011, news came that Emmerich was returning to the world he had created with a two-part sequel that he had tentatively titled Independence Day Forever. Despite Will Smith not returning due to salary disagreements and only one part of this epic being greenlit by Fox Studios, work began on what would soon become Independence Day: Resurgence.
Set 20 years after the first film, we find humanity under attack from the very same alien race as before- having received a distress beacon from the previous mothership. This mothership comes with a much bigger and deadlier ship known as a Harvester which immediately obliterates a large section of the Earth just by landing. It is up to our new team of heroes and some of our old favourites to, once again, save our planet from extinction. Much like its predecessor, Independence Day: Resurgence sets up the main characters before wreaking havoc. This includes Dillon Harper and Patricia Whitmore, who are the children of the previous protagonists Captain Steve Hiller and President Thomas Whitmore as well as Patricia’s fiance Jake and his best friend Charlie. This is a perfect amount of characters to focus on, and I think the film would have been less plot-heavy if it had focused solely on them. However no sequel would be complete without some returning faces so we welcome back ex-president Whitmore, Dr Brackish Okun, David Levinson and Julius Levinson. On paper, this may seem like a lot of characters, but Independence Day: Resurgence manages to divide its time equally between them. The returning characters actively drive the plot forward instead of hindering it, except for Julius who is just here because we’d miss him if he wasn’t, while the new characters do most of the actual alien fighting. This film also never uses the original movie as some kind of crutch by making constant references to keep yo invested. There is the obligatory Will Smith cameo via painting and a nice little gag where the White House isn’t destroyed (which looks a little silly but is worth it to me) but that’s about it. The film manages to stand on its own.
There were several large complaints levied at Independence Day and not all of them are unfair. Mae Whitman portrayed a young Patricia in the original film but she is replaced by Maika Monroe for this instalment. They are both solid actors and media outlets proclaimed that it was industry beauty standards that were to blame, although Emmerich has stated that Whitman opted not to read for the role. Whatever the case may be, it would have been nice to have her back. There are also claims that this film is dull and and lifeless, which I disagree with. There is no facts to spout here, it’s just personal opinion and mine happens to differ from the majority. There are two genuine issues with Independence Day: Resurgence and the first is the treatment of Dr Brackish Okun, who is joined this time around by his life partner Dr Milton Isaacs. The issue here isn’t that they’ve put gays in my alien movie (obviously), the issue is that you can’t really tell they’re gay. I can tell that these two men are an item through their affection and uses of “babe” but a straight person could easily spin this as two campy bros. This would be enough of an issue itself, but the novelisation states their relationship explicitly in the books second chapter. During Milton’s visit to a comatose Brackish, which is present in the finished film, we are given this:
“They hadn’t been open then- in 1996 it was a different time, and fraternization among staff was frowned upon no matter what gender the fraternizers may be. To be gay at Area 51 was to be discreet.”
The second issue is the character of Charlie who is given a love interest in the form of Chinese pilot Rain Lao, however I am using the term “love interest” very loosely. Charlie seems to feel like Rain owes him a relationship and is very quick to suggest that they “get a drink, maybe fall in love” which is not how you should talk to someone you just met. He comes across as obsessed and Rain makes it clear that she has no interest, but at the end of the film she agrees to date him anyway. Women are not some prize to be won and I don’t see how Emmerich felt okay adding this sub-plot.
I adore the original Independence Day and I’ve revisited it every July 4th for over a decade, despite being British. I have a soft spot for this sequel and have taken to also watching it every July 4th. Sometimes I wonder how much more I’d enjoy the latter if they’d just let gays be gay, but perhaps that was something the threquel would’ve explored. Sadly that third film never arrived to to this film being considered a box office failure and now, with the acquisition of Fox by Disney, I suppose it will never happen. That sucks.
Shakesqueer 