‘Godzilla’ Review

Published 3 months ago by , Updated August 15th, 2014 at 8:06 pm,

Godzilla Movie Poster 2014 Godzilla Review

In GodzillaJoe Brody (Bryan Cranston), a chief engineer working at the Janjira nuclear plant, discovers a mysterious seismic activity pattern that, if ignored, could threaten the stability of his facility (as well as the lives of nearby residents). Yet, before Joe can plead to his superiors for caution, a mysterious force causes a meltdown within the plant – leaving Joe, his family, along with the rest of the area, devastated.

Fifteen years later, Joe is still searching for answers, obsessed with uncovering the real reason behind Janjira’s nuclear meltdown. When the eccentric conspiracy theorist is arrested inside a quarantine zone, Joe’s son Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a Navy EOD technician, must travel to Japan in an effort to bring his father back to the states – and put an end to Joe’s increasingly dangerous search for answers. Yet, just after Ford arrives in Japan, it becomes clear that Joe was right all along – and that the world is about to pay the price for not listening to his warnings.

Bryan Cranston Aaron Taylor Johnson Godzilla 2014 Godzilla Review

Bryan Cranston and Aaron Taylor-Johnson in ‘Godzilla’

When his critically-acclaimed film Monsters became an indie sci-fi favorite, director Gareth Edwards was challenged with rebooting the iconic King of the Monsters for Legendary Pictures. Despite abysmal ratings for Roland Emmerich’s 1998 Godzilla, the film’s $370 million (unadjusted) in ticket sales made it clear the giant lizard still had pull at the global box office. Thankfully, Edwards learned from Hollywood’s past mistakes and the new Godzilla offers a fresh and tantalizing moviegoing experience for longtime fans of “Monster Zero-One,” as well as casual viewers looking for summer spectacle.

In spite of tongue-in-cheek Godzilla vs. [Insert Monster X] movies over the last half-century, the original Toho Gojira (1954) wasn’t created to birth a cinematic icon – the monster was used as a horrifying metaphor for the atomic bomb. To that end, Edwards smartly blends sixty years worth of Godzilla movies into a cautionary tale warning of modern humankind’s arrogance, presenting the King of Monsters as both horror and hero. Some may complain that there isn’t quite enough Godzilla in Godzilla, but Edwards’ restraint is actually a credit to the success of the film – especially in an era where audiences can become desensitized to CGI characters and onscreen destruction. The director walks a fine line between showing off the redesigned reptile while harnessing the creature’s larger-than-life persona. Godzilla makes a big impression, dealing genuinely crowd-pleasing moments without overstaying his welcome, and leaving audiences to relish in every shot of the monster.

Godzilla 2014 Monster Godzilla Review

The King of Monsters in ‘Godzilla’

Instead of relying on massive CGI fights to sell the film, Edwards makes smart use of interesting human stories – which lead viewers through increasingly revealing looks at Godzilla and other threats. Edwards’ movie isn’t just about Godzilla or military might, it’s a captivating tale of people (at all levels) as we encounter natural forces outside of our control. Regardless of its scope, the movie is surprisingly intimate – with beautiful cinematography that grounds Godzilla in a rich and lived-in world. Edwards keeps his focus tight on a small group of human characters – allowing them to develop within the context of the greater crisis (but without stealing the spotlight from their titular star). As a result, the computer generated antihero is rarely disconnected from the perils of people on the ground – with seamless shots that transition back and forth between selfless human heroics and eye-popping monster mayhem.

Cranston sets the tone early as charming but compulsive Joe Brody – a man that, even before disaster strikes, is aloof and obsessive. Despite an award-winning turn as Walter White in Breaking Bad, Cranston has been relegated to thin caricature in most of his film roles – one-note villains or tough-as-nails military men. Fortunately, Cranston is given a lot more to work with in Godzilla and the actor supplies an emotional and empathetic performance which ensures that both pillars of the narrative (sci-fi fantasy and human drama) are taken seriously.

Aaron Taylor Johnson Elizabeth Olsen Godzilla 2014 Godzilla Review

Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen in ‘Godzilla’

Paired with Cranston, Taylor-Johnson is a serviceable leading-man for the story as Ford – a relatable hero trying to get back to his wife, Elle (Elizabeth Olsen), and son Sam (Carson Bolde). At times it’s clear that Ford is a fictional fabrication – a character designed for every occasion in all the right places at the right times – but thanks to a likable turn from Taylor-Johnson, it’s easy to suspend disbelief and follow along.

While Olsen furnishes one of the stronger performances in the film, the talented actress is given very little screen time. Instead of developing Elle as a character, Edwards sidelines Olsen to fleshing-out the men and monsters around her - adding another layer to Ford as well as providing on-the-ground emotional drama once Godzilla hits the mainland. Similarly, Ken Watanabe’s Dr. Ichiro Serizawa is tasked with delivering exposition in nearly every single scene – providing backstory, scientific revelations, and giant monster insights whenever a character (and the audience) needs clarification. That said, Serizawa is still an impactful addition, similar to Dr. Kyohei Yamane (Takashi Shimura) in the original Godzilla, a scientist reeling from the collision of scientific discovery and its consequences. Serizawa helps viewers navigate conflicting feelings about Godzilla – making it acceptable (at least this time) to root for the King of Monsters, even when he’s destroying entire cities in the process.

Ken Watanabe Dr Ichiro Serizawa Godzilla 2014 Godzilla Review

Ken Watanabe as Dr. Ichiro Serizawa in ‘Godzilla’

Godzilla is also playing in 3D and 3D IMAX theaters and the film takes full advantage of both premium formats. The film may not have been shot in 3D but the post-conversion contributes in immersion and enhanced visual spectacle. IMAX 3D is also a worthy investment, even for frugal filmgoers, since the extra screen size and audio fidelity enhance Godzilla’s massive size and heart-pounding roar. The 3D isn’t essential (especially in certain parts of the film) but viewers who are willing to invest in a premium ticket will get their money’s worth from the IMAX experience.

Moviegoers expecting two hours of CGI monster beat downs may be underwhelmed by the amount of Godzilla in Edwards’ reboot. However, the director has actually delivered a much more ambitious and memorable experience, blending a crowd-pleasing return for the titular star, poignant human drama, thought-provoking cautionary themes, as well as fun Toho series nods (like monster battles on TV) – all with entertaining blockbuster spectacle and a third act brawl that sets a new bar for the beloved King of the Monsters.



[poll id="806"]


Godzilla runs 123 minutes and is Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of destruction, mayhem and creature violence. Now playing in 2D, 3D, and 3D IMAX theaters.

Let us know what you thought of the film in the comment section below. If you’ve seen the movie and want to discuss details about the film without worrying about spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, please head over to our Godzilla spoilers discussion.

For an in-depth discussion of the film by the Screen Rant editors check out our Godzilla episode of the SR Underground podcast.

Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for future reviews, as well as movie, TV, and gaming news.

Our Rating:

4 out of 5

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: godzilla


Post a Comment

  1. The movie was very well directed, gr8 visuals , elizabeth olsen was really good. The main actor was not very good, but i thought if there was only one monster instead of 3 !!

  2. I finally saw “Godzilla” today and easily found it a strong 4.5/5. The creature and battle visuals were amazing, the human characters were interesting (though I DO agree Elle could have been used more), and Godzilla was beautifully portrayed. THIS is how a monster movie should be…and is.

  3. Went to see godzilla in 3d it was the worst 3d movie I’ve ever seen,the movie was ok but the 3d effects were awful how can you mess this up so bad.

    • Gr8 Success!

  4. Having grown up watching the originals, (Where were the twins?!) I was surprised at all the homages to the old films. Well done!

    Anybody else catch the Mothra Easter egg?

  5. I noticed the Mortha Easter Egg JessSayin it was The Monarch Organization and I thought the Film was a Masterpiece I give it 5 Stars I loved when Godzilla used The Hyper Beam at the end the was the s*** man :)

  6. When they killed Cranston the story nosedived. I don’t know how people can say this film was great. The CGI was great that’s about it. I after 30 minutes I was saying to myself, WTF is this? The bogus trailers didn’t help either.

    • I agree with you on most of it, but I think the CGI was kind of ‘meh’.

      • Yeah, I know what you mean. I had to try to find something good about this. It sure wasn’t the screenplay, that’s for Damn sure. I liked how real Godzilla looked, his Bronto feet threw me for a loop but I’m trying to adjust. Overall, I was very unimpressed. A 160 million dollar soap opera that should have been called, “Rise of the Mutos,” featuring a special guest appearance by Godzilla.

    • The 2014 Godzilla Movie really Blew Big-Time. It was a Lousy Movie all the way around. The 1998 Godzilla with Mathew Broderick was a 10. The 2014 Movie isn’t even good enough to rate a 1. They kill off the human star of the movie after the first third of the movie (Bryan Cranston) – that was a mistake. Then you watch half the movie before you even get a glimpse of Godzilla. Then the story line about Godzilla being kept in a Lab from 1999 until present day was not really told – and you had to sort of figure that out. Then the Mothra Monsters – looked like they were Mother and Baby – but they also looked lie they were Metallic or made out of metal (Maybe made by the Lab). Then in this movie Godzilla turned out to be the friend of the people instead of the Monster and enemy that they were trying to kill. The other young man that I guess was supposed to be Bryan Cranston’s son and took over the Lead position for the remaining movie was pretty dull and a waste of space in the movie. Plus the story with him and his wife was so sparse it wasn’t even worth putting in the movie. The only good part in the entire movie was the flames coming out of Godzilla’s mouth on 2 occasions. I did not like the Music Soundtrack in the background and it gave a head-ache as it was constant and constantly too loud. Plus there were a lot of Dark Scenes in the Movie. It would have been better with more light so you could see something. The move is Lousy. If you want to see a good Godzilla Movie – go see the 1998 Movie starring Mathew Broderick.

      • You think the 1998 movie was, not only good but a “10″ and you expect anyone to consider anything you have to say about THIS Godzilla movie?!

        Do tell.

        • Because how dare anybody hold an opinion that doesn’t agree with the majority, right? I mean, it’s not like every criticism levelled against the 1998 film can also be levelled at almost any other Godzilla movie.

          • Nothing to do with holding the same views as the majority. It is a simple matter that the 1998 film was plain BAD. Bad acting, terrible script and stupid Hollywood cliches buy the truckload. When one claims this movie is a “10″ then they cannot have any capacity to discern good movies from bad ones and I am right to question their analyses.

            Ironically just as I debunk solipsists every time one pops their head up out of the ground. ;)

            • The 1998 movie being bad is purely subjective.
              And every one of the other Godzilla movies has at least one of those. Often more than one.
              It was enjoyable, mindless entertainment as far as I am concerned, especially because it knew it was being silly and just ran with it. The new film took itself far too seriously given the ludicrous concept and suffered for it.
              Also, those flaws are fairly subjective. I think Tom Cruise is a great actor, but I know people who think he’s terrible. I think, barring the work by some exceptional actors (e.g. Christoph Waltz), the dialogue in most Tarantino movies is fairly bad. And really, the only Godzilla movie not to have hundreds of cliches in it was the original, because it was the first Godzilla movie and a lot of things hadn’t become cliches yet.
              You should remember that the original Godzilla movie didn’t get very many positive reviews when it first came out.

              • Saying that the ’98 film being bad is “purely subjective” is no better when talking about that film than it is when talking about Ed Wood movies. Do you honestly believe that Ed Wood’s movies were not objectively worse than, for example ‘The Remains of the Day’? Or are peoples’ critiques of Ed Wood’s movies no more valid than any other review?

                Some movies are just plain bad. That does not mean you or I cannot enjoy them for whatever reason (I for example am a big MST3K guy so I love watching bad movies and riffing them) but if the acting is bad, the directing is bad, the script is bad and the whole thing is wrapped up in every overused cliche Hollywood has given us for 3 or 4 decades now then I am sorry but it is a bad movie and, unlike people claiming otherwise I can put forth a detailed, logically consistent, rational argument for why this is.
                Tom Cruise’s acting is a good analogy but it does not help you here, because if the people saying Tom Cruise sucks cannot explain or detail WHY they think this and their critique does not come from knowledge of acting then their ‘opinion’ is of no value.

                I am not and have not defended ANY Godzilla movie as being a good movie (though I personally have a fondness for them which is largely nostalgic) so I have no idea why you are making these points to me?! The 1954 Godzilla was NOT a good movie but that does not mean there is nothing good about it or that I could not enjoy the film at certain times in my life.

                • Can you give me a rational and logically consistent explanation for why any actors acting is good? Or why dialogue is good or bad? It all comes down to taste.
                  I haven’t seen any Ed Wood movies or Remains of the Day, so I can’t comment on that.
                  I think most of the acting in the new Godzilla was bad, as well as the dialogue and script. Personally, I don’t understand how the directing is good or bad unless you count it as the aggregate of the whole film, in which case yes, the directing of the new Godzilla was bad.
                  My biggest grievance against it was the look of Godzilla. I felt that the special effects looked too cartoony and the big guy himself was overweight.

                  • Yes it is r5emarkably easy to tell good acting from bad acting and to give logically consistent, rational arguments for why an actor’s work is good or bad. To borrow something Michael Caine once said on the matter; a bad actor sitting across from another actor in a restaurant scene will remain motionless while the other actor is speaking his lines and only animate when it is his turn to speak in the scene. A good actor will reach for the salt and/or pepper while the other speaks his lines, wipe his mouth with his napkin etc.

                    There are literally hundreds of other examples I could give you on this matter. It is nowhere near as subjective as you want to believe. If it were then actors would have no need to go through years of schooling for the craft and work their way up from understudy in s small local production, through Broadway etc. Just as there are very good airline pilots, very bad airline pilots and a whole lot falling in between the same applies to acting, directing, etc.

                    I do not for the life of me understand how you single out THIS particular Godzilla as “overweight” (compared to which other Godzilla?! The 1998 version again?) or why you feel this is a legitimate cause for concern (to me it sounds like someone complaining that Lon Cheney’s ‘Wolf Man’ was ‘too furry!’) but I will leave you to that subjective feeling you have about how physically fit giant monsters should appear.

                    FYI, Ed Wood is almost universally considered to be the worst director to ever helm a movie and his movies are considered by most to be the worst films ever made (“Plan 9 from Outer Space”, “Orgy of the Dead”, “Glenn or Glenda” etc.). You should watch some of his films just to get an education as to how demonstrably bad directing, acting and film making in general can go wrong.

                    “The Remains of the Day” starred Anthony Hopkins and the late Christopher Reeve (before his accident) and is largely considered to be one of the best movies ever made. A solid argument can be made that it is easily better than Hitchcock’s “Psycho” as well as “Citizen Kane” (the two movies most often cited as “best ever” by critics).

                    • Acting is more than just what they’re doing when the camera is focused on someone else. It’s also about their delivery and nuance, as well as many other things. Ken Watanabe is a great actor, but his performance in the new Godzilla was just him looking dazed and delivering anything in a monotone. So while he is overall a better actor than Matthew Broderick, in their respective movies, Broderick is the better actor.
                      What are your thoughts on the acting ability of Tom Cruise? How can two people watch the same film and come away with different opinions of the acting abilities of the same person?

                    • Why are you telling ME things I have always said?! Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of ‘examples’. My EXAMPLE of one way to identify bad acting was obviously not supposed to be the ONLY way bad acting can occur. And why are you making MY point (which you before disagreed with) citing ways in which we can identify good and bad acting in many ways?!

                      I say Tom Cruise is a good actor (he’s no Anthony Hopkins but how many are?). People can assert different things about his acting for a huge number of reasons, most of which have nothing at all to do with his acting ability. I have heard everything from “Tom Cruise SUX as an actor! He is a closeted gay!” (irrational conclusion) to “Tom has been in a LOT of bad movies which I hate (Coctail, Top Gun, Days of driving cars in circles etc.) so I refuse to watch anything he is in.” (irrational but not quite as absurd as the first example). It is just like being a baseball pitcher. A pitcher might consistently throw 102 MPH strikes with the lowest ERA in baseball history and still be hated by fans of opposing teams, people who think his mustache looks stupid, women who take offense at some misogynist thing he said, etc.

      • Don’t forget the lost child that appears out of nowhere just so we are supposed to care about the fate of a child-who is unceremoniously dropped the second it becomes convenient. This was the worst Godzilla ever. Even the movies with Baby Godzilla were at least entertaining.

  7. I hope Edwards doesn’t direct the next Godzilla but he probably will. I saw his other film “Monsters” and it was paced just like Godzilla. Slow, slow, slow, a little peek here and there, then a little bit of a payoff at the end. Trailer better than the actual movie. Just like Godzilla.

    • You said exactly what I was thinking! Thank you.

  8. “poignant human drama, thought-provoking cautionary themes”

    that Mr. Kendrick was a big fat lie and you know it.

    • mopf…

      No, it was actually quite accurate.

        • mopf…

          Not sure why you decided to undercut your own argument and FULLY support and confirm what Ben stated and what I agreed with…but THANK you. Those definitions you linked to helped our perspective.

          Very kind of you… ;)

      • really? “poignant human drama”? which characters were involved in it? certainly not Brody senior and junior as they barely talk or interact at all, not to speak of any connection between these characters.
        was it about Brody junior and his wife and kid? hm they only get about 1 or 2 minutes screen time together so…nope, not really. maybe it was about that Japanese kid Brody jr has to watch for 1 minute for no reason at all? we can only guess…
        and “thought-provoking cautionary themes”? which element of this movie is supposed to be thought-provoking? where can I find that cautionary theme in this movie? please enlighten me!

        • Yes, really.

          Father and son had a very true interaction, including the very fact that their relationship was so broken…that connection was clearly defined in the actor portrayals, particularly the body language/ facial expressions of the two characters. Maybe, you just looked down at your popcorn during those times?

          Both pairs of husbands and wives showed their love for each other, respectively, both in their actions when together and their voices and expressions/tones when communicating across distances (whether in the power plant or across the world). Now, I DO agree that Olsen’s young wife character could have been given more to do, but she played up the amount of role she was given quite well. Her son was, of course, just in the film to act as a supporting character/filler/completion of the family dynamic, so not much was required of him.

          The small Japanese boy Brody the younger encountered was simply to help establish his positive qualities of concern, activism, and determination…and a bit of unpredictability on a more personal level in his life to go along with the unpredictable big picture unfolding around him.

          As for the themes, the sheer power and grandeur of Nature, the nature of our human arrogance in light of the world at large, the need for curiosity and wonder about the mysteries of that same world, and a flexibility of both understanding and will in the sometimes-chaos of a world that is ALWAYS changing…these themes were exceedingly clearly (and, I think, wonderfully) expressed throughout the film. HOW did you miss those expressions?

          If you need any more help understanding something, mopf, please, feel free to ask…I’ll do what I can.


  9. Loved the fudge out of this movie!
    I still had the craptastic 1998 film in the back of my head, gaaawd that movie suckes!~
    This is more like the Godzilla i remember from my youth.
    Loved it!

  10. I liked it. I was not sure what to expect and was pleasantly surprised.

  11. I thought Godzilla was ok. Not worth the money at all. The plot was good, the story was good also,but the build up was insane. Im 40 yrs old and have loved watching Godzilla since im a kid. The Whole movie was an hour and a half build and a 30 min fight. He traveled in the water for longer then the fight took to end. The acting was fine but its supposed to be about the big guy and it wasn’t I hope the next one has more punch to it and that one Ill wait for cable to put it out. Only 3 stars at best for me.

  12. Godzilla gets reviewed in TIME MAGAZINE.


    • That review was spot on! Wow!

    • Congratulations…

      You’ve found another person who shares your opinion. Bravo. It’s still just an opinion…and one from which other just as valid opinions (including mine) differ substantially.

      Way to accomplish…nothing.

      Oh, by the way,did you notice you chose the same critique Markalite picked for HIS defense? Having trouble committing to your waste of time?


  13. This story of this movie sucked balls. The worst ever! I did not live up to all the hype. I’m sticking with TOHO. You can have this whitewashed, sanitized, friendly, Americanized Godzilla.

  14. I don’t how people can say “lack of Godzilla” when the original 1954 film is 96 minutes long and Godzilla is in it for 17 minutes. This one also had other monsters to take up screen time. To me, personally, the “lack of Godzilla” argument is extremely weak.

    • It’s actually pretty easy to say. “There was a lack of Godzilla.” See? Easy.

      The 2014 version was almost a full half hour longer, and had a budget 100 times larger than the ’54 version. The original Godzilla was a guy in a rubber suit you couldn’t make the foundation of the movie; the 2014 version was a multi-million dollar (likely more than the entire original ’54 movie cost to make) CGI beast that looked a thousand times better and COULD have been featured. The original Godzilla had a message; the 2014 really didn’t, or at least didn’t follow through with it.

      Having other monsters isn’t the same. If you’re making THAT argument then we should be comparing the 2014 Godzilla to Destroy All Monsters or any of the “Godzilla vs. …” movies, which typically had MUCH more Godzilla, rubber suit or not.

      It also didn’t help that a fair portion of the time he was on screen he was getting beaten thoroughly. ***SPOILERS, but man, you shouldn’t be saying other people’s arguments are “weak” if you haven’t seen it yet… If Ford doesn’t come to the rescue with a rehash of the ’98 Godzilla 3rd act he gets killed within 2 minutes of his first sustained appearance. Honestly, that’s one of my bigger annoyances with the film. We haven’t seen a real Godzilla in awhile, we get so little of him in this movie, he looks so good… and then he seems to spend a significant portion of his screen time getting his big green rear end stomped.

      But what I feel most is, if you are going to try to emulate the older style of filmmaking with slow reveals you have to match the tension building and the writing and the performances of those classic movies. If this is the best example of them trying to recreate that atmosphere… well, I find the modern stories wanting. The tension building was fine but everything else was lacking. If you don’t want to put Godzilla in a movie titled Godzilla you had better bring some excellent, engaging human drama to the screen in his stead, and I don’t feel that was done at all. We got a lot of flimsy stereotypical characters that only had any dimension at all because of the actors, some of whom were given almost nothing to work with (Ken Watanabe and Elizabeth Olsen, in particular, were almost completely reduced to reaction shots and dry dialogue that served only to move the story to the next plot point).

      I actually felt there were more flaws, but the truth is while I didn’t love this remake, I did like it enough that I’ll almost certainly be grabbing it on BD when it comes out… and hoping for (much) more Godzilla in the sequel. So I’ll stop here.


      • That about sums it up. I don’t think there’s anything else to say

        • Mark…

          Of course, there is PLENTY that can be said in direct opposition to Groot’s statements…but most of it has ALREADY been said quite well and effectively by various posters on this thread.

          The ONE thing I will add here is that the film was not titled, “Godzilla: The Always Victorious Hero”. Thus, Godzilla getting pummeled by his enemies until he ultimately rises up (in this case, literally) to defeat those arrayed against him should surprise NO ONE. One reason the character has remained relatively popular for so long is that audiences love to watch this ” force of Nature” overcome his enemies…overcome, NOT beat down in the first five minutes of encountering them.

          • To answer, in order:


            Not really, because all of your points are completely hollow, no matter how “effectively” you believe they’ve been conveyed.

            I’d be glad that people are so impressed that Edwards let Vince McMahon inspire his climactic action set piece, but I got over pro wrestling a long time ago and was hoping for a little more Destroy All Monsters and a lot less WrestleMania. Godzilla getting pummeled by his enemies wasn’t the problem, it was that they practically turned Godzilla into a jobber for Edwards’ creations. He literally got stomped into the dirt within 2 minutes of his first sustained appearance and had to be saved by Captain Plot Convenience setting the nest on fire at JUST the right time. Which, once again, isn’t a big deal if we had a little more Godzilla in a movie titled “Godzilla”.

            …Because “forces of nature” always need one lone man with a can of gasoline aping the Godzilla ’98 main plot point (destroy the nest… I’m starting to feel if I don’t spell out stuff you all will willfully misinterpret it) to save them.

            And honestly, what is wrong with a lot of you? Are you incapable of making any sort of intelligent expression of your opinions without resorting to gross hyperbole? I didn’t need Godzilla destroying all MUTOs in 2 minutes or less (umm, and way to show great reading comprehension on my entire point of wanting to see more, that’s MORE… M-O-R-E, Godzilla); but I didn’t want to see HIM destroyed in 2 minutes or less either OR needing to be saved by a trite plot convenience in his return to the big screen. It would have taken maybe 3-5 minutes of even somewhat sustained back & forth to have more than satisfied me THEN Ford saving the day (and Godzilla’s big green… tail) becomes more palatable.

            But yes, wanting more Godzilla in a Godzilla movie where he finally, actually looks like the King of Monsters for the first time in his existence is a terrible, terrible criticism that makes your eyes bleed, angels lose their wings and hipsters cry, and would have obviously interrupted all of your enjoyment of Gareth Edward’s small, independent presentation of “CloverMUTO, with a special cameo by Godzilla”.

            • Groot…

              Just because the points I and others have made are beyond you does not make them “hollow”. You and I believe different things about this film…you did not like; I did. You can whine authoritatively all you want, but your OPINION (and, make no mistake, that’s ALL it is) is no better or more correct than mine.

              Good luck finding a salve to apply to yourself, because that level of butt-hurt has GOT to be painful.

              • All you’ve been doing is trying to salvage every tiny scrap of dignity this film has, just because you enjoyed it. That’s you’re opinion and there is no need for you to be so rude and unable to accept the bad points of this dumb film

                I myself hated this film while in the cinema, I couldn’t stand it and was so bored. I was expecting some big monster fight, some destruction, The king of Monsters. I got a whiny kid, with a whiny mom with a whiny dad and with other whiny people for plot points I just did not care about.

                The main character had so much plot armour he became a mary sue, everyone near him dies except him because his wife and kid are waiting for him. His acting was terrible, the script was terrible and filled with necessary fillers and wastes of time.

                My biggest problem with this film had to be the scene where Godzilla is revealed in all his amazing monster glory and begins his fight with Mutu but then it cuts to the annoying white kid who can’t act saying “mommy look dinosaurs!”. I payed money to see a Godzilla film, not America the land of amazing soldiers (that’s the message of the whole film, soldiers guys, soldiers) and white families that have so much plot amour you’re wishing they would die for a better plot twist.

                The film was too long and dragged out, I understand they were trying to build tension, but it was just annoying. The only parts worth watching were the 20 minutes of screen time Godzilla had, the rest of it can just be thrown in a garbage bin.

                • Now before ANYONE dares attacking me for going after the reviews that wreak of Michael Bay fanboy-ism read Savina’s comment above. This is typical from the negative reviews in this thread. the ‘I wanted fights and destruction but I got…*THIS*!’ nonsense.

                • Great post Savina. I feel your pain. I was very disappointed by this film also. Read this review. This guy makes some valid points about how Edwards dropped the ball. I agree wholeheartedly.


      • You’re assuming I haven’t seen the movie when you say “you shouldn’t be saying other people’s arguments are “weak” if you haven’t seen it yet” when I have seen the movie. My point is whether it’s the 1954 movie or 2004 “Final Wars” I don’t understand why people complain about lack of Godzilla when Godzilla in almost all of the movies shows up and then there’s a long stretch of the movie where it’s just humans talking and another monster or two wrecking stuff. I’m not saying Godzilla’s screen time in those movies is always just 20 minutes or less I’m just saying his screen time in a 96 minute movie [or whatever the run time may be in a particular movie] isn’t 58 minutes. I’m not saying “EXCEPT IT BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN THE OTHER MOVIES!”. I’m not saying that at all. All I’m saying is, based on what has come before, this movie followed the formula for a Godzilla movie. Again I’m not saying you should accept it or be in love with it. If you didn’t like it, fine. That’s your opinion. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to think the story was great. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. That’s subjective. I just think some people [not necessarily you] were expecting 2 hours of Godzilla fighting and smashing things. Also, him getting beat up in most of the fight scenes isn’t that surprising. One he’s facing two monsters so when he would almost get the upper hand on one the other would come in from behind and attack him. Even for Godzilla a two on one isn’t easy. Also, how many movies do you see where the hero isn’t going through adversity through out the movie or in the fight scenes. If the hero is kicking the hell out of the villain[s] the whole movie how does it end? With him winning easily? No. He goes through adversity. The villain[s] have the upper hand in the fights and then at the end the hero comes up with the courage and strength to overcome the villain and he defeats him/them. That’s what happened here. I thought it was absolutely fantastic when he defeats the MUTO’s and just collapses with exhaustion. He gave everything he had in that fight. And he overcame not one but two monsters. But hey, you can disagree. I loved every second of it. You didn’t but liked it enough to buy it when it comes out. That’s fine. Good talk.

        • Lk…

          Very well said…Exactly.

          • I appreciate that, Archaeon. I can say the same about your posts. They’re well thought out and use actual logic instead of the usual “DIS SUX CUZ I SED SO!”. And again, Thanks. I appreciate it.

        • I made no such assumption. I don’t like when people post spoilers, even relatively mild ones, on non-spoiler threads. Unlike a lot of people who frequent this site, I prefer not to be a hypocrite, so I put the standard spoiler warning. What I said afterwards shouldn’t have bothered you if you saw the movie because it was a reasonable statement: if you haven’t seen the movie you shouldn’t be offering up strong opinions on it.

          Now, the thing is: you’re the 3rd person who has come up with the tired, inaccurate comparisons to the ’54 movie on this site, maybe even in just this thread. I answered the first and even copy/pasted that rebuttal in my own review. You calling that argument “weak” doesn’t make it so, just because you happen to disagree. The ’54 movie didn’t have a lot of Godzilla, and didn’t NEED to, because Godzilla was an allegory to get around western censorship. That’s what made it so strong and memorable. The 2014 version tried to make it allegorical, but the execution was sloppy, in no small part due to pretty bland dialogue.

          No, I wasn’t expecting 2 straight hours of Godzilla, but I wanted more than 2 minutes (see? erroneous hyperbolic statements are annoying aren’t they? maybe try basing less of your argument on them next time), especially with an inconsistent, almost confused message, pretty standard, formulaic plot, and really uninspired dialogue (Cranston was really the only stand-out in that respect, and even he only had a small handful of solid lines to make the most of). More Godzilla would have helped to overshadow those flaws, because they were there, even if you couldn’t see them.


          ***SPOILERS*** (not for you, of course :D)

          If we want to use real-world logic, he should have never been fighting two monsters, unless you’re going to pull some reasoning from the ether (or other places nearer and/or dearer to you) as to why he didn’t unleash his atomic breath at Mothra a half-dozen times before he even met the other MUTO. Godzilla is basically an animal (a really, REALLY big animal), he doesn’t really care about pacing or dramatic tension. You’re trying to have it both ways and it really doesn’t work. One less monster to fight and they don’t even have the whole “monsters laying eggs to take over the world” subplot. Now, I’m not saying I wanted to see THAT, but once again, you’re literally whining that people wanted to see MORE FREAKING GODZILLA IN A MOVIE TITLED ‘GODZILLA’! Then trotting out an incorrect comparison to a 60 year old classic that this movie… doesn’t really resemble as much as you all seem to want it to. It was more Godzilla vs. Mothra/ King Ghidorah than Godzilla ’54.

          There’s also a difference between a hero completely crushing their opponent in a short amount of time, and them getting stomped in the same amount of time, then needing Captain Plot Convenience Ford to save him with his power of fortuitous timing with his setting fire to the nest. It was like Edwards made Godzilla the patsy to his two creations to show how amazing THEY were, saved him, THEN allowed him to have a couple moments.

          Once again, not 2 hours… but like literally 5 more minutes of quality (ie: not quick chop, forced PoV teases) Godzilla appearances and/or actual monster fights would have greatly improved the movie. Not a weak argument, just a fact.

          • First off, when I said it was a “weak” argument I’m talking about people who were wishing for Pacific Rim, monster on monster fighting for 2 hours. I don’t necessarily mean you specifically. That was more towards the people who wanted explosions for 2 straight hours. Now, that’s fine if you wanted more Godzilla. Completely understandable. I was absolutely fine with amount of screen time the big guy got but if they would have given him even more screen time I certainly would not have argued. But lets use other monster movies as examples. Also, quickly, I misspoke about his screen time in the original 1954 film. He’s actually in it for 8 minutes [7:55 if we're being technical] not 17. My mistake. *disclaimer: I’ll be talking about the screen time of these monsters and not necessarily the year they were made and how difficult it may or may not have been putting them on screen because of budget/technology that wasn’t up to snuff/time period etc* But, anyway, lets talk about The Blob. Idk if this is a “classic” per say but a lot of people know about it and a lot of people like it. The Blob is on screen for 1 minutes and 26 seconds. Total screen time for the shark in Jaws is….4 minutes. That’s it. And that movie is considered a classic. And you can count me as one of those people who consider it a classic. I’m sure there were/are people that say “could have used a bit more shark” but I, personally, haven’t heard that from anyone although I’m sure there have been people that have said it. Same thing goes for the Alien in “Alien”. The Alien is in it for 3 minutes and 36 seconds. Again, considered a classic although I’m sure some people were saying the same thing about that movie. “Could’ve used more Alien”. The monster in Cloverfield is in the movie for 3 minutes and 26 seconds. Now, that movie isn’t considered a classic and I’ll admit I’ve only ever seen about 10 minutes of it so I can’t speak to the quality of the film. But, you get the point. Some of the most famous movie monsters in history took a back seat to the humans. Even more so than Godzilla [2014]. But, hey, like I said, if you wanted more Godzilla, fine. But I, personally, was more than happy about the screen time he did get. And if you didn’t like the story or did like it but thought it wasn’t nearly as good as you think it could have been, hey, that’s your opinion and I respect that. But, like I said my comment about the argument of his screen time being “weak” wasn’t aimed at you specifically but more so the people that wanted a Michael Bay type movie but with Godzilla in it.

            • Very solid points regarding the alleged ‘lack of screen time’ for Godzilla.

  15. In reply to Archaeon that was my opinion. I didn’t have the time to read all of the other reviews when i maid mine. I just wanted to give my review, So please don’t cry because someone else has a different opinion than yours, like you said its just an opinion. AND TO LK please tell me how you are comparing this movie to the one from 60 years ago. I mean lets be honest that was one of the first ones ever made. So please if your going to compare this movie with any of the others, make it one that’s been shown within the last 30 years at least. thank you.

    • Rick I’m with ya man. I think you may even liked it a little more than I did but that’s ok. I give it two stars and that’s being nice. So many problems with this film. I walked out of the theater feeling ripped off. I was lured in by the awesome trailers. If they make a sequel to this it’s gonna be a netflix night for me.

    • Ummm, rick…WHAT are you talking about? I was responding to TOHO’s babbling, not yours. I really could not care less about our difference of opinion…maybe YOUR tears confused you?

      You didn’t like the film…and?

    • Since when is there a rule stating you can’t compare movies if there’s more than a 30 year gap between them? Also, see response to IamGroot. I’ve said all I need to say on the matter there.

  16. IamGroot great post!

  17. Killer post IamGroot. I agree with what you said. This movie was sort of a letdown for me but I’m glad it was made. It helps keeps interest going in everything Godzilla related.

    My take about this movie is this – since the movie is called GODZILLA, I wanted it to be about Godzilla. It is not. He is not the main focus of this film. A film like this might have played better as a sequel, not the start of a reboot. Sure, his lack of screen time is an major problem but the lack of focus on Godzilla is an even bigger problem. People can spin this anyway they like, in my opinion Edwards and his writers dropped the ball on the story. I for one, wanted a GODZILLA STORY, not a Godzilla vs. Mutos story. That’s not what I paid to see. I know, Godzilla was not always the main focus in his other films but those films were not called, “Godzilla” either. They were Destroy All Monsters, Invasion of Astro-Monster and Terror of Mecha-Godzilla.
    The Mutos ruined this movie. Godzilla fighting the military, laying waste to cities would have been a much better film. I don’t know why they wanted to make him the hero. In a 1985 interview, legendary Toho producer Tomoyuki Tanaka said, “Changing Godzilla’s character and making him a hero was the biggest mistake of my career. It led to his decline and lower ticket sales”. Not learning from this gem of wisdom what did Edwards do? He made Godzilla into a hero, a protector of mankind. Duh.

    Another thing I noticed, people barely say Godzilla’s name in this movie. Ken Wantanabe says it in a kind of offhand fashion. Who else says his name? I hate to bring this up but the first utterance of Godzilla’s name was handled much better in the 1998 film.


    Let the b*tching begin…

    • Thanks for the kind words, Darklord, they’re appreciated; but it’s more like… let the b*tching continue. ScreenRANT is one site that lives up to the name, lol.

      • Very true, indeed!

  18. Just got home from seeing Godzilla. I didn’t see much that I didn’t find comical. First of all I couldn’t get past the bad wig the dad (or bad style if it was his own)was wearing 15 years later….made him look like he was someone left over from the 60′s. None of the characters were developed to where I cared if any of them died. If there is a Godzilla 2, please get someone who can write and direct. I wanted a transformer or Iron Man to come save the day….it would have been much more entertaining. This is just my opinion….other friends who saw it thought it was great.

  19. I’ve have a ripped copy from the internet and I still can’t bring myself to sit through this a second time.

  20. It was rubbish. I understand it was another Godzilla film and they have never been good but the way people are praising it… There is literally no difference to the old films apart from modern visual effects, which were very good I must admit. But everything else was cheesy and shallow with awful acting. All the lead female does is cry, and the lead male survives everything while everyone around him dies because plot… He’s also the only person in the World that has the skills to save the day… Riiight.
    Some old Japanese guy wanders around like he’s just sh#t his pants and drops the G bomb almost instantly to quickly get introductions out of the way…

    At the core it’s the usual America saves the day garbage even though Godzilla was originally inspired by the most evil terrorist attack ever conducted in the history of the World… One that was committed by Americans…

    I walked out of the cinema very disappointed but not at all surprised. Anyone who thought this was even close to 5 out of 5 stars would have to be a Zombie.

    • Holy **** kids. It is fine to not like the movie and if one can post a good argument for why they did not like it then all the better. But calling America’s dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki “the most evil terrorist attack…” is just plain stupid and ignorant the only “terrorist attack” committed by anyone outside of Germany was Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor which provoked America’s HUMANE military response. Why was it “humane”? Because without those two bombs being dropped we instead end up with 1,000 times the casualties and suffering over a protracted ground invasion for who knows how many more years.

      Don’t be a dumb ass.

      • And you call *him* a dumbass?
        How you can call the nuclear devastation of two large civilian (non-combatant) populations ‘humane’ is simply beyond me. The Japanese attacked a military installation after war had been declared and you label them terrorists? Also, are you saying that 9/11 wasn’t a terrorist attack?

        • The Japanese quite literally committed a terrorist attack on Pearl Harbor. America was not at war with Japan and neither they nor Japan had declared war on the other. They snuck a squadron of bombers over and attacked a population of people who were not preparing to do them any harm. Yamamoto may never have actually said the quote attributed to him by American movies (re: “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant” or some such) but he did openly fear that this was all they accomplished with their sneak attack on someone who was technically not the enemy (yet). Most in Japan recognized the shame they had brought on themselves by joining Hitler’s Axis and the shameful sneak attack on America and they have largely been an American-like Democracy ever since.

          What is more humane to you: dropping two atomic bombs on an enemy to end the war altogether or instead engaging in a long, drawn out ground war resulting in many millions more deaths and much more suffering? You seem Hell bent on dodging this point.

          Why would I not think 9/11 was a terrorist attack?! You are not making much sense here kiddo.

          • //the only “terrorist attack” committed by anyone outside of Germany was Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour//
            That strongly indicates that 9/11 wasn’t a terrorist attack. In fact, it flat out states it.
            The US and Japan WERE at war, but there was a breakdown in communication on the US side, so the soldiers at Pearl Harbour hadn’t learned that yet. The Japanese were fully aware that a state of war existed between them and the US.
            There is no way to know how long the war would have dragged out for or how many people have died, but I think the longer war would have been a lot more humane than slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, most of whom would have had no part in the war at all. Especially then proceeding to do so a second time a few days later.

            • False and please do not lie here, especially about what I said or didn’t say. We were talking about WWII, not 9-11 which happened 70+ years later.

              The US and Japan were NOT at war when Japan attacked. If Japan had declared war on us then we would have known about it and JAPAN themselves would have known (I mean beside the military folk who planned and executed the sneak attack). It was a terrorist attack and they know it and have known it since they did it which is why they were so apologetic about it. They sided with Adolph ****ing Hitler guy. You don’t get much more evil than that.

              And no, we most certainly CAN determine the range of casualties in a protracted ground war invasion of Japan and it is many, MANY times the “hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians” at a bare minimum. Yes, non-military civilians died during the atomic bomb attacks, just as a whole slew of innocents died during the Pearl Harbor attack and just as MILLIONS would have died in a ground assault.

              You seem to be completely unaware of these facts so I recommend reading a few books on the subject.

  21. This Godzilla movie was so bad, it made the 1998 version look like an exciting night of sex with a supermodel. While the 1998 version was dead guilty of trying to be a Jurassic Park killer, this version tried to be more like a typical Toho Godzilla Vs. movie. Which is good, except that it dropped the ball being so unbelievably boring, with way too much drama and pontificating on things that nobody cares about. Garett Edwards’ slow build up style worked well in Monsters and that works for things like Jaws where you’re waiting for a monster to show up at the climax, but this is freaking Godzilla. Everyone goes into this movie expecting Godzilla to curb stomp something. We don’t need all this baggage, show us the goods!

    I would like the director of The Host to do a Godzilla movie. That guy would do spectacular.

    • Plus, the good actors that it had were criminally wasted. The 1998 movie actually used Jean Reno and the other actors. The 2014 film had Bryan Cranston in it for 25 minutes, mostly so they could put him in the trailer and trick people into watching it by implying he was the main character.
      And then they had Ken Watanabe wandering around looking dazed and mumbling expository dialogue with absolutely no logic or reason behind it.

      • You’re right! The trailers were misleading as hell. Bait and switch my friend.

        • Again, you need to learn what “bait and switch” means BEFORE trying to use the term. You are embarrassing yourself here.

          Example of the ‘bait and switch’:

          A new mop brand advertises in their commercials that their mom can “absorb 100 gallons of moisture! You can mop up *this* 22 room mansion without filling a single bucket!”. But when people buy the mop and discover it is not much better than a dollar store mop the company says “Hey we never said you could mop up 100 gallons AT ONCE without ever using ANY bucket water. We just said you did not need to FILL the bucket…”

          The trailer you are still so butt-hurt over never said nor indicated this movie would be full of Godzilla non-stop destruction and how anyone could have inferred otherwise from THAT trailer is beyond me. What you are doing is akin to someone seeing a trailer for a new Star Trek movie which shows a shadowed, gravelly voiced and hooded face speaking a few lines and assuming that the trailer is saying that Emperor Palpatine will crossover and be in the next Star Trek.

          • Here comes Skelephony again. Dude, let it go. You’re tiresome. I couldn’t care less about YOUR definition of bait and switch. If you think the trailers weren’t misleading, fine. I’m happy for you. Now move along son, grown ups are talking.

            • I cannot take credit for THE correct usage of the term ‘bait and switch’. It has been in use as I have described it for decades now. That YOU were ignorant of the correct usage is no one’s fault but your own.

              Now go run along to your Pokemon fan sites and such kiddo.

              • The example you just used with the mop isn’t a bait-and-switch either, but going by the (incorrect) example you gave, implying Cranston is the lead in the trailers would be a bait-and-switch.
                Now, knowing the actual definition of bait-and-switch, using Cranston exclusively in the trailers wasn’t one, but it was deceptive and misleading.

                • Wrong on all points.

          • He is saying it was a bait and switch because of Bryan Cranston being in all of the trailers, implying that he was the main character, and then the movie plays and it’s like “Well, we may have featured him in all of the trailers to the exclusion of the real main character but we never said he was the main character.”
            Given the example you just gave, that is indeed a bait and switch.

            • You have not followed our exchange obviously and are taking wild and incorrect guesses at what he ‘really meant…’ as it were. He has said that he thought from watching the trailers that there would be Godzilla screen time and action akin to movies like Pacific Rim and other Godzilla movies. His objection had nothing at all to do with how much screen time Bryan Cranston had.
              But in any case it is the weakest argument either way! The quality of any movie cannot be rooted in how much screen time ANYONE in the movie has. AS LK explained above Godzilla is in the original 1954 film for less than 8 minutes. Alien is in the film “Alien” for just over 3 minutes, Jaws less than 5 minutes etc.

              • First, Darklord’s comment was in reply to my own comment about how it was misleading to imply Bryan Cranston was the main character in the trailers, so it seems that it is in fact you who has not been following the thread properly.
                Second, in Jaws, the whole point of it was that most of the time you cannot see it, as that is one of the scariest things about a shark. In aliens, nobody knew what the alien looked like, so they were keeping up the suspense. There have since been another five movies featuring the xenomorphs and none of them tried to pull the same trick, as they all knew it would be both unnecessary and ineffective. This was the 30th Godzilla movie. It may have been a re-imagining, but everybody knew that it would stick to the classic design and they all knew what Godzilla can do, so there was no reason to constantly hide Godzilla from the audience.

                • Darklord’s errant ‘bait and switch’ claims were being offered directly at ME long before you got into this kiddo so, again…follow the thread exchanges BEFORE commenting.

                  And seriously kiddo, you honestly do not see that withholding Godzilla made all the sense in the world for the same reasons it did for Jaws, Alien (and any potential remakes of those films)? You honestly do not understand that people were anxious to see this ‘new’ Godzilla, particularly after the disaster of the 1998 re-imagining?! This is the reason those posters showing the barest indication of Godzilla’s spinal plates coming out of the water was so effective.

                  This was the first time Godzilla would actually get the blockbuster treatment (CGI etc.) without radically redesigning him the way Emmerich did in 1998 and people were anxious. It does not matter how familiar you are with Godzilla. Most people know what a big shark looks like too but Spielberg knew it was best to keep the shark from view for the most part until the second half of the movie.

    • Mochan – I agree with you 100%! I’ve been saying this too but some here just don’t get it.

    • Mochan – great post young grasshopper. I would like to see Bong Joon-ho (director of the Host) give a Godzilla film a try. I’m sure we would be much better than Edwards.

      • When I first read his comment, I thought he was referring to the film based on the book by Stephanie Meyer. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
        *sighs in relief*

        • No prob. Be sure to check out The Host (2006). It’s a pretty good monster film from Korea.

  22. If you wanted wanted a Godzilla movie full of action and screen time. This isn’t it. If you’re looking for a movie that’s worthy of having Godzilla name as the title. Still no dice. If you’re looking for an updated Godzilla vs. (insert monster), bingo! That’s exactly what we have here. Legendary claimed they were going back to Godzilla’s roots. Really? What roots? Godzilla vs. Megalon roots? Godzilla vs. Hedorah? It certainly wasn’t the first movie. This movie has more in common with Godzilla’s weaker films of the 70′s. Better yet it’s even more like that bad Godzilla cartoon from 1978, you know, the one with Godzooky. If I’m going too far back for some you. Look it up on Youtube.

    • The cartoon you are thinking of was the “Godzilla Power Hour”. Not only did it give us Godzooky but the theme song asserted that Godzilla was “40 stories high…” which may have fed the notion that Godzilla was 400′ tall in all of his incarnations (something akin to what I was guilty of earlier).

      Also you are using hyperbole to make your point.

  23. Skeletony – Hyperbole? That’s your opinion. I see you have a big love for this movie, and defending it every chance you get. I hope you and Gareth Edwards are happy together.

    Godzilla 2014 was nothing more than a live version of the 1978 NBC cartoon. I for one, was gearing up to buy merchandise from this movie but when I finally saw it, it was an utter a disappointment. I will not be buying anything connected with this movie. I’m sorry. It was a big CGI fueled let down. Not because it wasn’t a Michael Bay slugfest, I never expected that. I just wanted the movie to be about GODZILLA and it wasn’t. While sitting in the theater and watching this “Godzilla as hero” abomination I was reminded a scene from Godzilla vs. Megalon, where the two inventors tell the robot Jet Jaguar to “Get Godzilla”, to save the day. Oh brother. Spin this anyway you like. It won’t change a thing.

    By the way, the notion of Godzilla being 400′ high was started in Godzilla (1956) US dub with Raymond Burr.

    • No, hyperbole is not in this case a matter of opinion (and what is with you kids these days thinking that tossing the word “opinion” at anything you don’t want to hear somehow refutes the argument/points?!). When you say:

      “This movie has more in common with Godzilla’s weaker films of the 70′s. Better yet it’s even more like that bad Godzilla cartoon from 1978, you know, the one with Godzooky.” – fred h

      This is quite literally hyperbole and it would be difficult to achieve any greater degree of hyperbole. You know this and I know this so let’s not play baby games here junior.

      It is possible that in the American dubbed version (of the 1954 film, not 1956) Raymond Burr does assert that Godzilla is 400′ tall. I have not watched that movie in a LONG time so I cannot say. But I do know that the idea of Godzilla being even over 300′ tall did not gain steam until the 1970s due to inconsistencies within the movies as well as the American cartoon.

      • Nobody cares about this ‘bait and switch’ nonsense. I feel the film didn’t deliver what the trailer promised… But it’s over now. Also… Most people haven’t seen the TOHO films so no comparison can be made. Skeletony, I get it. You liked the movie. Good for you. Technically you win because it’s always better to like something than not and it’s awesome that Godzillla delivered for you. Stop accusing people that don’t agree with you of being children. I’m a very easily entertained 33 year old man…you could dangle a set of car keys in front of me and I’d probably clap and cheer for a least ten minutes. This doesn’t just apply to blockbusters…. I loved only god forgives and that’s 90 minutes of a mute ryan gosling staring at pink wallpaper. I PERSONALLY THINK Godzilla is the worst blockbuster of the last 10 years… Yet John Carter and The Lone Ranger flop. Crazy in my opinion

        • AGAIN, I have not seen this film. I do not (yet at least) “like this film”. And NO, I do not win because it is better to like something than dislike it(?!? How does THAT work? Is it better to like Nazism than dislike it? Is it better to think Ed Wood was a genius than to rightly conclude he was not good at film making?).

          John Carter did not do well because a) That almost pulp fiction era of science fiction literature holds less appeal for modern audiences in general and b) the makers of this film strayed enough from the source that they alienated the actual fans of ‘Warlord of Mars’ books. The Lone Ranger bombed because by all accounts it was a terrible movie.

          You being so “easily entertained” is the exact problem we have here and the reason why Michael Bay owns the box office. Bay quite literally ‘dangl;es keys’ in front of people who do not know any better rather than putting any thought into his movies. You cannot seriously blame the rest of us for not being so easily entertained and wanting to see more complex, believable stuff than what is being delivered in ‘The Fast and the Furious’ type schlock.

          • You’re obviously in a different intelligence category than I am. I can’t hope to match the lightning wit of Skeletony: King of the Godzilla review thread (a film he hasn’t seen). I’m gonna go hang out with my wife now…. Also, Fast and Furious 5 and 6, fun movies!

            • Yeah, Fast and Furious are probably a joy as long as you are “easily entertained” and do not have the wit to see the problems with it.

              Have fun.

              • Well done, you’ve proven that you can both read and relay information back to somebody. The fact remains that you haven’t seen Godzilla. Have you seen Dawn of the Planet of the Apes? I don’t see you on any of the other threads…… I wanna hear your opinions on a movie you’ve actually seen. How’s 2014 shaping up for you? What’re your top 5 films so far? Let’s try and ween some positivity outta your sourpuss.

                • These are the movies I’ve paid to see so far this year from best to worst-

                  Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
                  Captain America: The Winter Soldier
                  The Lego Movie
                  The Amazing Spider-Man 2
                  X-Men: Days of Future Past
                  Bad Neighbors
                  Edge of Tomorrow
                  The Fault in Our Stars
                  Peabody and Sherman
                  Transformers 4: Age of Extinction
                  Need for Speed
                  The Other Woman

                • Another great post Mark! He is kind of a sourpuss.

                • Thought you were done with our discussion Mark?


                  Why on earth do you presuppose that any rational human being should find “positivity” in ANY movie, let alone many or most of them? Contrary to your characterization of me I can and do find positive things even in horrible movies but the fact is that over 90% of all movies are just bad. Badly written. Badly directed and often with absurd plot lines.
                  You can go ahead and call me a cynic or a ‘hater’ or a “sourpuss” or whatever makes you feel better but it won’t make these movies any better or worse.
                  My involvement in this thread was solely about the absurd arguments I was seeing from kids here and had nothing at all to do with whether Godzilla was a good or bad movie. Why did I land at the Godzilla thread and not all the other movies where people posted fallacious arguments in their reviews? Because first of all I am an old time Godzilla fan since I was a child and ended up here while searching for some reviews to see if I wanted to plop down $20 to see this.
                  Unlike you I am hesitant to give my money to Hollywood when they are basically just shoving out complete crap like Transformers, Fast and Furious, Cop Out, etc.
                  I am one of those guys who, unlike most people I spot every single error and absurdity in a movie. Every badly delivered line, plot hole, cliche’, exchange of bad dialog etc. This makes watching most movies a real pain for me. While my friends are on the edge of their seats watching Shia LeBouf run from a transforming car I am sitting there saying “So help me if those two dogs break that tow chain from the wall and start chasing him I am going to walk out.”. When everyone else is marveling at Heath Ledger’s Joker performance (and rightly so as he was brilliant) I am there asking myself how he backed a bus into the bank when there was literally no way he could have done that since the street outside was at a 90 degree angle to the bank’s entrance and there was no room for such a maneuver.

                  Most of the time little errors like the Joker-bank one above are easily overlooked for an otherwise good movie but when they are really BIG errors like we see in every Fast and Furious or Transformers movie, I cannot abide.

                  It may be that Godzilla is approaching Transformers in quality more so than ‘In the Bedroom’ or some such but I will find out when the movie comes to DVD I guess. But if that is the case my review won’t be: ‘Not enuff ‘splozions! This suppose to be Godzilla so whar’s the destructions?!’ like most of the reviews in this thread.

                  Now I have said all this in the hopes that you will at least have a better understanding of where I am coming from here but if you would rather just write me off as a “sourpuss” or some such then so be it.

                  Take care.

      • SkeleTony your opinion on my take of this film doesn’t change a thing.

        One thing I’ve notice from reading some your annoying rants is that you’re a counter puncher. You never post your own views first on how much you like this film. All our posts are reactions to other peoples points of view when they differ from your own. Your deal is to sit back and wait for someone else to express
        their opinion then you swoop in like a dark cloud and try to rain on their parade by telling them how wrong they are or how you’ve “debunked” them. You’re not an authority here, junior. No matter how much you like to think so. You operate from a position of weakness, kiddo. At least the other people here have the balls to say WHY they like or don’t like this film. You just like telling people that their opinions are wrong.

        • Holy s***! Someone just got PWNED! Fred you hit the nail right on the head! Bravo!! I couldn’t have said it better myself. SkeleTony is definitely the most annoying guy here and that’s a FACT.

          • *Chuckle* See why you shouldn’t be so quick to declare ‘ownage’ now kiddo? You did not read the thread either, nor did you even have the sense about you to wait for me to respond and now you look silly.

        • ROTFLMFAO! Wow…I mean WOW! I was just wondering how many times I was going to have to say “I did NOT SEE THIS FILM YET!” before someone caught on and stopped saying “SkeleTony, you obviously love this film but I did not so…”.

          AGAIN, my whole issue in this thread is with the (lack of) ARGUMENTS or reasoning for why many do not like this film. Since I started my involvement we are seeing a bit less of the ‘This movie is teh sucked because not enuff action/explozions’ and some actual reasoning. A few people who disliked this film have gotten praise from me for at least writing a sensible argument for why they did not like it but everyone ignores that in their dedication to portray me as some kind of miscreant.

          Yes, I am a “counter puncher” in that I at least listen to claims, arguments and evidence and then I respond by either agreeing with the argument or posting my issues with said argument.

          I hope the film is at least tolerable if not good but I have no dog in this fight as pretty much every other Godzilla movie has been very bad (including the 1954 original though we give it more slack because of the time it was produced).

          Also, if you feel this overpowering urge to try and insult me then go right ahead but when you just copy what I said to others who were behaving childishly…it doesn’t work. It just looks like you did not have the wit to engage in this insult business you wanted so badly to get in on so you just repeated what someone else said.

          See this is why I keep telling you guys to READ THE THREAD before assuming things about me. ;)

        • Incredible post Fred! I’m with you 100%! You summed up SkeleTony’s little game in a nutshell! That guy definitely has a Godzilla sized chip on his shoulder.

        • Hey Fred h – Thank you for finally saying what we’ve all been thinking! You knocked it out of the park brotha!

          • Heh…it’s like a Tea Party convention in here.

            “We with double digit IQ need to ban together against those schooled folk who think they know somethin’!” – Paraphrasing Darklord and Brian’s cheer leading.

            I don’t think your cheers are going to help Fred h. out here. He got exposed because he wasn’t paying attention.

          • Toho, Brian, Darklord thanks for the support. I think it’s obvious that SkeleTony is a little jealous and unnerved that no one is rushing to back him up on his tiresome posts. He has no friends here. I had no ideal that he hadn’t even bothered to see Godzilla and yet he tries to critiques everyone’s opinion of the movie. How dumb is that????? HE’S JUST ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING. Someone craves verbal combat and drama just like a woman. SkeleToni, I know you’re reading this, are you really a female? It’s ok if you are. That would explain a lot. I don’t even think that you like Godzilla movies. Why are you even here? You have nothing to say about his film. Any Godzilla fan worth his salt would have crawled to the theater on opening week to see this film. You didn’t. You’d rather write these self-aggrandizing diatribes trying to belittle any view that is contradictory to your own about a movie that you haven’t even seen. Wow! How stupid is that? Maybe you’re too afraid to leave your parents basement. You gotta get out more kiddo.

            • Fred, another stellar post! I can’t stop laughing! I think you just exposed someone, BIG TIME! I didn’t know that Mr. Annoying was really a chick. Holy cow! Batman!

              • Listen youngsters; I was a little like you when I was a teenager. Reluctant to admit being wrong, though not to the extent you guys go to here, but seriously if you are down to just calling me a ‘girl’ or some variation on that then I guess that is your concession to this debate and I will mosey on.

                freh h (I should have figured that if you cannot capitalize your own name then I was probably in for this sort of nonsense), when you have no response to points made then resorting to the Ad Hominem fallacy just makes you look childish. Doing so for entire paragraphs is pathetic.

                Also, the straw man is another fallacy. A single fallacy can invalidate your argument but relying on many fallacies is the poorest way to go out.

                Take care.

  24. Worst “blockbuster” of the last 20 years. That includes Batman and Robin. Not trolling, it’s just the way I feel. You could show me ‘clouds moving gradually’ or ‘paint drying slowly’ or ‘grass is growing’ or ‘the sun is setting’ or ‘the joy of endless endless endless sand’ and I’d be more entertained.

    • Thank you Mark! Very true.

  25. A view similar to mine about Godzilla 2014.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!