Film Review: ‘Godzilla’

Banal characters leave scarcely enough screen time for Godzilla himself in Gareth Edwards' effects-driven reboot.

Someone should tell Warner Bros. that when they’ve got a presence as big as Godzilla, they don’t need movie stars, because frankly, who remembers the characters in a rampaging-kaiju movie anyway? Still, just to be safe, the studio has stuffed Gareth Edwards’ deafening, effects-driven reboot with an Oscar winner (Juliette Binoche), three Oscar nominees (Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins and David Strathairn), an Emmy winner (Bryan Cranston) and an Olsen sister, leaving scarcely enough screen time for the monster itself. Worldwide B.O. will be massive when “Godzilla” stomps into theaters beginning May 14, bound to crush the $379 million earned by Sony’s underwhelming 1998 version.

As risky decisions go, entrusting microbudget “Monsters” director Edwards to helm a $160 million tentpole — Warners’ first Godzilla pic since acquiring the character rights from Toho in 2010 — looks downright sensible in retrospect, as the filmmaker makes good on his ability to conjure enormous scope and scale via clever staging and visual effects. If anything, it was “Monsters’” stilted live-action bits that left something to be desired, which might explain why Edwards has overcompensated so drastically when it comes to the human performances this time around.

It takes nearly an hour for Godzilla to make his entrance in a film that begins with lots of hyper-secretive government types debating seismic activity that can only point to one thing: enormous prehistoric creatures awakened from their millennia-long slumber. Where traditional Godzilla lore presented the monster as a warning against nuclear proliferation after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this revisionist version suggests “all those nuclear tests” the U.S. conducted in the Pacific between 1946 and 1962 weren’t tests, but an effort to contain a giant amphibious dinosaur. This time, it’s Filipino mining that stirs a giant MUTO — or “Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism.”

In a “Jurassic Park”-like prologue, two scientists (Watanabe and Hawkins) helicopter into a huge computer-generated quarry, where they discover two perfectly preserved, chrysalis-shaped pods attached to an enormous skeleton. One of the sacs has ruptured, with whatever escaped digging a messy trail to the sea. The other is taken back to the States for further study, conveniently close to Las Vegas.

Meanwhile, in Tokyo, Joe Brody (Cranston, hyperventilating in a crazy-person wig) and his wife, Sandra (Binoche), live a short drive from the computer-generated nuclear facility where they both work. Whatever busted loose in the Philippines craves radioactive energy, a compulsion at least as strong as the one driving screenwriter Max Borenstein to work character development into a franchise where humans have traditionally been glorified ants. Tragedy strikes, nuclear reactors implode and the couple’s son Ford is left partly parentless and, oddly, ultra-disciplined.

The story picks up again 15 years later with Ford (“Kick-Ass” star Aaron Taylor-Johnson, no longer a skinny John Lennon lookalike) serving as an explosive ordnance disposal jockey for the U.S. Navy — a job that makes him uniquely qualified to defuse the ticking atomic device that threatens to blow San Francisco off the map in the third act. Speaking of bombs, Edwards and his team seem desperate to distance their “Godzilla” from 1998’s Roland Emmerich-directed disappointment, which treated attack by giant Gila monster as yet another disaster-movie premise. Instead, Edwards cribs from the Spielberg playbook, where it’s not the big-picture threat of nuclear power but the more intimate threats to the nuclear family at stake, while anticipation for a long-delayed group hug fuels the narrative.

This latest “Godzilla” shifts the theater of operations from Manhattan to the Pacific Ocean, where monsters are free to pillage the coasts of Japan and California alike, but repeats Emmerich’s most common mistake by focusing on a relatively banal group of characters. Yes, it would help to get a “Godzilla” with interesting humans for a change, but failing that, there’s no shame in putting the reptile front and center.

Edwards seems to have miscalculated our investment in his cast (including Elizabeth Olsen, uncharacteristically bland as Ford’s wife), simultaneously underestimating how satisfying some good old-fashioned monster-on-MUTO action can be. The hero of any Godzilla movie is — or should always be — Godzilla, and this one presents the mighty dino as a sort of scaly Shane: When big radioactive bullies start throwing their weight around, he lumbers out of the deep to defend the helpless, then rides off into the distance every bit as mysterious after the deed is done.

At first, the humans are terrified by the lizard’s appearance, but soon enough they come around, embracing the philosophy that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” or, as Watanabe puts it, “The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control and not the other way around. Let them fight!” That would be splendid advice for the filmmakers to heed as well, since we often get the sense that while the movie is distracted by what the people are doing, a terrific battle is raging somewhere else in the city — the mere sound of which (in its bass-blasting, “Dark Knight”-indebted way) threatens to bring the theater crumbling down around us.

No previous Godzilla movie has worried much about the issue of plausibility (the most obvious exception being the unofficial kaiju epic “Cloverfield,” which went the found-footage route in trying to pass things off as “real”), but it seems to be an almost crippling concern here. The creative team spends entirely too much time attempting to treat the threat as authentic, resorting to myriad tricks even when audiences would be more than willing to suspend their disbelief: Nearly all the significant monster scenes happen at night; much of the creature footage is shown either directly from a human p.o.v. (like the shot seen through Ford’s facemask as he skydives past Godzilla) or over their shoulders from ground level (as when closing bomb-shelter doors obscure a particularly juicy bout); and TV monitors in most locations broadcast eyewitness footage of cities under siege.

Godzilla movies, like wrestling matches, are ultimately judged by the quality of the mayhem, and Edwards excels at blowing things up. Though some of the first visual effects we see onscreen (the Filipino mine, the Japanese nuclear plant) look phony, especially projected in post-converted 3D, the creature effects are terrific, using phosphorescent accents — glowing gold for the MUTOs, blue fire for Godzilla — to make the monsters look even more menacing after dark. And though the film banishes most of their fighting to the background, the visual effects crew at MPC made an inspired choice in using motion-capture humans as a reference for Godzilla’s hand-animated performance, thereby updating the lo-fi, B-movie tradition in which audiences charitably forgot that they were cheering for a guy in a rubber suit stomping through a cardboard city.

Film Review: 'Godzilla'

Reviewed at Warner Bros. screening room, Paris, May 7, 2014. MPAA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 123 MIN.


A Warner Bros. release presented with Legendary Pictures of a Legendary Pictures production. Produced by Thomas Tull, Jon Jashni, Mary Parent, Brian Rogers. Executive producers, Patricia Whitcher, Alex Garcia, Yoshimitsu Banno, Kenji Okuhira. Co-producer, Bob Ducsay.


Directed by Gareth Edwards. Screenplay, Max Borenstein; story, David Callaham. Camera (color, widescreen, 3D), Seamus McGarvey; editor, Bob Ducsay; music, Alexandre Desplat; music supervisor, Dave Jordan; production designer, Owen Paterson; supervising art director, Grant Van Der Slagt; art directors, Dan Hermansen, Ross Dempster, Kirsten Franson; set decorator, Elizabeth Wilcox; costume designer, Sharen Davis; sound (Dolby Digital/Datasat), Michael McGee; sound designers, Erik Aadahl, Ethan Van Der Ryn; re-recording mixers, Tim Leblanc, Gregg Landaker, Rick Kline; special effects coordinator, Joel Whist; visual effects supervisor, Jim Rygiel; visual effects producer, Allen Maris; visual effects, MPC, Double Negative, Pixel Pirates, Scanline VFX Vancouver/Los Angeles, Hammerhead Prods., Pixel Playground; creature design, Legacy Effects, Steambot Studios; performance capture consultant, Andy Serkis, Imaginarium Studios; stunt coordinators, John Stoneham, Jake Mervine; 3D conversion, Stereo D; head of stereography, Graham D. Clark; associate producers, Shannon Triplett, Leeann Stonebreaker, Jim Rowe, Martin Cohen; assistant director, Alex Gayner; second unit director, EJ Foerster; second unit camera, Roger Vernon; casting, Sarah Halley Finn.


Aaron Taylor-Johnson, CJ Adams, Ken Watanabe, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen, Carson Bolde, Sally Hawkins, Juliette Binoche, David Strathairn, Richard J. Jones, Victor Rasuk. (English, Japanese dialogue)

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 63

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Dogg says:

    i was somewhat entertained by this Production; it’s a Monster Movie. Feature the MONSTERS! Saw so little time of Godzilla in this 2hr+ Production, and Godzilla wasn’t as clever, with attitude, or savagely brilliant & brutal in his attacks till the very last scene of fighting. And what a very SSSSSSSSSLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW build-up to FINALLY using his atomic-like fire-breath! I wanted to see GODZILLA far more than the military & CNN, but it was appreciated for the multimedia fiasco.

    I do have to ask though, Didn’t somebody – ANYBODY – notice the HUGE GAPING HOLES the newborn MUTU’s made in the side of a MOUNTAIN, both in Japan or Las Vegas-?!?!?!? ..Anyone..? Anyone…? Beuller?

    • therealeverton says:

      A Monster Movie really does NOT have to feature the monsters for the majority of the time. Their effects, their presence, unseen, and people’s reactions to them are what you get in the classics and the “first” instalments. Even in Jaws, where the final section is 100% them hunting the shark, you see it scarcely. King Kong doesn’t appear for some time, in either the original or P Jackson versions.

      Similar in Alien and many others The Thing from Another World etc.. The film is inn good company when trying to be the “anti-Transformers”. Build up the tension, build up the action and tease the monster through the devastation. A little restraint is welcome these days, but sure, not everyone will like that; but it is classic Monster movie making.

    • therealeverton says:

      I’d have to see it again, but the impression I had at the time was that there was nobody to notice the holes. They had very recently happened, a matter of hours at most and it wasn’t as if they were in the centre of town. When I see it again I may find that I had that wrong, but it did seem that way at the time.

  2. I’d never seen a good movie with the word “Godzilla” in the title. Now, I have seen a good one.

  3. Cliff Johnson says:

    You have a critic’s eye to be sure. But as a historian, you might want to look at the original Godzilla, Rodan, and the subsequent “versus” film. In both intro films, the characters were important as representative of human psyches when presented with repercussions of our hubris.
    In the current film, the human element is presented to ensure appreciation of Godzilla as a “savior”. Reinforcining the Japanese mythology since the 1970s. If there was a serious fault, it would have been time constraints for character development; which is a flaw in most giant creature movies.

  4. Steve Martin says:

    The first part of the film was surprisingly compelling, with a tinge of mystery. After the first monster appeared it turned into a lousy cartoon, with a few good technical effects. That’s not enough to make it interesting. I certainly would not recommend this movie to anyone who has seen “Gojira.”

    • Bobby K says:

      Number One: Godzilla’s head was way too small. 2. Although a big fan of Cranston, that whole part was unnecessary and didn’t help the movie. 3. The little Japanese kid? 4. Not enough Godzilla. 5. The other monsters were so-so. 6. The Cool stuff: Godzilla bashing the bad monsters. All the military stuff. Overall, I give it a B-, only because I appreciate the concept, effort, and scale.

  5. lavafire1 says:

    I thought it was a really good movie the only problem that I thought there was. Is that Godzilla was a bit to big, I guess they were trying to go with the original idea of Godzilla looking part Gorilla and part whale so I wasn’t at all disappointed by the movie

  6. Relentless Vidtrekker says:

    A real waste of time. The film was murky, dark as was the storyline. The dialog was largely unintelligible and devoid of any real emotion (save Cranston). The acting from most of the principles was wooden and cliche ridden. With all the CGI expended on the film, it was no more exciting than the rubber suit predecessors. The only thing the film makers got right was the trailer that successfully piqued more interest than this film deserved. No sequels, please!

  7. Jay says:

    Look this movie too me was okay. But as far as to call it Godzilla I don’t think so. I grew up at 4 years old watching Godzilla, you first made the picture to dark, second the blue flame sound should have been similar to old Godzilla, third I think it should be called hogzilla like the Japanese are saying. I mean really all you had to do is thin his neck and ass. Let’s say really 45 min till you actually see him the creatures he faught look stupid an when Godzilla went down what happen it’s so dam dark I can’t tell. Big fan of Godzilla saw everyone this in my book is not Godzilla maybe a Zola of something.

  8. Steve C. says:

    Dear God, what an absolutely awful movie.

  9. BDC2 says:

    Not enough character development in a Monster movie? Who woulda thunk? It was a great update to a classic. See a romatic comedy for lovable in-depth character potrayals……and lots of yawns and courtesy laughs. See Godzilla for fun, monsters and mayhem.

  10. ric says:

    One of the worst movie I have ever seen. It was an ordeal watching it though its 2-hour run. The drama and the action did not meld well. It was corny.

  11. Dale says:

    I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. I will admit when the humans were front and center, I was desperately wishing for less people and more Godzilla.

  12. Paul says:

    This reviewer should never write again. What an a-hole. People read reviews to know if the should watch the movie. Not for a complete freaking synopsis. The movie was ruined for anyone who read this. Just atrocious.

  13. harry georgatos says:

    This was better then I thought it will be. Far better then the Emmerich atrocity. Basically the director Gareth Edwards is reworking his non-budget cult-classic MONSTERS. At times it feels like I’m once again sitting in the cinema watching MONSTERS. At the end of the day this is a really good Godzilla movie and the director really understands these movies better then what Emmerich gave us. This director really knows how to create atmosphere, and an end of the world scenario on the brink of collapse.

  14. RAClements says:

    For the record, I’m not intending to see this movie on the big screen, I’m happy to wait for the DVD. But this is an appaling review.
    Just saying ‘this happens and then this happens and then this happens’ is not a review. It is a lazy way to get to your word count, as well as spoilering the movie for people who care.

  15. Do you really think it’s necessary or funny to put ‘computer generated’ in front of whatever noun you are describing? You act like you are upset they used CG instead of actually demolishing a nuclear facility or that Godzilla isn’t truly real. This is probably the first review I’ve read where someone acted like they genuinely did not like the film. Based on your ‘critiques’, you sound way too uptight to enjoy a movie like this regardless of who was directing it. Some people just can’t go to the movies anymore and enjoy themselves.

  16. What a terrible review! Totally spoiled any anticipation… the entire review is a reiteration of the plot! That’s not what reviews are for. Tell me about the filmmaking; don’t just fill up space recounting the story. Whereas the trailer was magnificent in the opposite. It revealed nothing and made me want to see the pic.

  17. cxg says:

    Despite this lame review, I can’t wait to see this film. BUT I will be mildly disappointed if Godzilla looks exactly like the T-Rex from Jurassic Park. The original rubber suit Godzilla always looked just a little cuddly-ish which made him even more the hero.

    • therealeverton says:

      I know what you mean, but the Original Godzilla wasn’t cuddly, he was as scary as was possible for the period, especially with thee Black & White.

      He wasn’t the hero until the 5th film, and even then he actually refused to help save the world as he didn’t like people, until Mothra’s courage in fighting a much more powerful monster alone shames him into joining in.

      Thee 2nd and 3rd series of Godzilla films made Godzilla look much fiercer than the first set, I think this film falls somewhere in between, but they were definitely careful to avoid a rounded head,, as that does tend to make animals seem “cuter”.

  18. Joe says:

    This was hardly a review. Debruge fails to state any indication of the quality of the movie or his level of enjoyment from it. I rate this review 3/10.

  19. Jason M says:

    I believe monster movies should be more than a dumb action fest. Personally, I am happy this Godzilla is not some brainless monster mash.

  20. Reblogged this on HORROR BOOM and commented:
    You know, this is only the second ‘mixed’ review I’ve seen (Dread Central loved it–said it wasn’t perfect, but any flaws could be forgiven just for the geek-gasm fans will get seeing this Godzilla actually breathe fire)

  21. Jackie says:

    Adjusted for inflation the 1998 movie made more like $600. That was before widespread IMAX usage and no 3D premium. It’s not quite the failure you make it out to be. You also don’t seem to know what you really want to say. You praise and attack the cgi mayhem. One gets the feeling you were never going to “get” this movie.

  22. Asok Smith says:

    I’m pretty much done with CGIed movies. The last couple have been so awful we’ve walked out before they were half over. Almost non-existent story, pathetic dialog, and lame acting.

    How about some more movies like “Silver Linings Playbook”? Cost $21,000,000 to make and grossed $132,000,000 at the box office.

    • Jackie Jormpjomp says:

      Nothing against Silver Linings Playbook but if every or even most movies were similar to that flick the world would really suck.

    • therealeverton says:

      Because people want ALL kinds of films. They aren’t cancelling Silver linings type films to make this????

    • chvad says:

      How about that doesn’t have Godzilla? How about you post something remotely close to relevant.

  23. rocky-o says:

    rotten tomatoes considered this a ‘good review’?…man, i’d hate to see a bad review…this is why i don’t pay attention to rotten tomatoes…just a bunch of hacks listening to other hacks hacking up idiotic thoughts so that crap like ‘man of steel’ can try and make it plausible to have a sequel…and for the person who said this film (godzilla) was gonna bomb, define ‘bomb’…according to reviews, it looks like “spider man 2” is a ‘bomb’, yet it will still bring in a gazillion dollars, which the studio (and most of the world) will view as a success…very few care about ‘art’ anymore…if you’re looking for a movie that isn’t a ‘bomb’, then stay away from the multiplex theatres and check out a little art cinema…there your spirit can feel hope again…

    • “Man of Steel” got a 56% on the Tomatometer, which makes it “rotten,” and therefore bad by RottenTomatoes standards. How is that supposed to help it get a sequel?

  24. Godzilla says:

    the same critics love all the cheesy super hero movies we’ve been bombarded with lately because they are so plausible. In real life can beat Scarlette Johanson to death in about 5 seconds.

  25. Chvad SB says:

    ” because frankly, who remembers the characters in a rampaging-kaiju movie anyway?”

    I stopped reading the review here. Raymond Burr much? Not to mention a number of notable Asian actors over the years. But you wouldn’t be bothered to remember them either I’m sure. If the rest of the review was half as poorly stated as the first sentence I’m sure I’m not missing much.

    • therealeverton says:

      Mate, that is possibly the least asinine thing in the review, it genuinely does get worse, even more ignorant, if you can believe that.

      • therealeverton says:

        Mrs. Horror Boom

        Critics that complain about loud noise in films like this should be barred. It’s loud, and…?

      • I agree completely, Also, he complains twice about the ‘deafening soundtrack’. How is THAT relevant to the movie’s quality and entertainment value? Dude, if it bothers you that much, bring a set of earplugs with you to screenings and quit bitching. Also, when it comes to insulting Bryan Cranston’s acting, my advice would be to tread lightly. The whole review just drips with disdain and ignorance, along with a snotty tone. Also, he says “Speaking of bombs, Edwards and his team seem desperate to distance their “Godzilla” from 1998’s Roland Emmerich-directed disappointment” like that’s a bad thing. I mean, I guess his perceived ‘desperation’ sounds bad, but really? The movie tries to go a different route from that horrible shiteshow? Fine with me. I’m still psyched up and have read reviews written by fans of monster movies who admit it’s not perfect, but still had a blast.

  26. Jeff says:

    This movie is going to Bomb. Big time.

    • Shaheed says:

      Saw the movie last night. It will not bomb. It was actually a good movie. My daughter enjoyed and she’s not a Godzilla fan. She wants to see it again.

    • therealeverton says:

      You seriously think a Godzilla film, with the extra boost of Pacific Rim putting “Kaiju” films back into global minds (or there for the first time) won’t get $450m or more? Even with X-Men and Maleficent opening 1 & 2 weeks after this there’s no way this film will miss that mark. The awful film from made the equivalent of $600m+, Even with stiffer competition this will at least hit the break even point of $450m, especially with IMAX & 3D. X-Men will hurt it for sure, but it won”t bomb,and definitely not hard.

  27. JoeE says:

    Yeah, this was pretty bad. Not as bad as the Matthew Broderick version. Nothing is as bad as that. But this was just a complete waste of time. Don’t understand why they don’t remake Monster Zero and have Godzilla fight off an alien invasion or King Ghidera or something. Like the reviewer said, Godzilla should be the hero.

    • therealeverton says:

      Well after Sony’s 1998 film Toho announced that th monster in that film was NOT eve Godzilla; they renamed it Zilla.

      Here the head of Toho said this was the Godzilla of his childhood. So it seems they got this right.

      Why should Godzilla be the hero? He’s been a force of nature (neither enemy, nor friend, and the actual enemy in more films than he’s been the hero. As this is meant to be the “first” film then it’s “lucky” he isn’t the direct enemy, as he was in the Toho restarts and the first 3 of the first 4 films. Even in many of the films where he “saved” us he was a reluctant anti-hero deciding the new Kaiju where more of a threat to him than we were; or basically just going home after winning a fight, rather than trampling another city.

  28. Daniel Garrett Irwin says:

    I don’t care what the critics think. The new Godzilla will kick ass, fair and square. Pacific Rim better take notes!

  29. valhallaarwen says:

    I plan on seeing this movie regardless of what this or anyone else have to say. I have wanted to see a real Godzilla movie since the real ones from Japan (I don’t count the ones in the 90’s) they suck. But I know this director doesn’t like Godzilla because he seems to be upset that the action does not take place in New York. Anyone who knows anything about Godzilla would know that 99% of the older movies take place in Japan which near the pacific ocean so wouldn’t it make sense for the new movies to take place near the pacific if Godzilla was going to come to America? And as for the star of the movie, duh, it’s Godzilla. I don’t need stars, I need Godzilla and what he will do.

  30. marinh says:

    Why not use A-list talent? What are we saving them for? Mom’s Night Out?

    • therealeverton says:

      What they have used is quality talent, which is sometimes preferable. But more to the point the film has cost $160m and by using quality, award level talent, they get enough recognisable faces, and respected, around the globe, without having to take money away from the film’s real star Godzilla and the effects that it will take to make a film like this look good.

      This way you get a decent, but not irresponsible budget

  31. rocky-o says:

    the problem with most films, and film audiences, nowadays, is their expectation for ‘stuff to happen’ immediately…older films explored the human aspect of stories before getting into the supposed ‘action’ of the piece…(for a reference…check out “the poseidon adventure” versus its latter-day counterpart, “poseidon”)…most (and i stress most, not all) people don’t have the patience nowadays to actually listen to dialogue…they don’t care ‘who’ dies, just as long as ‘someone’ dies, or something gets blown-up, destroyed, cgi-fied mayhem with very little storyline…(for that reference, check out “man of steel”…no wait…please don’t bother…i wouldn’t want you to have to put yourself through that…)…but, you get the point…

    • therealeverton says:

      Part of the problem here is that you get reviewers, falsely it seems, moaning about the lack of characters and too many explosions and effects instead, or adhering to formula. Then, whenever a “big” film does do this you get complaints.

      (And yes ironically by keeping the big guy largely OFF the screen for so long it is keeping to the conventions of 1st monster films, like Gojira, Godzilla 1984, Jaws, King Kong, Jurassic Park and so on)

      • Godzilla says:

        Look at all the awful Transformer movies that blow their wad five minutes in then have no where to go and we’re stuck with 2 hours of blurry special effects Micheal Bay style.

  32. Your ignorance of what makes a Godzilla film, let alone a rampaging Kaiju film is astounding. The ‘star’ monster not appearing for long time is pretty standard, especially in the ‘first’ film. Human characters, however much you may, or may not, remember them are very important. Oh and I know you kind of qualify your comment with the word “traditional”, but Godzilla films have been about more than just nukes and nuclear energy; with several films being primarily about damaging the environment with pollution, mankind thinking it was special and hence all powerful, genetic enginering and even warning against the hubris of Japan itself after their post WWII economic boom saw many thinking they would take over the world with money, having failed to do so in the war. Godzilla literally smashing the prosperity his character had helped to achieve and the character most responsible for it in the film.

    You don’t have to be a Godzilla expert, or a kaiju expert, to review this film, but you better be if you’re going to try to beat the film over the head for not being what you think it should be. By what you’ve said here, the film makers (hooray) have a far better understanding of the character and genre than you do.

  33. ZEUS says:


    • therealeverton says:

      Maybe, but from what I’ve heard, and what this reviewer says, the fans who know Godzilla films will be just fine. Anyone who thinks not fully seeing Godzilla for almost an hour, or having a message other than nukes are bad is unusual/unheard of for these films does not have a clhue about Godzilla films. (Clearly forgets how long after the start it is before we see a T-rex in Jurassic Park or King Kong in any version of that film either.

  34. Joey Hegele says:

    Was this a positive review or not? Even though I read whole thing, I honestly cannot be certain whether Debruge liked the movie or not. I guess I will just wait to see whether RottenTomatoes classifies is as fresh or rotten.

    • Joey Hegele says:

      Well, as a follow-up RottenTomatoes says it is a positive review.

      I am not sure I would call this a positive review, particularly not with sentences like this: “If anything, it was “Monsters’” stilted live-action bits that left something to be desired, which might explain why Edwards has overcompensated so drastically when it comes to the human performances this time around.”

      When I was a little kid, I loved two things: Godzilla and Transformers. As long as this film is better than those awful Michael Bay movies, I will be happy.

    • schmeg says:

      Rotten Tomatoes? The McReviewer of our time. Reading for comprehension is taught in the 2nd grade and it’s reasonably clear where this review stands. Read it again – with a pen and paper if you must.

      • therealeverton says:

        RT is used poorly, and too many critics see it as a way to make a name for themselves. The reviewers choose themselves if a film is fresh or Rotten; so you get nonsensical situations where two films have 3 stars, or 6 out of 10, yet one is fresh and one is rotten.

        The real problem is the Fresh / Rotten &/or percentage of reviewers who voted fresh is what gets used. The more important part is surely how good they thought it was. Surely you’re more impressed wen 7 of your friends tell you a film is excellent than when 10 tell you it’s O.K?

      • Ken says:

        And this is one of the many problems w/ Rotten Tomatoes: how does one “rate” an ambiguous review like Debruge’s? Is it a “Fresh”? A “Rotten”? What is RT’s criteria for deciding how a flick gets slotted? The once-noble craft of movie reviewing reduced to a peculiar algorithmic aggregate, featuring the opinions of dozens of mysterious online “critics” no one has ever heard of – and we, as ticket buyers, are supposed to pay attention to this messy load of data? After re-reading this GODZILLA review 3 times, I THINK I get Debruge’s take on it…and I’m STILL gonna go see it.

      • therealeverton says:

        No he’s right. The review makes a lot of criticisms, mostly baseless and founded on what ws a very poor idea of how these films have worked in the past (T?he reviewer has clearly seen none, ever; or what should be done in monster films, despite the evidence to the contrary of almost every monster film of note; and a quite staggeringly rude an ill informed, piece of nonsense about how they have never tried ot make these films look as real as they possibly could in the past, a nonsense for several of the films and pretty much all of the “serious” ones, where they spent a lot of time making these things look as real and as “plausible” as possible. And yes, with more than just man in rubber suit tech too.) They are making a $160m Hollywood film in 2014, what should it be Stop motion by Aardman? (That isn’t me knocking the gods at Aardman by the way!)

  35. George Valentin says:

    I hope “Godzilla” will become the highest grossing movie of all time.

  36. BillUSA says:

    If I wanted to see Shakespeare, I’d see something else. But a film like this won’t spend time on character development. I liked “Monsters” and thought Gareth Edwards was a fine choice to helm this film. I didn’t like the goofy storyline of the Broderick-starrer but the creature-on-a-rampage is just supposed to be eye-candy anyway. I can’t wait to see this one even if $10 is too much to waste on the best that Hollywood can offer these days.

  37. Alex says:

    The above poster thought that this movie was so bad, he totally denies its’ entire existence.

More Film News from Variety