GODZILLA: What Did You Think?

     May 16, 2014


The last time Hollywood tried to make a Godzilla movie in 1998, the result was panned. TriStar was forced to abandon plans for the sequel that was teased at the end of the film.  The screen rights eventually ended up at Legendary Pictures—Legendary believed enough time had passed to return to Godzilla as a blockbuster property.  Legendary and Warner Bros. have proven surprisingly successful at changing the discussion surrounding Godzilla, starting with the the unique and effective teaser trailer.  Later stages of the marketing played up the creative vision of director Gareth Evans as well as the monster’s iconic stature in pop cultureGodzilla beat the odds to open this Friday on a wave of hopeful buzz.

Now you’ve seen the movie and read Matt’s review.  It’s time for you to weigh in.  What did you think of the reboot?  Does it make up for the bad taste the 1998 adaptation left in your mouth?  Does this Godzilla live up to the franchise reputation?  Sound off in the comments after the jump.

  • Forrest

    Saw it last night! I’d give it a C+/B-

    For a movie about a giant lizard it gets a lot of things right and starts off pretty promising but it gets bogged down by not Biollante, but wooden acting. I hate to
    admit it, but I actually longed for Matthew Broderick or Hank Azaria to show up for some much needed commentary.

    The movie does create an awesome mythology with a potential for sequels. However, this Godzilla reboot is all about stopping MUTO. Godzilla feels demoted to
    only second fiddle with little screen time and as a solution to MUTO.

    The final fight scene is cheer invoking but the movie never elevates beyond
    “disaster porn.” Whether a CGI building falls overs or a CGI building gets hit by a CGI tsunami, it all feels the same and there’s neither remorse nor consideration for all the people swept under.

    • Mike

      I agree with every point you made. I will say that they were successful in keeping Godzilla mysterious and as an audience member you feel respect for his awesome power. More so than the MUTOs. I didn’t like the design of the MUTOs except for the male’s head/eyes and the female’s wings. I loved how they filmed the monsters in the city. It was actually a bit scary to imagine yourself right there watching that. Also loved the split second when you realize the train is headed for the MUTO on the bridge.

      Hated the main guy. The humans didn’t do anything either. They brought in a nuke, it got damaged, and then they had to get it out of the city. That’s it. Godzilla actually killed the monsters. They kept showing homie’s wife which was completely pointless. Good soldier’s wife waiting for her man to return.

  • Kiersten

    What did I think?

    Montster= FUCKING YES!!!!!!! It was amazeballs!

    (SPOILER: who thought it was a good idea to kill Cranston of after 30 minutes of screentime. Johnson felt like dead weight in comparison.)

    • JBug

      (response to SPOILER!!!) Cranston dies?

    • Steve

      I know right? Me and my friend were like, hes dead?!?

      I agree about the monsters too. They needed more screen time. I literally started to get angry at the human scenes

    • M&M


      • Saff

        Are you kidding me? you are in a comment section of an article which assumes you have seen the movie. He even gave a spoiler warning. No fault here to be found

      • YodaRocks

        He should have at least had the decency to.
        do something like this.

      • M&M

        This article is titled “GODZILLA: What Did You Think?” not “GODZILLA: Drop Spoiler Bombs Like a Diarrhetic Rabbit”.
        Got an opinion? – Great! Love to hear it.
        Divulge character deaths? – No fucking way.
        With all due respect, Saff, you’re wrong.

      • Guest

        Invalid! It’s a review thread! Spoilers are implicit! You’re coming into a room full of people who’ve seen the movie and are talking about the movie, and you expect them to… not talk about the movie?

      • Mike

        When you read word “Spoiler” why did you keep going?

      • MoviesAreForever88

        Are YOU kidding me?

        You are in a comment section for a discussion of the movie, which means there will be spoilers! Why are you in here if you haven’t seen it, yet? And why did you continue to read the rest of his comment after the word “SPOILER* (in all caps) was the first word in the sentence?

        Then, after both of your dumb*ss mistakes, you are going to call him an *sshole for it? Get the hell out of here, man…because YOU are the one acting like an *sshole.

  • Johnson (but not Aaron)

    Just got back from the screening, I liked it, but it could have been much better. Indeed, too much CGI, Godzilla is merely a side figure, Ken Watanabe plays the most stereotypical and pointless character ever, Aaron Johnson is as wooden as he can get and Cranston and Binoche deserved far more screen time than they got; However the mythology was right, Godzilla still rocked and although the movie was at ta painfully slow pace, it was VERY tense; Infact the tension the movie built was better than the result of it. Anyone who’s seen the director’s other movie, Monsters, will probably agree with me – Edwards is very good at building tension.

    • dodge hickey

      I wonder how much Ken Watanabe got paid for those cheesy line. I am not complaining much about his role, someone had to fill it . Just wondering why an actor of his caliber didn’t get a bigger role..

      • Brian James

        Nothing cheesy about this line…

        “We call him…

        GOJIRA” YEAH!!!!!

        The movie ruled, fuck the naysayers.

      • Doug

        Everything was cheesy about that line. Everyone laughed in our theater.

      • lordjim

        ken watanabe is so great that even the cheesiest line seems to be plausible coming from him.that man has personality.

  • JudgeMethos

    I just saw it and liked it but get tired of love stories being involved in monster flicks. We already got that in Cloverfield. Sorry if anyone considers that a spoiler :-/ It seemed that Godzilla was a background story to the humans or something. When he was on screen though, twas quite awesome. I wanted to see more of him so i guess the movie did its job.

  • Leo Spaceman

    I think you should wait until Monday to posts these ‘What did you think’ posts. Most people won’t see the movie on Friday and its too late to really join the conversation after 3 days.

  • Liderc

    was boring, kept just waiting for the final fight because the story was so boring and predictable and I was actually looking forward to it.

  • astronautbutter

    As a diehard Godzilla fan who loves the films but would never call any but the first a truly a good film, I’m thrilled by this one. Anybody can naysay a movie, but I can honestly say I’ve never had a film give me what this movie did. The slow burn made the payoff that much sweeter. I even enjoyed the human parts. There was a Jurassic Park feel to it and Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe were there to boost the rest of the cast.

    Anyone who watches the Japanese films knows the humans are the parts you slog through to get to the good stuff. This film is a vast improvement over those bad dubs and cheesy dialog. I appreciate a director taking Godzilla seriously. Bring on the sequels, Gareth.

  • Frank

    Just saw it, so of course my first inclination is to tell the internet what I think. What is wrong with me…

    Overall, I was kind of disappointed. Here are a few of my rambling thoughts:

    -Godzilla kind of plays second banana to everyone else… it’s his movie!
    -For giant monsters, these guys sure do know how to pop-up and sneak away rather quietly.
    -I don’t normally pay attention to the score, but it didn’t feel right in this movie… I think it would have been better with no music, or some sort of ambient score a la the Space Odyssey song they used.
    -The pacing was kind of weird. The monsters start fighting, and…then we cut away to something else. When we come back they’re not fighting anymore, and now everyone’s on the move again. Obviously they have to hold off the big fight until the finale, but even then it wasn’t really a completely seamless action scene.
    -I don’t like that Bryan Cranston got Executive Decision’d

    I did enjoy that there wasn’t a whole lot of BS: no evil government agendas or scientists with last-minute gambits or anything like that. Plus the monster designs were great. I’d say the movie belongs right at its current RT rating of 72%: not a bad film from many technical aspects, but not enough to make it an exciting new blockbuster.

    • Doug_101

      Yes, Godzilla definitely had the same pair of sneakers the T-Rex had at the end of Jurassic Park. He’s stealthier than Solid Snake.

  • DeathoftheEndless7

    The monster scenes were cool and there were some neat shots. The rest of it was pretty boring though.

  • Chuck U. Farley

    This is a C movie in my book. If this were a brand new monster, I could understand the slow reveal. But Godzilla is established. Waiting an hour to show his face was lame. With “Jaws” and “Alien”, the reveals of the monsters were done slowly but had some great writing and acting to fill in the gaps. This film has none of that! When Godzilla is the most likable character in the film and he’s only in it 5 minutes tops, that’s a problem. Gareth Edwards wasted some fine talent in his cast, though Aaron Taylor-Johnson is always the weak link in any movie he’s in. Just watch… this movie is gonna be so front-loaded, the second weekend grosses will drop 65-70%, although Memorial Day will help.

  • Doug_101

    Here’s how you watch Godzilla: Pay for your ticket, watch the first 15-20 minutes, go to the lobby and fire up Pacific Rim on your iPad, return for the final 20 minutes.

    • Brian James

      Pacific Rim is absolutely cringe inducing. Don’t make me laugh.

      • Doug

        But, Godzilla is absolutely boring.

      • Doug_101

        That’s hilarious, I was just about to post the same thing. Thanks, fellow Doug. Wait…are you me??

      • dude

        Oh please. We all know you think you’re “cool”.

      • Brian James

        Says the guy who calls himself “dude” LOL. Good one!

  • Pingback: GODZILLA: What Did You Think? – Fresh Cinema - Get the latest movies and box office news!

  • replying to idiots

    I really disliked how the monsters were ninja silent until the moment a character’s eyes land on them, then you can hear the footsteps and breathing. It was like watching the Walking Dead but with giant monsters.

    PS: It was an ok movie but I think Michael Bay would have done a lot better especially with the human moments

  • fluxCAPS

    Meh, Pacific Rim was better.

  • diazfan209

    It’s World War Z, substitute zombies for giant lizards.

  • DEADP00L

    I couldn’t get enough which was good, so I’m watching it again. It was the first movie I came out of more excited than when I went in. It just didn’t sink in what I saw and I just have to see it all again. It was a perspective movie which doesn’t always work and the monsters are almost the secondary elements while you wait in anticipation. It’s not perfect A ) very short even though it was 2 hours I wouldn’t mind an extended directors cut and B) the pace of some of the sequences such as finding shelter and the impact of the fighting to those places via cloverfeild feel would have been just as subtle.

    My main problem with it is that it’s safe which I can understand why. The action was perfect but you do get a sense that there is much more to the beginning than what we got which is why I do hope there is an extended edition.

    I am going back to see it again. This movie played with my emotions and I seriously thought the ending was going to break my heart – its great at messing with your emotions.

    THIS is how you make a Godzilla movie.

  • Cpt Rex Kramer

    Personally, I thought the film was ok up until the ending. That quick scene of the LED billboard / scoreboard thanking Godzilla for saving the city completely ruined it for me. Talk about utter sap and drivel. It really ruined the film for me. Yeah, knocking off Cranston’s character was a letdown, and as others have stated, the rest of the characters were pretty wooden and one dimensional. And some of the actions by the military were pretty ridiculous. These I could forgive, but I’ll be damned if that billboard / scoreboard scene just didn’t ruin the film for me. The sad part is this is probably one of the bigger films I was looking forward to this year. Oh well, bring on the next big film. X-Men, I believe.

  • Django9000

    My biggest gripe with the film is that almost all characyers, save Ken Watanabe and the Olsen twin- utterly fail to react to the presence of 300 + story tall monsters when they see them. No earthquake rumbles when they walk, no gasps, shock or awe- little more than a single muffled yell in a crowded train. Really repeatedly took me out to see Cranston blatantly not directed to react to the CG muto that would eventually be added in post.

    For the sequel, I’m hoping they get that simple detail right in an otherwise amazingly realistic and serious, iconic take on this mythos.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sangbaran Sam

    when’s the next installment coming? cannot get enough of Gojira!

  • Doug

    It was boring. The acting was fine, but the non-monster scenes were too much/too long. Teasing the monsters, then cutting away was an awful decision. It was not tense at all for me, but rather frustrating. The fight at the end was fine, but it was too little, too late. I really couldn’t get excited by it because I was so disappointed by what had come before. Government conspiracy/hiding monsters was dumb. No one saw the giant hole in the side of that mountain? No one saw the giant monster half a mile away? No in in Vegas saw the monster approaching and called the military? Ugh.

  • Grayden

    After watching this movie, I was somewhat perplexed. I didn’t love it, but I didn’t hate it either. It actually felt a lot like the Japanese films. Some of which you don’t see Godzilla until half-way through, with more focus on the villain monster, or the typically filler human story. There were many parallels between this film and those, but I guess the only thing that seemed out of place was that it had a caucasian cast for the most part. Definitely didn’t care about the humans. Watanabe’s character had the most opportunity to really give us that link between the original film and this one and he just wasn’t given enough material. Could have just cut out Taylor-Johnson and Olson completely, and just had Watanabe, Hawkins, Cranston, and the military and been better for it.

    When you have model sets and actors in costumes, you can show more detail all around. I think the movie suffered from the same kind of “night action” that Pacific Rim did. When you have giant CG characters in night settings, you don’t have to give them as much detail so it saves you time and money. I get that, but when you see something like Avengers that shows so much CG in “daylight”, it makes me bummed that I didn’t get to see Godzilla in a lighted environment more.

  • MoviesAreForever88

    Very, VERY disappointing! I walked in with, believe it or not, just medium expectations. I was excited but a bit dubious about how it was going to play out. From what I had read from other reviews it was a “character based film that took it’s time and ultimately paid off with a big ending. Overall, a good film.”

    Deep down, what I was hoping for was a 2014 Jurassic Park (esk) take on Godzilla. Not in the sense that it would necessarily be an amazing, instant classic, like Jurassic Park (because that would be asking way too much) but rather a film that was intent on being smart, clever, character driven, suspenseful, emotional and well motivated.

    What I got was a film with a script so bloated and overly simplistic that it boggles the mind it ever got the green light. The dialogue is so cheesy, force-fed and two dimensional that it never, for an instant, ever feels like real conversation. The script literally treats the audience like young children, holding their hand, guiding them and saying aloud the blatantly obvious so that we wouldn’t get “lost” (not that we could if we tried), leaving no room for thought provocation, imagination or mystery. It’s as if all the characters in the room are constantly having the same epiphany at the exact same moment and decide to share it aloud just for the audience to understand. For me, nothing is more insulting that when a film commits this crime.

    The strongest parts of the film are easily within the first 20 minutes of the movie but after this scene, everything goes to hell.


    As hard as this movie tries to initiate a slow-burn, leading up to the reveal of the “big guy”, it fails tremendously in understanding what actually needs to occur in order for the slow burn, which I am a HUGE fan of, to actually work properly. This isn’t so much a director’s flaw as it is a HORRIBLE writing one.

    When you take into account that two of the best blockbusters of all time are, technically, “monster” movies, Jaws and Jurassic Park, it’s easy to forget just how little the “monsters” are actually seen in the finished film. The Shark from jaws has less than five minutes of actual screen time, while all the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park have a combined screen time of exactly 14 minutes. Therefore, we must understand that the amount of screen time the monster gets doesn’t make or break the film, in any regard.

    What makes these films so wonderful are all the magical and engaging, character-driven scenes in-between (and leading up to) the big reveals, grabbing our attention through mystery and suspense and making us fall in love with the main characters and the story along the way….LONG before they are ever in any real danger. Both film’s also rely on us to use our own imagination to build the suspense (I.E. what was really happening beneath the surface of the water with Chrissy, the swimmer, in the horrifying opening scene in Jaws, The two fishermen on the dock hunting the shark with the holiday roast, a scene that coincides with Brody flipping through pages of a shark book, documenting attacks over the years.) This psychologically connects the scenes together in a scary way…making things we don’t see that much scarier. The scene ends with the shark taking the bate, ripping the dock apart and carrying Charlie out with it….only to reveal the floating dock turning around to come back for him. THAT is some terrifying stuff….and you don’t even see anything. Same thing with the glass of water with the T-Rex or the shot of the destroyed electrical fences just as the characters head into the jungle.

    This is where Godzilla missed the mark the most. We spend tons of time with our two-dimensional, cardboard cutout characters but the problem is, they don’t actually do anything worthwhile. They aren’t developed in ways that make us care for them. They aimlessly wander from Point A to Point B and end up in Point C without actually accomplishing anything, informing us of pointless “need to know facts” for later on and never allowing us to put any pieces together for ourselves without shouting it out in a round table. We see Aaron Johnson return home and spend exactly one minute with his wife, after returning home from service abroad, only to receive a phone call informing him he needs to travel to Japan to bail out his “crazy” father from Jail.

    First off, the biggest underlying motivation for the movie Godzilla is Aaron Johnson’s (who is a wooden statue) struggle to get through the disaster and back to his wife and kid. That’s a great motivation to have….except when you don’t allow them, literally, any more than one minute together, you really don’t have a reason to root for them to get back together again. That is why character development is so important.

    Then, to add insult to injury, Olsen is only given a total of, maybe, 5 minutes of screen time after that point, most of which she is just staring at the sky in dismay, which prevents you from ever really caring about her as a character.

    The movie attempts to mislead the audience into thinking it is creating character development by showing a convoluted mess of long, drawn-out scenes that really don’t actually advance the characters at all. It does this for the rest of the entire film.

    Worst of all, there is very little, other than the opening’s nuclear power plant scene, that has anything playing out in a realistic and convincing fashion. For example, and this is just one of many, how about the same people being caught in the middle of the crazy devastation over and over again, even though it is playing out across thousands of miles. Take Aaron Johnson’s character, for example, who has a close encounter in Japan in 99, then, ironically, once again the first day he arrives back in Japan 15 years later, after that he then flies to Hawaii the following day and is attacked on the airport’s monorail trying to get to his gate, That is a distance of 4,100 miles! Then he manages to get back to some random town in California where he takes a military train back to San Francisco, which ends up being attacked in THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. Aaron is, of course, the only survivor aboard the entire train and is airlifted via helicopter to…..wait, where the hell was he airlifted to? Anyways, he manages to somehow be allowed into the small group of sky jumpers into the city, even though that isn’t even his platoon, where he is caught right in the middle of the action, once again. It takes the terms subtlety and coincidence and bashes you over the head with it to the point of being mind-numbingly dumb.

    And then, lastly, there are the jaw-dropping loopholes that are among the most significant I’ve ever seen in a film and makes Prometheus look like a writers masterpiece. For example, how does Aaron Johnson have his little boy when walking into the stadium? The kid was put on a bus that, last we saw, had a close encounter on the San Francisco bridge and was hell-bent on getting out of town to “safety.” It was the mom that put him on the bus which means she is the only one who knew where it could have been heading. How did the boy get back into the city and, even more so, with his father?
    What was the point of the male and female MUTOs “communicating” via “mating calls” if all the female had to do was attach a few eggs to the nuclear warhead?
    Why did the air drop team go through all that trouble of skydiving into the city, arming a nuclear weapon and deciding, literally two minutes later, to run the damn thing out of the city and place it on a boat to get as far away as possible….especially when there is still three massive monsters fighting and destroying the city? Was the reason really because the flimsy metal latch over the nuclear bomb’s panel was stuck?
    Godzilla, a male MUTO AND a totally separate female MUTO all made their Massive existence known on the same day in the same city of the world? Why was Godzilla hailed as a hero after killing millions upon millions of people and destroying the entire city? Why are people under the assumption that he’s now a friend of the city just because he won a fight with another massive killing machine? Why was Aaron Johnson’s character “dying” all of a sudden on the boat?
    How did the army know where to find Aaron Johnson’s character on the random, stolen fishing boat when nobody planned on using that particular boat in the first place and nobody made a radio call to the army letting them know what was happening? These kind of loopholes are insulting.

    Then there is the ending, which really takes the cake. Godzilla wakes up and……is celebrated by the city? He is suddenly and inexplicably the “Savior of the city” and a friend to mankind? Are they serious?? Why, he was one third of the reason the entire city is destroyed?

    What gives anyone the impression that he’s not about to kill the sh*t out of every living person now that he doesn’t have any MUTOs to deal with? He’s a wild, angry, 350 ft prehistoric monster that just destroyed all of San Francisco and you are cheering him on?

    Thats the equivalent of all the surviving characters of Jurassic Park taking the T-Rex out for a round of beers because he saved them from the Velociraptors in the visitor’s center and is now a mutual friend. No, the T-Rex was going to kill the hell out of Alan Grant, Dr. Sattler and the kids…he just hadn’t gotten around to it, yet, because he had a velociraptor on his back.

    If judging the film is based solely on how many buildings are destroyed and how much destruction there is in the last act of a film then what does that say about us as a society? What does that say about us as “intelligent” film-goers?

    While I find it hard to take a lot away from Godzilla, there were definitely moments that I can appreciate throughout the film. Ironically, as much as I’ve bashed this film, I still hold out hope for Gareth Edwards because he did the best with what he was given. He even showed brief glimpses of brilliance in how he framed his shots, which were reminiscent of Spielberg’s earlier work (the shot of Godzilla’s reflection on the school bus window as it rose from the ocean, is one example). Its things like that that make be believe that, with the write script, he could do great things. But, with the writers of Doom and The Expendables behind it, its no wonder he’s plucking at straws to make any coherent sense out of this movie.

    • Mr. White

      I agree with the vast majority of this, but are you seriously complaining about city destruction in a DISASTER movie? Let alone about a franchise that has building sized creatures fighting in the hearts of American, and Japanese cities? A propety where the character is a metaphor for nuclear power / disaster?

      Obviously there is going to be tons of collateral damage. And it certainly isn’t a reason to be skeptical of audience’s intelligence levels. This film has problems that have nothing to do with the amount of destruction caused.

      I don’t think they cheer Godzilla because of the destruction he caused, but even more he potentially prevented. Species eradicating destruction thanks to the 2x MUTOs. They were primed to breed as well.

      Kind of similar to Man of Steel. Yes, Superman’s powers help cause buildings to get demolished in his fight with someone of equal power as he’s trying to stop him. Part of the city gets destroyed, yes. These are powerful beings. But he saved the world.

      Captain America? Guy has 3x HUGE Hellicarriers with tons of people, some innocent non Hydra operatives, and they all crash down into a building or explode. Is he not a hero for saving the world, even though destruction was involved?

    • Grayden

      They asked what we thought, not a dissertation. Couldn’t make it past it’s break…

      • MoviesAreForever88

        How ironic because I didn’t ask you for your opinion, either…but you decided to give it anyway.

        And last time I checked, there wasn’t a rule book on how much we could or could not write. Welcome to the internet.

    • Boop

      Your science is too tight, my friend. Funny thing is, you have basically broken down all the things that my brain was taking in on a subconscious level that detracted me from loving this film. Your comparisons to Jaws and Jurassic Park are on point. (By the way, is anyone else surprised at how well Jurassic Park has held up over the years? It’s probably aged better than any other movie from the ’90s. Yes, even your Pulp Fictions and such.)


    thought it was great, although just a tad more godzilla screen time in the first two thirds would have been nice. it was very in line with the original in terms of plot and there was some nice little references in there. while i didn’t think that removing cranston from the film was the best narrative choice, or that ford was the most interesting character, I definitely dont think that those aspects were as bad as a lot of people are saying. the final third of the film was worth the ticket price alone. that atomic breath… wow…

  • JayF

    Everyone crying “it’s boring” is everything wrong with moviegoers these days. It’s called a SLOW BURN BUILD UP!! FFS, people, all you want is 90-120 minutes of CGI barf up on the screen. FYI: Pacific Rim sucked. Alot. Also, it’s you clowns why there are FOUR MICHAEL BAY TRANSFORMER MOVIES!!!! Was the movie perfect? No. It was goddamned good, though. And apparently a lot of people don’t understand that EOD personnel are pretty damned even keeled and calm, cool, collected. They’re not usually excitable people, hence why the main character wasn’t running around all manic like a Tom Cruise protagonist. Plus, the best effect the movie had was making the payoff THAT MUCH BETTER by making you wait for it. Godzilla himself would’ve lacked a massive amount of his oomph if he was throughout the entire film. Making us wait for his appearance an then doing it right was exactly what needed to happen. That’s what made Godzilla’s impact that much more powerful. A- in my book.

    • boop

      The complaint of boredom is often levied at movies but usually for the wrong reasons. In the case of this Godzilla movie, boredom extends not from the “slow burn” but from the lack of engaging characters and a compelling story. Godzilla did not need to be throughout the entire film, I agree. But you can’t have him step out and then cut-away and just save the real fight for the end (especially if your main characters aren’t engaging and your story is lame). The section with the tsunami and the airport would have made a great middle-movie action scene. No freakin cut-away. Say what you will about Pacific Rim, but its structure was perfect. Open big. (No freakin cut-aways.) Introduce your main characters, get to know them, tell a story, big middle action sequence, some more character material, big ending. Godzilla’s structure was “blah blah blah. Here comes some action. Cut-away. blah blah blah blah blah. Here comes some action. cut away. blah blah. here comes some action. cut away. blah blah blah, repeat about 400 times, big ending.”


    Good film. NOT as imaginative or crazedly entertaining as Pacific Rim – but a solid showing.

  • Batzombie

    It wasn’t perfect, but it was certainly a lot of fun, and showed admirable restraint. The human stuff was meh at best, but all of the monster stuff was perfect. Best 3 moments: (SPOILERS)

    1. Godzilla on the TV screen at the end.
    2. Atomic breath in mouth.
    3. Godzilla at the Golden Gate Bridge.

  • Consona

    I loved this film. The pacing, the story, the characters, the monsters, the tone, it just worked for me without any problem.

  • NorthernSoul

    This new version of Godzilla was definitely better than what came before, but it also fell short in some areas.

    Mainly, and most importantly, it delivered on the creatures perfectly. This is the scale and detail Godzilla deserved and The Director and the SFX teams knocked it out of the park. All of the creatures were imposing, terrifying, biological, and had a gravitas on screen that we’ve never seen before. And the choice to limit their screen time made the moments when they showed up even more impactful, my hats off to the restraint shown on a project that could’ve easily watered down the spectacle through overuse.

    And that brings us to the films shortcomings, the human drama. When a film limits its use of spectacle to hold the audiences attention, it needs to fill in the space with compelling story, and here is where the film didn’t quite deliver as well as it could.

    The first act is great, with Brian Cranston and Juliette Binoche building a solid emotional foundation for the film to rest upon, and then, for an inexplicable reason, the film abandons all of that groundwork for an extremely generic family storyline. I don’t understand why this decision was made but I feel it’s the biggest flaw in the film, because it destroys all the connection we had to the human element of the story, leaving us with just the spectacle.

    There were great opportunities for really compelling human story lines in this film, Cranston’s character being the most obvious. Following his arch through the entire film could’ve allowed him to reach an emotional catharsis about his wife’s death and a reconnection with his son.

    Or Watanabe’s character, hounded by the death of his father at Hiroshima, fearful of the perils of atomic energy, and driven by obsession to understand this creature.

    Or even the military general played by the excellent David Strathairn, who could’ve been the seasoned general who everyone is looking to for guidance in this apocalyptic scenario, and he doesn’t know what to do because how could he. An entire lifetime worth of experience becomes inconsequential in the face of these creatures.

    I understand that the human element in films like these are really just a vehicle to deliver the visual spectacle we all want, but that doesn’t mean the film makers shouldn’t work just as hard to make the story just as interesting as the VFX.

    • boop

      Story should ALWAYS be MORE interesting than the VFX. And your suggestions for improving this yet-another-piece-of-Hollywood-mediocrity are great. THAT’S the film the trailers said I was going to see and did not get.

  • Bheyea Emortalis

    I guess the main problem I had was how boring the main characters are. My favorite part is the “twist payoff” which I thought was interesting. And the world and atmosphere the movie set up. I for one am excited for the sequel. I’m curious where they go next with Godzilla.

    Also, all you dumbasses who keep referencing Godzilla’s screen time need to shut up. The whole point of the device is to elicit suspense therefore heightening the experience of the movie. If you wanted the opposite, you should’ve saved your money for Transformers next month.