Godzilla

Matthew Broderik and Jean Reno star in what in the industry is considered a "bomb." It cost a lot but didn't make much money. However, it would be unfair to consider this movie a bad movie. Instead one can view this English version of the relatively more cheesy 1950s Japanese "Godzilla" movies with Jurassic Park overtones as entertaining, blockbuster-like. It attempts along with Broderik's own wonderful personality to insert a fairly large dose of comic humor throughout the movie. Yet the balance between comedy, drama, and horror is more uneven than the best of these monster movies. There a bit more gore than the typical Jurassic Park movies, but not necessarily over the top considering how gory movies have become. There are also lapses in rational or logical chase scenes were Godzilla seems to speed away from helicopters but can't catch up to a speeding taxicab. The attempt to create a somewhat sympathetic monster is also intriguing though it wasn't completely successful in pulling it off. Overall, this is a feel-good action monster movie that could have been better, but it wasn't nearly as awful as the dollar numbers indicate.

This film's legacy is that it was a gigantic misfire that was trashed by critics and hated by the fans it was trying to impress. I think a lot of people hate this movie because they think they are supposed to hate it. If you look at this movie for what it is, not what people wish it was, you will find that is one of the most expertly constructed monster movies ever made. Roland Emmerich is a master action filmmaker. The action scenes in this movie are clear, coherent, breathlessly suspenseful and exciting. Comparing Godzilla to the action films of today makes you realize the extent to which the filmmaking craft has deteriorated. So many action scenes now are a dull, sludgy CGI mess, with quick cuts and sloppy editing that render the action incoherent and weightless. This movie feels so grandly cinematic and epic in a way that movies just don't feel anymore. The lines between film and television have been blurred now, and that cinematic language has been lost.

The main criticism of this movie is that this Godzilla does not have the characteristics of his Japanese counterpart, which is true and valid. This Godzilla is not impervious to traditional weaponry, he runs and hides and uses stealth attacks instead of being a slow, lumbering wall of destruction, and his mighty atomic breath beam attack has been reduced to more of an oral flamethrower. But it is important to realize that a Godzilla movie had not been theatrically released in America for 14 years, the only way most Americans knew of Godzilla was through TV reruns and VHS tapes. He was simply not a major cultural force in America at that time. What was a major cultural force was Jurassic Park, so it makes sense that in order to create the largest draw possible, the filmmakers would reference Jurassic Park more than traditional Japanese monster movies, because that's what most audiences would be familiar with. Indeed, Godzilla and his offspring are more akin to a mutated T. Rex and raptors than to the big G himself. Also, the conception of giant movie monsters is fundamentally different in America vs Japan. In America, giant monsters are mutated animals on the loose, that cause a lot of violence before they are inevitably destroyed by military might or scientific ingenuity. In Japan, giant monsters (called kaiju) are immortal, indestructible, god-like beings. Japanese monster films operate much more in the realm of fantasy than their American counterparts. If Godzilla 1998 had gone for more of a traditional Japanese approach, wide audiences might not have understood it in the same way as they would a giant T. Rex run amok in NYC.

Forget expectations and cultural baggage. Watch this movie for what it is, and you will have a good time.

"Godzilla" is a great example of a big budget summer movie that doesn't really work. It plays by the big summer movie rules but it misses the mark. The first half of "Godzilla" is very good. But after an hour or so, the story takes a wrong turn. It actually becomes pretty silly for a while. I don't want to say that "Godzilla" wore out its welcome but it is too long by at least twenty minutes. That said, I still enjoyed watching "Godzilla" tonight.

Well, being a longtime fan of the GODZILLA/GOJIRA films as a youngster, I remember seeing this with great anticipation. I, unlike a lot of people, was not at all disappointed. This film was exactly what I was hoping it would be at the time. Sure, it certainly wasn't as charming or as funny as the films I loved as a kid, but it was a lot of fun. I loved the action scenes, the look of the monster was crazy to me, and the plot was simple enough for a first time viewer to get right into. Seeing it again 10 years later, I had the same reaction. My opinion of this film hasn't changed one bit. I guess everybody's complaints stem from how this has no charm or any kind of attempt at being cute or original. I guess that's understandable, but I still don't see what everybody's problem is. This was supposed to be a fun, exciting, and action packed thrill ride. That's all it is, no more, no less. I personally think that it succeeds at what it achieved to be perfectly. Matthew Broderick may not exactly be an action hero, but his character sure was quirky and funny. Jean Reno was as good as usual.

Like many people, I wasn't fond of this when it was first released. Revisiting it now nearly twenty years later I can say my opinion has changed quite a bit. It's still not a great Godzilla movie, at least not how I quantify that, but it is an enjoyable "big monster movie" on its own merits. The special effects are great, the action is pretty well staged, and the music is surprisingly nice. The only real problems for me are that the cast is a little too goofy at times (I think they were going for some kind of Jurassic Park humorous/serious blend) and the movie does run a little long. Overall, though, I think it's an entertaining movie that deserves a second look.