IMDb user comments for
Godzilla (1998) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 67:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

666 comments in total

---

239 out of 339 people found the following comment useful :-
Drastically underrated, 8 March 2005

Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City

After bizarre attacks on a Japanese freighter, first the French then the U.S. learn of the existence of an apparent modern "dinosaur". When it's suspected that radiation from nuclear weapons testing in French Polynesia may have instead produced the monster, biological radiation specialist Dr. Nick Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick) is called to the scene. While investigating the monster's path of destruction, a new sighting arrives--just off the coast of New York City!

It's no secret that Godzilla has been much maligned. Even Fangoria editor Tony Timpone stated in an editorial that he thought it sucked, and he's usually willing to give movies the benefit of the doubt. The reasons why director Roland Emmerich's version of Godzilla is hated are as varied as people stating opinions. But I tend to think that there is also a strong bandwagon effect with this film that will be tempered by time. There are already signs of a number of people giving it a second look and lessening the severity of their criticism.

The chief complaint seems to come from a very vocal but relatively small crowd of fanboy purists--they dislike that Godzilla is different here. In the Japanese films, made by the Toho production company, Godzilla is a guy in a rubber suit who stomps on models of buildings and such. He tends to lumber, as irrelevant military attacks on him provide pretty fireworks. Most Godzilla films feature him fighting some other monster, "professional wrestling" style, and Godzilla arbitrarily falls down and gets back up as he is attacked and attacks with various "death rays" from his mouth, eyes, etc. Now that might sound like I don't like the typical Godzilla film, but that's not true. I like them quite a bit, but a big part of the reason why is that most of them are very cheesy. I'm a fan of bizarre cheese/camp, and you get tons of that in Godzilla films.

But I'm not a purist. To me, there's no good reason why Emmerich's Godzilla needs to be similar to the Toho incarnations, which in fact are often quite different from and inconsistent with each other, too. At this point, I see Godzilla more as a recurring character type--think of the various instantiations of Dracula or Frankenstein throughout the 20th Century. The Toho films can't really be seen as chapters in a single, long story. But whether their arguments are wrong or not, the fanboy purists are at least noisy and prolific, and too many people are followers.

If Emmerich would have given us a guy in a rubber suit, acting just like the Toho Godzillas (not "Godzilla"), with the typical gobbledy-gook of a Toho script, this film would have bombed even worse (if we can call a 100 million dollar film that made a profit a "bomb") and the fanboys would have still found something to complain about. Even though I love the Toho Godzilla films, too, we can't deny that they do not tend to be bestsellers on video in the U.S., despite the fact that they're readily available for purchase.

So what Emmerich gives us instead is an epic, expensive-looking film that spans a number of genres, features more coherent dialogue and subplots than a typical Toho Godzilla film, and showcases a redesigned, mostly cgi cast of monsters, where Godzilla looks and behaves much more like a "real" giant, mutant lizard. For those of us who are not purists, who do not care if our opinions match the majority, and who evaluate films on all or their technical and artistic levels, it's difficult to deny that Godzilla has many merits.

For example, the cinematography in this film is gorgeous. The sound design is superb and the soundtrack (score and songs) works well with the film. All of the action sequences, and they comprise a large percentage of the film, are expertly staged--Emmerich doesn't resort to darkness, blur-cams and overly quick cuts like many other directors. It's always easy to follow the narrative during action scenes, it's always easy to see what's going on, and it's always coherent. That goes for the non-action scenes, too--the entire film is ingeniously designed in terms of the progression from one sequence to another. Also, the cgi is amazing--it's often difficult to tell where it stops and mechanicals/models begin.

But the story is great, too. Broderick's Tatopoulos is an attractive anti-hero, a nerdish scientist who solve dilemmas with his professional knowledge. The other hero is Jean Reno as Philippe Roache, a humorously enigmatic French "insurance agent". The obligatory romantic subplot, involving Tatopoulos and Audrey Timmonds (Maria Pitillo) surprisingly avoids clichés, and Timmonds provides a launching pad for an all-too-honest satire of the media.

Satire is high up on Emmerich's agenda. Godzilla not only satirizes the media, but the military, New York/New Yorkers, film critics, and even monster movies. While the film is simultaneously giving us a lot of genres--sci-fi, horror, adventure, war film, drama, etc. the most unexpected motif is the almost cartoonish, spoof-like humor. Godzilla is more frequently laugh-out-loud funny that anyone expected it to be. It's not just one-liners and overt jokes, although those are certainly present, but the amped up intentional absurdity of situations such as the final taxi cab "chase".

Even if you think that Godzilla has some internal problems as an artwork (and I agree that there is a slight clunkiness in parts of the narrative flow--it caused me to subtract a point), there's no way it deserves the trashing it's received so far. This is at least a well-made film on a technical level, and if you have any taste for slightly campy sci-fi/monster flicks, you should find much to enjoy here.

---

154 out of 232 people found the following comment useful :-
I've had enough, 2 December 1998

Author: Agony from Canada

Alright, I've had enough. Godzilla was a GREAT movie, and I'm just sick and tired of all the critics and others who view the movie as a complete disaster due to its lack of a story and other problems.

Personally, I don't care. The movie, from day one was meant to be just a big effects laden action movie. It's just for fun. I understood the story. The movie should just be viewed as a fun, blow everything up in your way movie. Don't be so hard. Sit back and enjoy.

---

91 out of 136 people found the following comment useful :-
I thought it was great..., 6 September 1999

Author: LebowskiT1000 from Escondido, California, USA

As opposed to most people, I thought this movie was excellent. You can't watch the movie and expect Shakespeare...it's Godzilla. You have to appreciate the work that went into making this creature look so lifelike. This movie had spectacular special effects and a pretty decent story line. I thought this movie was great. I didn't find the acting to be all that bad. I would recommend watching this movie before you come to any conclusions.

---

76 out of 119 people found the following comment useful :-
Enjoy a lovely hunk of cheese!, 6 January 2005

Author: EllenRipley112 from The Great NorthEast

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I have read the other comments about this film, and while I might agree with them from a critical point of view, the fact remains that this movie was NEVER meant to be a critic's favorite! We are not talking Oscar-material here, not even for special effects. OK, so it's nothing like the originals, and it has a skimpy little plot and no cinematic depth. But y'know what--WHO CARES! I went to this movie to be entertained, and I wasn't disappointed. It's loud, it's quasi-scary, it had explosions and giant lizards, it had cheesy characters with cheesy names and all sorts of good stuff you expect from a fun, no-brainer movie. C'mon, were its predecessors any better? No sex, no graphic violence (unless you count the poor thing's demise at the end), minimal profanity--I was able to take my daughter to see it and not be embarrassed! Today you can pop it in your DVD player or VCR on a rainy Saturday, make some microwave popcorn (just keep your pet lizard away from it!) and kill about 90 minutes with the family. The only part I had a problem with was, they made the beasty so personable, so NICE (it never INTENTIONALLY kills anyone, y'know), I couldn't help but feel sorry for it when it died at the end. They even gave it KIDS, for Pete's sake! As a fellow parent, I actually sympathized when it found out "they trashed the Garden". I was hoping for a sequel with the hatching egg at the end, but sad to say, that got scrapped. Anyway, my final word is: Get over it, folks! It wasn't MEANT to be taken seriously! Once you get past that, you can enjoy it for the cheap theme-park-ride it was meant to be. I love it!

---

50 out of 76 people found the following comment useful :-
A 20 foot giant lizard can disappear in New York City?, 15 May 2004

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

Godzilla, one of the major monster classics that we all know and love, mainly of course with the old badly dubbed Japenese films. As badly made those films were, they were still incredibly fun because of all the camp. It was just a good time to watch those movies and Godzilla was just freaky looking and scared the heck out of you. So naturally the men who created the big time special effects movies like Independence Day and Stargate would naturally try and re-create the gigantic lizard and you guessed it, put him in today's New York City. Now who are we going to rely on to save us? Arnold Schwartzenegger, Syvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jackie Chan? Nope, Ferris Bueller, er, I mean Matthew Broderick. He plays a nerd in this movie, so who better to save us? Godzilla is barely recongnizable as he is just a CGI love fest where it seems that the creators were not even close to what Godzilla really looked like in the old films. Oh, this was a bad movie.

A Japanese fishing ship is attacked by an unseen, giant monster that attacks from below the water: only one sailor survives. Traumatized, he is questioned in a hospital by a French scientist as to what he saw. His only reply is Godzilla. Dr. Nick Tatopoulos, an NRC scientist, researching the effects of radiation on earth worms, is interrupted by the arrival of an agent of the U.S. State Department. He is sent to Panama, escorted by the military, to observe the wreckage of the recovered Japanese fishing ship and a set of massive dinosaur-like footprints in the grassy soil. The Frenchman is also there, observing the scene and introduces himself as an insurance agent. Aboard a military aircraft, Tatopolous identifies skin samples he recovered as belonging to an animal "unknown to science". He dismisses the military's theory that the creature is a reawakened dinosaur, theorising that its origins in French Polynesia make it a mutant created by nuclear testing. An old man is seen fishing on the dock. He takes a bite from his fishing rod, and a big wave comes toward him after a few minutes of trying to pull in his line. The big wave happens to be Godzilla, and he emerges from the dock. Godzilla then travels to Manhattan and creates havoc in the city, killing dozens of people. Godzilla is revealed to be a gigantic, bipedal lizard that towers over much of the New York skyline. The city is evacuated and the military attempt to kill Godzilla, first luring it out with a huge pile of fish (the creature's staple diet). It takes the bait, but is scared off by small arms fire, but oddly enough, it's just not working on the giant lizard.

That's pretty much a good enough "summary" of the movie, there's more in the movie than that, but it's kind of pointless to mention as this movie was just pointless to make. It's just badly written, the special effects are way over the top and obvious to anyone, and the actors are just so out of place it's insane. Now is this the worst movie of all time? I wouldn't say so, but it is just a bad movie over all, I wouldn't really recommend it. Godzilla just doesn't belong in America, especially since our government is stupid enough to constantly loose a gigantic lizard in NEW YORK CITY! So I wouldn't recommend this film, it's just a stupid way of killing time, you could be doing more useful things like the dishes.

2/10

---

39 out of 60 people found the following comment useful :-
Size DOES Matter, 19 December 2002

Author: Lance (pumpkinhead_lance@yahoo.com) from NC

It's been almost five years since this film came out back in 1998. I can remember the very first TV Spot on television around New Years. As a HUGE Godzilla fan I was excited to say the least. And I must tell you, when I saw it when it finally came out I wasn't dissapointed, and to this day I still feel the same way.

It's a darn shame that this film gets blasted like it does. It shows me that the majority of the people (and Godzilla fans) that take the time to write reviews for films probably don't know what they are talking about when they talk of America's "Godzilla".

There are a couple of main issues critics and Godzilla fans have with the film. The story and the monster itself, 'Godzilla'.

If you look back at all of the original Japanese Godzilla flicks, you aren't going to find a great (not to mention BELIEVABLE) story or plot. I realize this, even being a fan of all things Godzilla. Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich's 'Godzilla' atleast, in my opinion, had the audience believing what was going on up on the screen. And if the story was slightly dull to some of you, you should let it pass. Remember what 'Godzilla' is about, afterall.

And what was wrong with the monster itself, Godzilla? Nothing. If you get two action figures, one being a model of the original Godzilla from the Japanese series and a model of the new American Godzilla you will find differences but both are remarkably alike in alot of ways. They both have the spikes, gigantic size, and famous roar. The major differences being the skin color, face, and longer legs. I loath it when people bring up how they shouldn't have changed Godzilla's looks. I mean, I love the old Godzilla look, it may be silly to some, but to me it's still cool. But it would NOT have worked for this film at ALL. If they had made the American version with a creature that had big 'googily' eyes and flying around on his tail kicking monsters, it would have ended up being a laugh-fest at the theaters.

What the American 'Godzilla' brings us is a believable monster that has the spirit and characteristics of the original, that satisfies the audience. It was just more realistic. Shouldn't we have expected that? Devlin and Emmerich came up with a monster that was realistic. Something the creators of the original attempted at doing but were limited to rubber suits. Something the Japanese audience accepts, but the American audience will not. It's sad that most Godzilla fans and critics do not understand this.

I personally believe that the majority of the general audience ENJOYED this film. It's just the critical blasting from G Fans and Critics that got alot of attention, unfortunately, and therefore this gets labeled as a 'bad' film. It's sad really that people can't enjoy this film.

This is one of my favorite DVD's to plug in. It's Big, Loud, and Fun. And although we've had lots of great films with tons of Special Effects, there's nothing quite like it.

So take a look at it, be open and I'm sure you will enjoy the fantastic pop-corn entertainment known as "GODZILLA".

---

35 out of 53 people found the following comment useful :-
I thought this was fun. I don't know why people whine about it so much., 28 May 2008

Author: tonymurphylee from USA

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.

---

26 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
What was wrong with this movie? (WARNING: MAY contain a Spoiler), 20 August 2000

Author: slbp_99 (slbp_99@yahoo.com) from Petersburg, Virginia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

What was wrong with this movie? Absolutely Nothing! This is the best Godzilla movie ever. The other ones was a MST3K movie. They are bad. But this one. I LOVE IT. The special effects are out of this world. Now Godzilla 2000, I do not know if I am going to like it because it looks like the old Godzilla. We just have to wait and see. Now, I heard people say "Animals would not (also cannot) duck." They are absolutely wrong. Animals can duck. Now if you see a missile or a bullet heading your way, would not duck? Yes you would. (I do not know about some people but I would.) I would recommend this movie to anybody how loves movies, action, and adventure, and drama. And for someone who loves to watch special effects. But, it does have a sad ending.

---

34 out of 54 people found the following comment useful :-
One of The First "Scary" Movies I Saw,So....., 29 April 2008

Author: Dragoneyed363 from United States

I like Godzilla.I have been watching it for a long time now and I really enjoy it.The first time I watched it though was when I was like,4.It was one of the first,as I called it then,SCARY movies I watched.I actually will never be able to call this film horrible,even though my opinions on it have lowered a lot over time,because I watched it when I was so little and I thought it was the best movie ever.This film is still good,but it depresses me to know it has such a low rating.I might have lowered my opinions on this film,but it is still a pleasing film that does not deserve the rating it has.I didn't see much of anything wrong with it,and I just thought it was suspenseful,somewhat more suspenseful than a lot of other movies that have been made.Godzilla,yet horror\suspense,was actually a touching film and somewhat sad as well.I will never understand how someone could hate this film.Hooray for Godzilla!!!

---

20 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
really, its not that bad!, 9 September 2007

Author: raymusicman2006 from United States

What were some of you expecting? Shakespeare? Tennesee Williams? Its a movie about a giant lizard in New York - just accept it for what it is! Its entertainment and no more - and on that level (at least for me) it works just fine! Its's not "realistic" enough? Again, how realistic is a giant lizard supposed to be? It's a FANTASY movie! Besides, I thought the special effects were pretty impressive! And its not as if the ORIGINAL Godzilla movies were good, with their actors in rubber suits and laughable, ridiculous "monsters" (gamera, mechagodzilla, etc etc)- the Godzilla in THIS movie was an animal, not a monster driven by a need to destroy things! I didn't think Matthew Broderick was bad at all - although I DID find Animal's girlfriend extremely irritating with her shrill voice! Really, I didn't think this movie was bad at all - no, its not a profound meaningful work or art, but then who expected it to be? It's an enjoyable diversion - that's all anyone should expect!

---

---

Page 1 of 67:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history