maingon

I saw it 3 times in the theater and have seen it twice on Bluray. I absolutely loved it. It wasn't perfect but I love it.

RocShemp

I enjoyed New York Versus The Giant Iguana (it really only was Godzilla in name only) a hell of a lot better than this snooze fest.

hanshotfirst1138

I don't hate the film, I certainly think there are things about it to like. In Godzilla terms, it's certainly nowhere near as bad as most of the 70s output or the Emmerich movie. But if it would get Toho to release their vicelike deathgrip on the AIP dubs which are NEVER coming out on DVD for EHOTD, SOG, DAM, and the others, it'd be worth it . I saw it once at the cinema, once on Vudu with a shitty connection while my friends and I messed around. I own the Blu-ray, but someone borrowed it from me. Once I get it back, I'll watch it again.

joliom

Wow. I finally saw it and can't believe how much love it's getting. I thought it was complete shit. It's probably still better than the 1998 shitfest, but just barely. This one has Cranston (at least for awhile), no Maria Pitillo, and Godzilla actually looks like Godzilla. On the other hand, the 1998 version had a more cohesive plot (a terrible one, granted, but still less convoluted than this mess) and Godzilla had more than 5 minutes of total screen time. Both pale in comparison to all the Japanese versions despite the massive disparity in budgets.

Paul_SD

I loved it. It was just about everything I wanted/craved to see in a giant monster movie...including a limited use of the giant monsters.
That may seem incompatible or counter-intuitive, but the film built anticipation well for me and when it paid that off it in small doses , it was satisfying rather than numbing.

I also appreciated the Marvels (Busiek/Ross book) style POV being from the man on the street which limited our vantage of the monsters activity. And the fact that it juggled being a thoughtful homage to both the first Godzilla films (where it's about apocalyptic destruction at the hands of a giant monster) as well as the later 60's/early 70's films where Godzilla was a kid friendly hero monster that you cheered on.
The filmmakers here found a way to reconcile two very disparate takes on the material and they did it very well I thought.

Rival11

Count me in as another who really liked it. I knew nothing about Big G. barely being in it going in and to be honest....I'm glad I didn't - I thought it worked perfectly as when he does show up....he owns it - straight pimp.

I like Jaws analogy someone used...while Jaws certainly does show up more in his film - he's not in most of it.

I loved the action, the detail, and how they made G. appear so huge.

Hokeyboy

Jaws had well-defined characters you actually gave a shit about, so that when the monster was offscreen there was content worth getting involved with.

Godzilla... not even close

Paul_SD

Was Godzilla (2014) as good as Jaws? No. Not even close.

Was it the most enjoyable Godzilla movie I've seen in my life? Yes...by quite a ways (and that includes the original).

I completely agree about the characters, but for some reason I didn't mind that aspect in my first viewing. I would expect that, unlike Jaws which still retains appeal for me after 50+ viewings, that this Godzilla's appeal won't be able to achieve near the same mileage. But at this age I don't watch even movies I enjoy more than once every four or five years. At that pace, it should be good for a few more spins.

RocShemp

Exactly. The humans in Jaws are what made the limited appearances of the shark work. The reverse occurs in Godzilla where you long for Big G to kill everyone so we don't have to see them ever again. Sadly, Godzilla actually came across as a pussy in this one. One on one, the Mutos kept getting away (even if the film never bothered to show how they got away) and then when Godzilla fought both he was smacked around like a little bitch. It was nice to see the radioactive breath but it felt more like too little, too late.

And I still don't understand why he didn't eat the nuke at the end. If the Mutos and Godzilla both feed off radiation, he should have been hunting them to guard his intended food source.

hanshotfirst1138

You name your main character Brody in a monster movie at your peril. I'm just saying, that's a BIG shadow.

Rival11

My point was....you KNOW you wanted to see the damn shark. I'm gonna get a ton of shit for this as well but...aside from Roy S'. Character....didn't give a shit about any them really....love the movie but to me it's more of the atmosphere and direction that keeps me interested.

joliom

I can't get over the decision to make Aaron Taylor-Johnson the main character when they had Bryan Cranston at their disposal. That was dumb. The only time the movie is any fun is when the monsters are rampaging through cities or fighting each other. Of course, there's very little of that, and instead we are treated to endless scenes of boring, cheesy, and decidedly inconsequential, human drama. Just exactly what I want to see in a Godzilla movie.

d2cheer

Yea I gave it 2 1/2 as well...didn't hate it didn't love it. Wasn't that thrilled with it, sort of bored with it. It was just OK...wouldn't see another and hope there is no Pacific Rim crossover.

The lead Aaron Taylor-Johnson was REALLY weak also...spend a couple bucks and get a better lead like Taylor Kitsch and no I am not kidding.

joliom

Or just use Cranston who they already had.

hanshotfirst1138

Was Cranston contracted to a smaller part? I assumed he was shooting something else and they had to write him into the story with limited screen time as a result, he got the "and" credit, he, Binoche, and Hawkins all just had glorified cameos where they basically got to say a few lines of exposition.

RocShemp

Except he really sucked in this too. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was flat but Bryan Cranston was overacting like there was no tomorrow.

joliom

At least he was fun to watch. None of the other actors were.

RocShemp

Not at all. He was painful to watch. Unless you mean in the sense that you could laugh at his terrible performance in this movie. I guess there is that.

RichC2

I didn't mind Cranston, yeah he was a bit over the top, but it breathed a little life into the proceedings.

Dr. DVD

I still think the movie was decent as a G flick but I think the sequel would benefit from a totally new cast of human characters save Serizawa. It would actually make sense as most of the old G-films seldom retained the same cast of characters (Though it was the same actors playing different roles, that would actually be an amusing approach. Bring Cranston back! )

JordanGLC

That would crack me up! People would probably think they were copying American Horror Story.

Strevlac

You could take the entire shark plot out of Jaws and still have a great movie with just those characters on a seafaring adventure. What a great, great movie.

But Godzilla, yeah. I still liked it. The monsters were cool and it had kind of a strange eerie tone about it. Different from most of the big budget crap we usually get.

DaveyJoe

Which is why I think it's unfair to criticize Godzilla because it's not as good as the greatest disaster movie ever made, a film so critically and financially successful that it created the summer blockbuster. The vast majority of movies don't hold up under intense scrutiny especially if you're constantly comparing them to the single best example in that genre. Yes, Godzilla is flawed in the character department, and could have been better, but the last few pages have just been complaining about the characters and then talking about Jaws to prove that it's possible to have a monster movie with great characters, but as a life-long fan, I'd rather compare Godzilla to other Godzilla movies. Like Paul SD, I am a big fan of Godzilla movies and I think this one blew them all away aside from the original classic.

RocShemp

I would argue that Godzilla vs. Destoroyah and Godzilla 2000 were both easily better than this snooze-fest.

RichC2

This one didn't make me cringe as much as Godzilla 2000 did.