First and foremost, I think this 1998 movie is just okay. Nothing good, nothing bad, but hardly special. And it's better than a few of the 60s and 70s Godzilla movies, but certainly weaker compared to the really exciting entries of the 90s and nothing at all compared to the 1954 original. Seriously, you can't take things like "Godzilla vs. Megalon" or the dancing scene in "Monster Zero" and use them as a stereotype for trashing the whole series. That's the equivalent of hating "Star Wars" based on what you saw in "The Phantom Menace" or condemning Spider-Man based on what you saw in "Spider-Man 3." It's a narrow-minded, ignorant, and foolish way of looking at cinema. The original was, with the exception of special effects (obviously, because more than 40 years of developing technology exists between the two films), infinitely superior. Better acting, better plot construction, better storytelling, a more interesting monster, and - something you almost never see in American cinema today - ideas. The original picture was postwar commentary on the atomic bomb guised as a monster movie, with Godzilla standing in as a metaphor for the bomb itself. And that's not me reading too deep into it; that's material that's right up there on the screen, either conveyed with imagery or talked about by the character, best exemplified with a character says that "Godzilla is no different from the atomic bomb still haunting the Japanese people." The 1998 film is about a creature showing up in Manhattan and causing panic. The original movie gave the on-screen carnage meaning.
In the 1998 film, people die, and we go "Ooh! Yeah, look how cool that thing blew up!" In the 1954 original, we see people crushed underneath rubble, vaporized by fire, suffering from radiation poisoning, children watching their parents die in the hospital, children themselves becoming victims of the attack - the result is not one of giddy pleasure. It's draining, it's harrowing, it's haunting - because there's meaning behind it.
And I really want to stress the acting. The 1954 original had Takashi Shimura, that wonderful actor from the classic Kurosawa movies like "Seven Samurai," "Rashomon," and "Ikiru." And any 5 seconds with Shimura in any movie is so much better than all of Maria Pitilla's performance in this picture. Shimura gave is a complex, interesting character, who was believable as a human being; Pitilla gave us one of the most obnoxious characters in recent movie history. Not only did we not care whether or not Broderick and her got together, we rooted for the character to die. We wanted Godzilla or its babies to rip her to shreds. Seriously, I would have stated applauding had the character been smashed underneath a ton of rubble or devoured by the monsters. I found her that aggravating. Bad writing and even worse acting.
And seriously…special effects? OF COURSE, the special effects here are better than what was done in the 50s. That's a given. Just the same as the special effects done in the remake of "King Kong" were better than those done in the one from the 1930s. But does the mere fact that it's shot in color and features updated special effects make it a better movie? Not at all. The special effects in the 1954 original were very impressive for their time (contrary to the arrogant bias, there's not a single cardboard building in sight). And viewed today, they still work because they're there to help the story and to convey the meaning behind the film.
But that's right. It's black-and-white and it's subtitled, therefore jt's an inferior film.
reply
share
minutesfromeverywhere
11 years ago
You're right...I'm sorry. The original is the best and this one is just ok. I guess I just got caught up in the movie while I was watching it...but you made a great point, and now I feel pretty stupid for liking this one.
reply
share
julesrulesny
11 years ago
I wouldn't redirect your opinion so fast.. I agree bc I think the 98 version with Broderick was AWESOME! a perfectly done fun film for what it was. The way this movie got trashed was totally out of sorts.. people having a predetermined opinion, even before they saw it..
same goes for the critics that didnt give it a chance.. as we see that time and time again.. critics who may even be paid by other competing film companies will trash a movie just to boost ratings of another competing film.. as I am sure this does happen. Its human nature and it happens in every single other genre, sector, industry from business to politics...
Anyways.
This movie.. was Good entertainment and I enjoyed it ten times more watching it again a few months ago then I dod when I first watched it numerous times years and years ago.. to me the Godzilla of 98 got better.
reply
share
Dan_323
10 years ago
Wow, you sure changed sides fast. A man without convictions is no man. I agreed with your original comment. But I also kind of agree with TheUnknown837-1. I don't want to watch the older Godzilla movies simply because of the fact they look like crappy, fake, toy dinosaurs with ancient special effects (which is reason enough for most people today actually) that only fan boys like him watch and blindly elevate to a position of divinity because of the unparalleled awe they experienced it as children. Then they berate anything new based on the same source and don't judge it on its own merits and continually keep comparing it to the older, crappy movies. These are just cinema hipsters, bud. I think the recent Godzilla movies are better simply because of the fact they look as real as they can get which is a big positive for me (and in fact most everyone else).
However, comparing the older Godzilla movies and the recent ones is kind of unfair, too, since there is a big technology gap between them and therefore a gap in the creators's means to present them. Anyway, who cares, the recent ones are unarguably infinitely better.
______________
History is written by the victors.
reply
share
megafauna005
10 years ago
I totally agree Godzilla 98 blows away all other Godzilla movies ever made including the 2014 garbage! I don't understand the negativity either! It'It's not an Academy award winner but it has 10 times the action and fun of the horrible 2014 Godzilla where nothing happens till the last 5 minutes!
Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
TheUnknown837-1
10 years ago
AngryDodgerFan, based on the anti-analytical nonsense imbeciles like this megafauna troll keep on spewing, I have to conclude these are the same people who would say "Independence Day" is better than "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and would claim the characters and aliens of a movie like "Independence Day" are better and more developed than ones like in "Close Encounters" and that the Roland Emmerich movie is better than the Spielberg movie because we see the aliens a lot earlier in the film, that we don't have to wait until the last 10 minutes to see them. This is also the same kind of group who would probably claim the remake of "King Kong" is better than the 1933 original, that the remake of "Day the Earth Stood Still" beats the original 1951 masterpiece, or - gasp - the remake of "Psycho" trumps the Hitchcock classic simply because they are in color and have modern-day special effects.
There are fans of the 1998 movie that have put some genuine and intelligent thought behind their enthusiasm (OmegaMorph is one of them), but a lot of the noise, coming from anti-intellectuals like this megafauna loser, is just blathering from people who know nothing about art - no analysis, no depth, no attempt at at a discussion. I already posted a long list of detailed information about how the 1954 original artistically trumps this film (not my interpretation, stuff that actually occurs on-screen in the movie) and all he blathers about is the "fat man in suit is ancient" nonsense.
reply
share
J5iftY5iveXtreme
10 years ago
blindly elevate to a position of divinity because of the unparalleled awe they experienced it as children. Then they berate anything new based on the same source and don't judge it on its own merits and continually keep comparing it to the older, crappy movies.
If we judge this film based on its own merits and judge the original 1954 Godzilla based on its own merits, then the original would still be better. The only thing better that this has are the special effects, and yes, the monster does look better, but it would be a shallow reason to think the whole movie is better. The 1954 original is still better when it comes to acting and storytelling, and those are the most important thing in making a movie good. The reasons that TheUnknown-837 gave for why the original is better were legit, and none of those reasons were that it is old. It's not a case of blindly elevating something to divinity. He even admitted that this film was better than some of the original Godzilla films so it certainly not blind nostalgia.
It is true that some of the older Godzillas are crappy, but the 1954 original is not one of them. Judging this movie based on its own merits, this is an amusing summer flick with neat special effects, but that's it. The 1954 original (and I mean the original, unedited version of it, not the American edit with actor Raymond Burr added into the plot) is not just a mere monster movie, it's an allegory for the horrors of nuclear warfare.
reply
share
KimJongUnsBarber
11 years ago
or condemning Spider-Man based on what you saw in "Spider-Man 3."
Spider-Man 3 is a THOUSAND times better than the Amazing Spider-Man 2!
reply
share