Godzilla now has a rating from Rotten Tomatoes and it's good!4,233 Views35 RepliesAdd A Reply
I don't think this is already a topic. I have seen plenty of IMDB topics talking about it's 9.2 rating but if this is already topic then forgive me. Anyway, this is good news. Rotten Tomatoes has given Godzilla an 83%! This is wonderful! So far, Godzilla has been getting all positive reviews from different sites! I can tell this will be a success :)
There have been negative reviews.
Most negative reviews center around:
The lead should have been Cranston
The characters are flat, almost pointless
Not quite enough Godzilla
Jaws is like that and Alien silly critics with not quite enough monster
Would a good or bad review stop you from seeing it, OP? Lets face it, what matters is whether that film appeals to you the audience member, not what some film critic think, good or bad.
I don't really care what ratings Rottentomatoes or metacritic has for the movie, so long as I personally enjoy it. After all, that is what truly matters in the end...
I don't think most of us are concerned with the reviews in terms of needing/wanting them to influence our own opinion.
Rather, the reviews give us an idea of the potential box office draw and whether general audiences will be persuaded to see it.
And that we do have an interest in, as the more positive word of mouth increases sales, the more likely it is we get a sequel :-)
@Godzillatheking123 - No, good or bad reviews wouldn't make a difference to me. I just think it's a wonderful thing that Godzilla is getting good reviews. Like Madison said, it gives an idea of how it will succeed at the box office and it will persuade people to watch it. Not many people are going to watch a movie with bad ratings. But naturally everyone who is a Godzilla fan will see it whether it has a bad or good reviews. Personally, like you said, it just matters about whether you enjoy it or not. But, anyway the whole point of this topic was to just share the good news about Godzilla's new reviews. Nothing more :)
"Not many people are going to watch a movie with bad ratings."
Doesn't seem to faze Adam Sandler or those awful Transformers movies.
I mean, there are exceptions to every rule (heck the 1998 American Godzilla is probably one of the strongest examples of an exception)
But generally, yeah, the better reviews, the more likely the movie will be profitable. I'd say there are way, way more examples of movies that get bad reviews, and nobody sees it, or movies that get good reviews, and get benefits from that; than examples of well reviewed movies that fly under the radar, or piece of crap movies that just barrel through and make money anyway like a honey badger.
That being said, those honey badger movies, like Transformers....yeah....they baffle the crap out of me. I really don't understand how/why those are still as successful as they are.
Right now the Rottentomatoes rating stands at 91%. By the end of the week it will probably end up at around 76%-80%. Rottentomatoes ALWAYS start out high and goes down as more established reviewers (Time, Variety, NY Post) chime in. 76% is still pretty good.
Metacritic will give you a better idea of just how good the movie is, overall. Right now they have a rating of 60. That rating will probably end up at about 55.
It appears as if Gareth Edwards, who is relatively new as a director. stills has a few things to learn.
Your analysis that the scores trend downward the longer a movie is out is GENERALLY correct, and your Rotten Tomatoes estimate seems spot on.
But the reasons for the film's average reviews seem to have very little with Gareth Edwards. In fact, Edwards' work seems to be a major highlight of the praise. For him, I really think this is going to be his breakout movie, which is going to get him hired to do a lot more other things.
People seem to be upset about the 'script by committee', weak human characters (mainly ATJ), and the fact that monster 'metaphor' seems shoe-horned in, rather than genuine.
Edwards can elevate that content to a certain extent, but there is only so much he can do if he has sup-bar material to work with. Especially a young director just wouldn't have the permission or confidence to challenge the studio execs on script problems. As opposed to somebody like George Lucas or Christopher Nolan who basically have 100% latitude to change, improve, or screw up whatever they would like in their movies.
Maybe Edwards will earn the right to have complete control of his movies down the road, but for now, he's probably working with some studio limitations. For his part, it sounds like Gareth did a GREAT job with the parts he did have more direct control over.
I'm not saying that if Gareth would have had more control, that all the problems would have been fixed. Who knows, maybe if Gareth had total control he would have screwed them up worse? We won't know until Gareth gets more control over his movies/scripts.
I prefer looking at the audience ratings rather than what the critics think. Rottentomatoes can be quite biased at times.
Life is very simple, but we insist on making it complicated.
RatedRex and Madison-
Neither of you have seen the movie yet and you are already debating the merits and weakness of the movie? Don't want to sound harsh, but I think its better if you wait until you actually have seen the movie for yourself before you judge the film's pros and cons.
Right now you are debating based on what some other people think. They may or may not share your view once you actually seen it. So its best to leave the debating until both of you have actually seen the movie first.
I dunno, my main point is just that Edwards isn't what is being criticized about the movie. Edwards' contributions are even getting compliments. Which is just a descriptive truth, whether I've seen the movie not.
I understand I shouldn't judge the movie myself until I see it for myself. I'm not trying to make my own personal judgements here. I'm more just trying to talk about what the critics are talking about.
Who knows? The critics could be totally off-base. I can't know whether or not they are until I see the movie.
But between now and then, I do enjoy talking about the critics comments, and analyzing what parts of their critiques may or may not be legit. I just consider it a different form of speculation.
@GODZILLATHEKING93 & MADISON
I'm not debating the movie. I'm only speculating about the eventual ratings from rottentomatoes and metacritic.
I have yet to see the movie, so you are right, I need to see for myself before I make any statement that makes sense. But for now its fun to add my two cents just for the hell of it. That's what this forum is for, right?
I don't like when critics say "too much human action, not enough monster", because you know that if there was a lot of Godzilla they'd say "too much Godzilla, not enough human action". I think critics just need something to pick at or else they seem meaningless.
@SLIRPY - I know right. That's so true. Critics have always been like that and they will never change.
I don't think they're flip flopping. I think it really varies depending on the cast you have to work with and what you ask them to do. Take an example like:
Jurassic Park had some really cool human characters and philosophical debates. If you cut out the human part of that story and replace it with mindless dino action.....you get The Lost World.
Transformers had Shia Labeouf and Megan Fox.....if you gave those two any more screentime....people would have started throwing rocks at the screen. That movie needs giant robot battles to cover for the fact that is has NOTHING else going for it.
It seems to me that the critics are upset with Godzilla because it offered up a Jurassic Park serving of monster action....while offering more of a Transformers helping of human action (that's probably not quite a fair comparison, but the principle remains the same....it was a bad combination)
If EITHER the monster action stayed the same, but the human element was stronger
The human element remained the same, but there was more monster action
Then critics would have been happy. It's not that their flip floppy, it's that each movie has different cir***stances and needs to strike its own balance. It sounds like Godzilla didn't quite do that from what they are saying anyway. Who knows, maybe they are just flat out wrong.
@Madison - That is a really good point you got there. But sometimes critics can be a bit flip floppy. But yeah, I see what you are getting at.
right now i see it at a 77%, i will still go see it
The difference betweem Jurassic Park and Transformer is: Steven Spielberg directed Jurassic Park and Michael Bay directed Transformer. If Michael Bay had directed Jurassic Park we would have had an entirely different movie.
Spielberg knows how to incorporate the human interest with the monster. We've seen him do it in Jaws, Jurassic Park, and in Close Encounters. Those three movies did not show the monsters, (or aliens for Close Encounters...) until late in the movies. Which is why I mentioned in a pevious post that Gareth Edwards still have a few things to learn. Imagine the human story if Spielberg had directed Godzilla.
A good director can always get a good performance out of his actors. Spielberg, Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola are good examples of directors who do. A gay like Michael Bay is just the opposite. He's good at action and explosions but he sucks at character developement.
According to the reviews the character developementin Godzilla is lacking, which is often the blame of the director. I'll know for sure when I see the movie next Saturday.
Madison and RateRex:
Or maybe the character development really ain't as important or distracting as the critics suggest. Apart from the very first Gojira in 1954, the human characters are of secondary importance for the sequels (with one or two exceptions). One does not go to a Godzilla movie to see whether Sally gets back with her boyfriend Steve or whether poor little joe can mend ties with his distant and cold father. We see Godzilla movie for the big G and how he will stomp the living !@$%^& out of a city. If this movie can do that, then I can easily look past any weakness in the human characters.
I agree with you to an a point, but ALL good movies need character developement. We loved Jaws because the characters, not because of the shark. We cared for the men in that boat. A movie without compelling characters is lifeless. Take the Transformer movies, for example: all of them are boring despite all the explosions and fighting, because we don't care about any of them. I would love to see Godzilla show up at the end of the upcoming Transformer 4 and blow the **** out of everything with one massive blast of his atomic breath, therby ending that stupid franchise.
I disagree here. The Godzilla series has never really needed truly compelling characters. Yes, having compelling human characters sure would'nt hurt the movie (and I of course would welcome it), but its not necessary for the enjoyment of it. Look at the close to 30 Godzilla movies and tell me which one of them (apart from the first one) has really compelling human character that would rival the Godfather series. I mean, come on. The heart of the Godzilla story is Godzilla himself (and his foe). Sure, there has to be humans around to move the story along, but they are not ultimately central to the movie (again with the exception of Gojura 1954).
In any case (and no offence), I do begin to think you are being influenced by the critics more than you want to admit. Some critics say the characters are one-dimensional, but are they really? And does it really matter in the end? Remember, we are Godzilla fans, not film critics. We judge Godzilla movies a little differently from the rest. :)
No offense taken: I used to be a movie critic 35 years ago for my college newspaper. And I worked for a major movie studio from 1979 to 1999 before burning out and moving on to better things.
I agree that the Godzilla franchise has rarely developed any of the human characters. But think about it, other than Godzilla 1954, every other Godzilla movie has flopped in the US. I've already written about this. Monster vs monster has never been a big hit in the US, in any form. Character developement is usually essential to a good movie. Watching Transformesr bang on each other for 90 minutes doesn't do it for me. I want to see Godzilla, but I also want to have something else to attach myself to, as do most of the audience. If human characters weren't important, you wouldn't have so many reviews commenting on the lack thereof.
I will write my review next Sunday.
yeah i feel with all this talk about lack of substance, just a gut feeling, that the original GOjira will still be the better film overall, you know maybe not as enjoyable, but the better film overall. THat movie just had things RIGHT.
"But think about it, other than Godzilla 1954, every other Godzilla movie has flopped in the US."
Which is still not true, but you keep enjoying side-stepping that.
I'd also like to point out that the characters from Speilberg's Jurassic Park are hardly well developed. Interestingly enough they have more in common with characters from the Godzilla series than Speilberg's top heavy films.
Jurassic Park and the Godzilla series are more about character nuance. They're general players that move the story forward and have their feelings and emotions, but they're high calibar character studies. It works for both and it's not a bad thing, but to assume Jurassic Park's iconic characters are memorable due to some immense journey they take is a false assumption.
Which Godzilla did well? Godzilla 1956 did ok. It made about $2 million, which is $17.4 million in today's numbers, considering inflation. King Kong vs Godzilla? It made $1.5 million, which is about $10.5 million in today's numbers. Godzilla 1985 bombed in the states, while Godzilla 2000 didn't do much better, and everything in between was worse. Dont just look at the budget of a movie, it is misleading. You also have to look at marketing and distribution, things the studios don't usually disclose. The only Godzilla film, other than Godzilla 1956, to make a little money was Godzilla 1998, and it barely broke even. So what numbers are you coming up with to support your argument, and where are you getting them from?
I've already mentioned that you are incorrect with King King vs. Godzilla. It is recorded as the most attended Godzilla series in the world. Several books on the topic have recorded this including David Kalat's book and even the lowly Godzilla Compendium. You continue to cite a number for its gross that is incorrect. It was not a gross, but a theater rental charged to the distributor. Even if you were to take the average gross of most movies from 1963 based on the number if theaters brought with that money it would be close to $3-4 million equating to $25-30 million today.
Ghidorah: The Three Headed Monster also grossed $2 million in America, giving it a $10-15 million gross.
Meanwhile, I highly doubt American producers, no matter how small (in fact the smaller they are, the more credence it adds to their likely profit) would co-fund three Toho productions in the mid-1960s with the idea they wouldn't be successful overseas.
You are right though. Budget isn't the only thing that matters. The fact is distributors didn't put a lot of money into buying these films because they knew it would make a quick, fast buck for a hole in their schedule. Not unlike the cheap, found footage horror fad today that requires little effort or money to make profit. For example, King Kong vs. Godzilla's American budget was $12,000. Do you not think the distributors made back that money and then some?
This farce that Godzilla movies have never done well is simply that. If it were true UPA and other distributors wouldn't have kept bringing them to the states throughout the 60s, nearly one after another.
It is now at 88%!!!
Here is a link to a recent article that speculated on Godzilla chances of flopping like the movie "John Carter" did a couple of years ago. Scroll down to the fourth or fifth paragraph. It supports some of the things that I have been writing.
Also, remember every Godzilla movie did not play at the theatres. Many of them went directly to television or video, because they couldn't get a distributor.
I don't why you take Godzilla's lack of box office success so personal. I'm sure Godzilla 2014 will make a lot of money.