Roger Ebert bashes original GODZILLA

[Chris K.]

You would think that a critic like Roger Ebert would realize that the miniature buildings were not constructed out of cardboard and the rubber suited costume was not cheaply made? But then, this is Roger Ebert: a man who hasn't the ability to do any of his homework even if his life depended on it! And what do you know, he has seen the re-issue of the original GODZILLA and his review is up. The results: a low rating and the typical comment "bad film". Ebert put alot of thought in his review, and yet Ebert really missed the point of the film. Even comparing it to FARENHEIGHT 9/11 in terms of it's political message is as absurd as Ebert saying the special effects of Eiji Tsuburaya were not revolutionary for their time (And yet Ebert doesn't seem to realize that the effects were state-of-the-art and revolutionary for their time; and like the original KING KONG, the effects work in GODZILLA really stunned people back then).

Despite my bitiching, I do realize that this is an opinion of a critic. What really irks me is that he treats the film like many other classic B-movies like they were really nothing worth noting. And for a film historian, Ebert just really has no clue on why a film like GODZILLA is appreciated. Sure, it's 60 years old and in black-and-white, but it has more atmosphere and story, and even the effects work still has a certain creative charm that can be effective when you suspend disbelief (something Ebert can't do, I assume). Yeah, and his review for FARENHEIGHT 9/11 makes me really want to rush to my local theatre and pay $7.50 to see it. Sorry, but I'll watch GODZILLA instead. I'm just really disgusted by these critics who act like they know what is good or bad, but boy they sure know how to pick the real lousy ones. Oh well, enough of my b***hing, here is his crappy review if you really care what this hack has to say:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-godzilla02f.html

Looking at Eberts review, it's much more innane than his "review" for Lucio Fulci's re-issue of THE BEYOND. And that's saying alot.

[daveblackeye15]

OOOOOH! He was a bit too harsh for me, he went over the line and he's not only insulted Gojira but me as well. As you said he needs to suspend his disbelieve.

[Brother Ragnarok]

Roger Ebert can go f**k his mother for all I care.  Goddammit, big-time movie critics suck!  Why don't they let people like us, who actually KNOW THINGS ABOUT MOVIES, write these articles?

[nobody]

I don't know about Godzilla. I've never seen the movie myself. But Ebert has given some terrible movies the "thumbs up"- most recently for example, "Garfield" the movie. If that doesn't fully discredit the guy, nothing will.

[Dunners]

hes just getting kickbacks from the studios to give crap a passing grade.

[nobody]

I'm not sure it's kickbacks he's interested in... I think he's just seriously retarded.

[Fearless Freep]

If I was particularly concerned about someone else's opinion of a movie would I be posting on a message board at a site called "badmovies.org"?

I'll read others opinions, sure, but I don't really worry about whether or nor I agree

[Chris K.]

True to form, it is another persons opinion, and rightly so. Does it really bother me? Not really, but I think it's just interesting. And in the long run, my $7.50 will go to GODZILLA, if I can just plan a date to go see it!

[BeyondTheGrave]

i dont really listen to critics reviews anyway. if all the critics said spider man 2 sucked i would saw it anyway. people have to remember that critics are just giving thier opinon. their just on tv and write in magzines and we dont do etiher. i think people take thier reviews like facts sometimes. i like godzilla since iwas little. some critic aint going to change that and i think most of the people on the board will agree.

"I know I know ive been exposed permeant psychoses..
at least the colors are nice"- Aeon Flux

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I disagree with Ebert's review of the original "Godzilla" (heck, I even liked the Raymond Burr version of "Godzilla"), but I don't really take it personally. It's just his opinion. However, I think it's a bit unfair to criticize a Godzilla movie about its special effects (because, frankly, what were you expecting when you came in?, and the average cost of a Japanese movie has always been about one quarter the cost of an American movie). I think perhaps Ebert was a bit jaded by the tradional Western consensus of Japanese monster movies ("they're all low-budget crap for undemanding children").

[Chris K.]

Bubba Ho-Tep wrote:

> However, I think it's a bit unfair to criticize a Godzilla
> movie about its special effects (because, frankly, what were
> you expecting when you came in?, and the average cost of a
> Japanese movie has always been about one quarter the cost of an
> American movie). I think perhaps Ebert was a bit jaded by the
> tradional Western consensus of Japanese monster movies
> ("they're all low-budget crap for undemanding children").

Exactly! Thank you, Bubba Ho-Tep for making this comment. Here was Ebert's chance to see a non-English dubbed pic in original ratio and uncut, with the mindeset on when the film was made and what important timeframe it was (i.e., Japan's postwar after WW2), and yet the Western mentality of Japanese monster movies has not changed. And for a guy who likes THE SEVEN SAMURAI, Ebert sure missed the boat with GODZILLA.

As for the review in general, I don't take it too personally. But it really upsets me that a well-known mainstream critic/film historian just doesn't do his homework and it shows in his review (hell, he admits it in his "Answer Man" column). He may like the film or not, which is fine, but please do the homework!

Plus, Ebert should know this fact: the first GODZILLA was released in Japan and aimed towards the serious adult rather than the young child, which throws out the "they're all low-budget crap for undemanding children".

[daveblackeye15]

Yeah, Bubba Ho-Tep you got it right. As you said "Ebert should have done his homework" and Gojira was not for children it was aimed at children. That part is what got me kinda annoyed about his review.

[JohnL]

Ebert often plain gets his facts wrong. I also think he occasionally goes back and changes his reviews when such mistakes are pointed out to him.

For example, I clearly remember reading his review of Mars Attacks and he had a small rant about how a love story had been inserted between Natalie Portman and Lucas Haas, when she tells him at the end "You got a girlfriend.". Umm, no, she ASKED him "You got a girlfriend?". I knew it was a question and not a statement the first time I saw the movie. I've gone back to look up that review and that part is no longer in it.

That's just a minor mistake. I've read reviews where he completely misunderstands part of the plot or what's happened to a character and then says the film doesn't make sense. I can't think of any examples right now, but I know I've seen them.

[Vermin Boy]

If you really want a bad one, check out his review for Wet Hot American Summer. I don't care whether you agree with him or nor, that's just painfully bad writing.

[StatCat]

Ebert is a total moron and it's just been made more obvious right here.

So I guess there is going to be a 50th anniversary run of Godzilla? Haven't heard this until now.