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.
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.
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?
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.
hes just getting kickbacks from the studios to give crap a passing grade.
I'm not sure it's kickbacks he's interested in... I think he's just seriously retarded.
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
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!
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
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").
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 50th Anniversary run is on right now. Check Rialto Pictures' website to see if it's playing near you. I caught it up in Minneapolis, and it absolutely rocks.
Ebert can have his opinion.
In this case, wher its dark and smelly.
Yeesh. Film Critics are just people with an opinion, a place to vent it, and a bit of skill and glibness in saying it.
So, Rog....bite me.
Meanwhile, I hope Godzilla crushes Michael Moore under a wharehouse, and toasts his fat butt.
Go,Go,Godzilla!
Not to mention that in his review for the 2nd Harry Potter he said that the girl playing Hermione was "... on the verge of babehood"
PEDOPHILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My dad and I decided to go down to the Music Box theatre-a beautifuly designed theatre, by the way-and see GODZILLA as it was intedned to be seen on the big screen. And I must say, it was quite a treat. Having been so adjusted to the U.S. version, when seeing the original version it was as if the whole film was new all over again.
GODZILLA still works and it's early 1950's Atomic Age message gives the film a classic nostalgic look. Eiji Tsuburaya's effects work still looks good, but even better on the big screen. While their are a few instances where the effects could have been improved (i.e., the destroyed heilicopter on Odo Island easly looks like a toy), the rest of the effects are still top-noch in their display and look better on the big screen. And yes, Akira Ifukube's score is more rousing, somber and energetic than it was before (the title score still sticks in my mind). But credit goes to Ishiro Honda, whose direction keeps the films pace moving at a brisk level and does the right thing by focusing not only on the monster, but also on characters and political ideals-both satrical and serious levels. I will admit that I was even shedding a few tears during the final reel of Dr. Serizawa and Godzilla's death: it's downbeat and somber, with Ifukbue's score making it even more so. But I was upset by the audience's reaction of Serizawa's invention Oxygen Destroyer, which set the viewers with quick laughter by the name (my dad and I just looked at each other with the expression of "What's so funny about that?" look). Guess my sense of humor is different!
In the long run, seeing the original Japanese version was a big revelation. It's quite different than the U.S. verison, in terms of editing, sound, and presentation. The Japanese version is somber, heavy-handled in story, and treats it's subject matter with both serious and humorous situations. The U.S. version, while not bad, removes the then controversial subject matter of nuclear testing, political satire, and it's important-for-the-times message that just resulted in a U.S. re-edit film about a monster and Raymond Burr. The original version is more than that and is required viewing for Godzilla fans and non-Godzilla fans. It is a great film, both on an artistic and entertaining level.
In the end, I say: Long Live Godzilla, a Monster That Not Even Roger Ebert Could Destroy!
I had some jackasses in the theater laughing at every FX shot and some of the serious dramatic moments too, Chris. I wanted to take the straw out of my soda cup and stab their goddamn eyes out.
This was, coincidentally, the first movie since Hellboy that I've bought concessions for. I only do that for very special movies since they're so bloody expensive.
Brother Ragnarok:
That's the spirit Ragnarok! Make them pay for laughing at a classic like that!
I had some jackasses in the theater laughing at every FX shot and some of the serious dramatic moments too, Chris
Ahh, a MST3K treatment! Cool :)
I was thinking about Ebert's review, and...maybe he's right. C'mon, a 400 foot monster used as symbolism for death? Yeah, real subtle.
Okay, everyone. You can all hate me now.
Bubba Ho-Tep wrote:
> I was thinking about Ebert's review, and...maybe he's right.
> C'mon, a 400 foot monster used as symbolism for death? Yeah,
> real subtle.
>
> Okay, everyone. You can all hate me now.
Well, I sure as hell won't hate you, but I have to say what a different change of pace you made after your first comment towards Ebert's review. Either your just pulling our legs, or possibly convinced by the review. Either way, to-each-is-own.
And what's wrong with a 400 foot monster being used as a symbolism for death? It actually is more in-depth than one would think and is a little subtle. But, to-each-is-own.
"Godzilla" movies are great entertainment, and the original one does have some interesting things to say about the atom age. I just that it is, above all, an exploitation film (really, how many people are coming in to see the giant monster, and how many people are coming in to see the subtext?), and the idea of using a giant monster as sybolism is like hitting a wallnut with a sledgehammer.
Bubba Ho-Tep wrote:
> "Godzilla" movies are great entertainment, and the original one
> does have some interesting things to say about the atom age. It
> just that it is, above all, an exploitation film (really, how
> many people are coming in to see the giant monster, and how
> many people are coming in to see the subtext?), and the idea of
> using a giant monster as sybolism is like hitting a wallnut
> with a sledgehammer.
Well, I really have to disagree about the explotation film issue when it comes to the original GODZILLA. However, it is true that the American release version GODZILLA-KING OF THE MONSTERS was released as an exploitation film, but that was U.S. distributor Joseph E. Levine's doing, not Toho's. And it was the American release version that would create a whole slew of sci-fi exploitation films in the late 1950's (i.e., THE GIANT CLAW, THE BLACK SCORPION, etc.) of giant monsters on the loose, but again this was not Toho's doing but the crass exploitation masterwork of Levine who saw an "artsy" (and yes, the original does have some artsy undertones) sci-fi flick and turned it into an average B-movie. But to implicate that subtext is non-existant in the original version is hard to press. If you watch the original Japanese version, their are a few bits of small subtext that can be found if you are REALLY getting into the film. The subtext and the political satire were removed from the U.S. version, thus making it harder for American audiences to realize the subtext and satrical moments that are evident in the Japanese version. But you are right on one thing Bubba Ho-Tep: How many people watch movies for subtext? Not many, sadly.
And yes, I too, like other audiences, want to see the monster destroy all the well detailed set pieces, but with the original version while it's entertaining it certainly does take a few items to the next level and becomes a little bit uncomfortable (i.e., Such as the scene of the mother with her two daughters against the wall of a building, about to be killed in the fire caused by Godzilla's fire. A sad scene and a bit uncomfortable to watch.). And personally, I feel that Godzilla works as an impressive symbolistic message in that fantasy film format. If you want to see symbolisim used like hitting a wallnut with a sledgehammer, take a good look at the scene of Jesus Christ stepping on a snake in THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST: now that's hitting a wallnut with a sledgehammer with full force!
The original GODZILLA is entertaining on one level, but in my opinion is also a good film, in terms of artistic and creative aesthetics on another level. As for the sequels, we all know that while they are entertaining, they are fluff and not like the first film. But like I said earlier, when it comes to viewing the original Japanese version, their is so much more you can get out of it, entertainment or otherwise.
Oh and Bubba Ho-Tep, if you think I hate you after all this, no I don't hate you. In fact, your opinion is taken into consideration and I admire it.
You put up a good argument - I suppose I was wrong.
Didn't the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms help inspire Godzilla? I think that's really the movie that started the giant monster trend of the 50's.
I just got The Black Scorpion on dvd, haven't seen it in ages.
No, Freep. An MST treatment involves impeccable comic timing and a sharp, intelligent wit. Snickering at a movie and irritating the other theater patrons doesn't include either of those things.
While THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS (1953) was an inspirational tool towards Tomoyuki Tanaka for the genesis of GODZILLA, let us not forget THEM! (1954) and KING KONG (1933) as well. And I must thank you for pointing this out StatCat.
And while THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS and THEM! marked the beginning of the 50's giant monster films, the trend didn't really become quite explosive until late 1955 when the Americanized cut of GODZILLA reared its head. But to be fair, three of the films were the genesis of the 50's style monster pics and each one deserves credit.
He is usually too kind to some movies. But sometimes we could agree with him. Personnally I like his reviews even the harsh one because he is just one person. You are always going to have a few people that won't like your greatness or love your stupidity. That is why the show is split up between two people. And by the way he loved the origional Dawn of the Dead and Evil Dead 2 so he has some good qualities in him.
You know, Ebert is generally the closest thing we b-fans have to a friendly critic, but there are times when he utterly baffles me. There are three primary examples of this. One, when he suggested there "might be some mysterious connection" between Ripley and the cloned alien taken from her body in Alien: Resurrection. Had he not bothered to watch Alien 3? Two, when he denied hotly that any "lesbian breastplay" occurs at Bennington College (re: "The Rules of Attraction"). Having attended Bennington for four years and graduated, I can say with absolute certainty that he's wrong on that count, and I'm happy, at least, to see that he has since recanted the statement. Third, what critic would ever, ever let loose so mercilessly on the original Godzilla? Is he trying to be edgy? Hell, I don't know. I swear the man is schizophrenic.
>Had he not bothered to watch Alien 3?
Possibly not, but even if he did, he probably wasn't paying much attention to it.
If the movie had starred Angelina Jolie it would have gotten at least three stars. That's where Toho went wrong.