Most misunderstood Godzilla movie??

[i]Godzilla's Revenge[/i], no contest. No doubt it has a lot of faults, but it's hated for being exactly what it was trying to be: A children's movie. [i]Godzilla's Revenge[/i] was made specifically for children. After making some of the best, hard nosed and thought provoking movies in the Godzilla series, Ishiro Honda decided to turn his attention to younger audiences. Think of it as the Sesame Street of the Godzilla series. The movie isn't about Godzilla or even Ichiro's imaginary friendship with Minya, it's about a young boy who lives in Japan during an economically difficult time. His parents are always working and his only adult mentor is a washed up toy-maker. He has no role model to teach him to stand up for himself, thus he imagines one. Godzilla may or may not be real in this movie. It's an ambiguous element left for the viewer to decide, but ultimately it doesn't matter. What matters is that Ichiro is able to use Godzilla, and his son, as inner inspiration to give himself some confidence. Now does it have faults? Absolutely. Because [i]Destroy All Monsters[/i] was so expensive and this was a much smaller movie, Toho didn't want to shell out the dough to create a lot of new fights. Thus, we're subjected to a lot of stock footage that becomes jarring as Godzilla's appearance changes from scene to scene. The ending with Ichiro fighting as a means to stand up for himself might also give the wrong signals. As a film for children it shouldn't use physical harm as a means to settle conflict. Alas, the key components work pretty well for the story, it's just not a traditional Godzilla movie and that pisses off fans the most.

This is a tough one. There are a lot of Godzilla films that get hated one a lot and they aren't even close to being bad. I would say Final Wars, but it has a cult following and it is defended by many people. But the one film I think that get treated unfairly is Godzilla vs. The Sea Monster. This was first Godzilla movie that had a great change in pace. Rather than re hashing the typical monster on the loose in the city story that went through the previous one, they instead went for a more adventure feel. It was a great way to help keep Godzilla fresh. Sure Ebriah wasn't a perfect follow up to King Ghidorah, but I thought he was a cool monster and the suit looked great. The human characters in the film were also great and likable. This is more of an adventure film with Godzilla in it and it's still great.

FUN FACT: GODZILLA vs THE SEA MONSTER was originaly supposed to be called EBIRA HOROR OF THE DEEP and star KING KONG but because licinsing issues toho couldnt use kingkong,thats why godzilla does'nt realy act like himself in the movie.

If any GODZILLA movie is misunderstood it's GODZILLA vs THE SMOG MONSTER.

The [b][i]MOST[/i][/b] misunderstood film is...[b]SON OF GODZILLA[/b].. What is so wrong with the idea of Godzilla having a son...Is he not allowed to have a family...It's okay that he protects the earth but Heaven forbid he has a son [i]SHEESH!![/i] There are many single parents out there in this world and that i think is what this movie's message is about...[b][i]Showing Godzilla as a single parent who has taken a break from defending the earth...So he can raise his son..[/i][/b] The movie portrays Godzilla as a single Parent/Father who now has the task of raising a child...Not only does he have to fend off the other monsters of the island but he also has to deal with keeping his son out of trouble as we see him get into on the island..

Godzilla (1998) This movie got so much hate because it was really just a big Hollywood blockbuster movie went bad. Mostly no one liked it because it was a huge disgrace to Godzilla and his fans since. Even though I do agree that cartoon was a little bit better then the movie. It wasn't to be misunderstood but can be seen that way. It just doesn't make sense to me. @Gman2887 Didn't mean to offend you by my statement.

@Godzilla 2016 And? You're kind of making a case for people to continue to hate it. Yes it was a Hollywood blockbuster that went bad. And yes it was a disgrace to Godzilla and a slap in the face to its fans. So how is it misunderstood?

Not really a movie, but I feel that the Godzilla Animated Series (the US one that continues the story of the crappy remake) is pretty misunderstood. People hate it cause it isn't the original Godzilla, but the show has a good plot with more three dimensional characters rather than the cardboard cut outs Emmerich put in his movie as well as the badass Zilla Jr. While he isn't Godzilla, he is worthy of the title cause even though he doesn't look like Godzilla, I think he looks pretty cool with a more streamline design. The show gave him atomic breath and monsters to fight, which Zilla Jr. dominates. The monsters he fights can range from badass (Cyber-Zilla, or Cyber-Godzilla as they call him) to just being stupid (Giant bat). Though the show has a few flaws, the Series deserves more than people give it and is a worthy show to be with Godzilla franchise itself.

damn that is tough there is a couple i can name godzilla's revenge godzilla 1998 aka zilla godzilla vs the smog monster but final wars may have been cheesy but i kinda of liked it it reminded me almost alot of DAM or DESTROY ALL MONSTERS

I would have to say Godzilla vs Gigan. It was a film that was changing the Godzilla films from kid friendly to mature with the blood and swearing and all that stuff. I welcomed that change.

Godzilla's Revenge no doubt

There's a lot of misunderstood Godzilla films, and I'm not gonna sugar coat what I think is most misunderstood, Godzilla (1998). I can see that I'm not the only one who says it, but not really an explanation was given why. Well I may have the answer to how it's misunderstood. Now let's get this clear, I don't entirely like the '98 remake, but I do enjoy it as a movie of it's own. Godzilla '98 was clearly not Godzilla, Emmerich Rolland really did butchered the name badly, but here's a thought, other than having the rights to call the film by its name, what was the OTHER reason the creature received the name "Godzilla?" Remember around the beginning of the film where the French found one Japanese survivor? The question that Phillipe asked, "What did you see, old man?" And what did the old man reply while looking at the flame of the lighter? "Gojira." The old man who survived the attack I.D.-ed the creature as Gojira. Too be fair when you're on a giant cargo ship traveling in bad weather at night, you can barely see a thing, but you're able to see something that reminds you of something you know then it's quite possible you'll probably assume that's what you seen. I mean think about it, Japanese fishing ship, sonar picking up something large, giant teeth, a long tail, even I would think I'd saw Godzilla at first. Though since this was the only time the old man saw the creature, Godzilla is all the French had to go with and same goes for the Americans. The only American who could of spoken against the name would of been Raymond Burr, or should I say Steve Martin who experienced the first and original attack of Godzilla. Though as of now the creature is no longer Godzilla, rather Zilla just because it has some slight similarities, and because Toho said so. And I'm fine with that but really it's misunderstood not just because Emmerich Rolland and his crew called it by the title, but also because of that Japanese sailor who I.D.-ed the creature as Godzilla in the first place.

I am actually going to say that the only film that is really misunderstood is Gojira and Godzilla King of Monsters. This makes me glad that a new Godzilla movie is coming out and that verbatim almost ad nausea the actors have stated that it's going back to the original and while making it current as well. Now, how are they misunderstood? Many people, especially now a days when they think of giant monster movies think more of the campy Godzilla and Gamera movies and not the original. I'm willing to be most people don't even know about the original or it's message and darker themes. And people are so many times removed now that if they were introduced to Gojira or Godzilla King of Monsters, they just see another campy man-in-suit movie. They write it off, if for nothing other than it's pre-conceived notion of campiness and aged special effects. Why do I include Godzilla King of Monsters? While it can be said that it may well be to blame for people misunderstanding/ mistaking it for Gojira and undercutting the darker nature of Gojira, it can still loosely be taken as an allegory for the atomic bomb or even just natural disasters. It's not as potent, but I'd argue the same issue applies to Godzilla King of Monsters because of the later, campier installments in the series. You could say other movies like Godzilla's Revenge are misunderstood but I think people rightfully dismiss the movie, but not so much as them saying it's a bad movie about an estranged child but more so because of the stock footage. I personally don't care that it happened so soon after DAM. If they wanted to make the movie they should've waited until the time was right instead of piece-mealing a movie together. I'd be more forgiving if it was simply a TV special for kids, but it was an actual movie. And if a marvel super hero came out that was piece-mealed from older footage because the Avengers cost too much, and it was at the theaters, I'd bet there would be riots, flaming troll-catapulted riots online at the least. I'd argue GINO isn't so much misunderstood as it is reviled for not being the Godzilla we know and love. I think us fans understand for the most part that it was their interpretation of Godzilla and we just said "no". Son of Godzilla... is a bit weird, just because it can bring up an uncomfortable session of explaining where babies come from with your young one. But misunderstood? Neh. Godzilla vs the Sea Monster? I think we're mistaking less popular with the term misunderstood.

^Pretty good answer in regard to a wider audience and the original film. It's a fair point and I'd agree a lot of casual movie goers probably bypass the film as campy trite without giving it a fair chance and looking at it in a historical and cultural context. I also agree that stock footage is [i]Godzilla's Revenge[/i] most outstanding flaw. It's absolutely reason to undercut the movie and its one of the faults that rightfully gets the most attention. But to say they should have waited a few years to make it assumes there were other options at the time. There were no other plans to continue the series. [i]Destroy All Monsters[/i] was supposed to be the last film, but the character's popularity was still strong. Though Honda wanted to create a very different kind of film, Toho wasn't 100% on board with the idea. Still, they wanted to continue the series and gave him a minimal budget to complete the movie. Eiji Tsuburaya would typically fight the battle for a larger budget so the scenes were done right, but his health was wavering. He wouldn't last much longer. [i]Godzilla's Revenge[/i] is certainly the antithesis to [i]Destroy All Monsters[/i], all the way down to the stock footage, but at least that was the point. I'm not a huge fan of the movie either, but I think too many people over the years have focused on what the movie lacks that they don't see what it really has. In any case it kept the series alive and we received five more Showa movies because of its reach to younger audiences.

'Godzilla' 1998 Everyone seems to hate this film, but it isn't Godzilla, it's Zilla. If you think about it, even though Godzilla destroyed him in 10 seconds and the military took him down, it's a pretty good monster movie. So what if Zilla is small and weak, alot of people overlook this movie.

^I can agree with that zill98 was not GODZILLA but it was a realy good giant monster movie i will admit i do own it on blue-ray;and zilla the series was realy realy misunderstood i know a lot of Gfans hated it but i loved it and i'v ben watching it on netflix. :)

I don't agree the 1998 movie was even a good monster film. I think it was junk all around, Godzilla or not.

the 98 film

I think Godzilla vs hedorah is misunderstood

I think Godzilla vs hedorah is misunderstood

Hmm not so much as the whole movie but events in them. The two biggest i always see are from Godzilla vs Gigan and Godzilla vs Biolantte Saying Gigan is one of Godzilla's most powerful foes. And they always point to the scene where Gigan cuts Godzilla in Godzilla vs Gigan. Lets look at that for minute. Does anyone else remember that Godzilla could barely walk in that movie due to some kind of machine that the aliens were using to lower his combat effectness? Same with Angiusis. And once that machine was blown up Godzilla toke out Gigan no sweat. Saying: Bionallte beat Godzilla into a coma. Yes he did go into hibernate after the fight but it was more due to the anti radiation bacteria then Bionallte. I am sure there are others but i can't think of them atm. Plus those are the two biggest.

The 98 Godzilla of course. I mean by monster movie standards to leagues ahead of most, and even as a godzilla movie it wasn't bad. The only problems were how weak they made godzilla, and not giving him his nuclear breath. I mean the babies were kind of bad, but it was just a fun scene, and I enjoyed that part of the movie more than I ever enjoyed any scene with Minilla in it from the original showa scene. Who knows, if toho wouldn't have gotten greedy and let tristar come up with their own monster instead of telling them no they had to buy rights to another toho monster the movie could've been even better.

There's a vast gulf of things that are awful about GINO outside of it being an awful example of what a Godzilla movie should be and I'm not sure I have the patience or time to criticize all of it...

To be fair the same could be said for most Godzilla movies if you looked at them as a critic rather than as a fan. Story wise was the 98 version worse than some of the toho 1s? God no; effects wise it was fine for the time. Characters weren't any more memorable or forgettable than most. I mean stacking it up against the best Godzilla movies it crumbles, but against the worst it holds it ground better than most fan would like to admit.

Godzilla`s Revenge. Yeah, alot of people have already mentioned it, but i wanna give my own statement. This was one i had a hard time finding and first here in 2013 i manage to get it and watch it. I had expected to litteraly HATE the movie. And you know what? I loved it. Heck, even the kid character was great, and i usually hate them. The turmoil of his shyness and his everyday life seems legit. This was a great idea, the problem is most people saw it as a traditionel Godzilla movie, and as that it sucks. But it isnt. Its an interestinmg look into the mind of a little kid, a very imaginative kid which just makes these ideas so great. And to everyone who sees the 98 movie as misunderstood, dont worry, it isnt. We understand it. We understand that its 100 % crap.

@durp004 "Story-wise" is a very vague term to point out criticism. What about the stories? Are they good? Are they bad? That's fairly subjective in most circles-- Besides in this particular genre it's not so much about how one perceives the story's merit, but rather how it's executed. Applying Western criticism to Eastern cinema is like using a car engine to replace an airplane turbine. In all my studies of Japanese cinema there are few places that the two intersect so the comparisons of quality need to be re-adjusted. That said, GINO's story might have been worthwhile had the characters been remotely likable and capable of delivering decent performances. As it stands, only Jean Reno was the enjoyable character in the film. The effects were good, but that was expected by 1998. (Other than the monster changing sizes throughout the movie...) I'm not going to compare Western effects to Tokusatsu, because they both aim to do different things. I think the only thing misunderstood about GINO is not that it's a terrible movie, but why it's a terrible movie. Critically it's offputting, yes, but monster wise? It might've been more acceptable if it weren't called Godzilla, but Devlin and Emmerich missed the mark. They were arrogant enough to believe their interpretation would be superior and the lack of respect for the series insured that nothing but the name would be included. It goes beyond not including his atomic ray and making him weak. The creature didn't posses any majestic stature-- There was no terror, like in some movies and no awe like in other Godzilla incarnations. The mythology and metaphors were absent and the special effects took center stage. It made no effort to look at what the character stood for during any era of the series. It was a flat imitation of creature features that had come before and an example of Hollywood at its most crude. And perhaps an equal sin, if we look at the bulk of the Godzilla series: It just wasn't a lot of fun.

Not saying good or bad, but depth wise there's really no difference. Once again the characters weren't all that likable or memorable, but neither are most characters from Godzilla movies. The movie wasn't supposed to be Godzilla that we've seen. It was meant to be a new 1. True it would have been better if the atomic breath was included, or maybe the invulnerability, but once again to be fair that all may have been included had toho not made them change the script, or pay for copyrights to Ghidorah or Mothra. The mythology around godzilla can't really be included as it changes depending on the movie and series, and he stood for nuclear energy the same as every other incarnation it just wasn't done as well. As I said when comparing it with the worst Godzilla movies as a critic and not a Godzilla fan, or even as a fan it holds up pretty well for the most part, on every aspect. A lot of hate it is receiving is just unfair for the most part. When I first saw it I hated it too, as a fan but as I've rewatched it later I realized by no means is it the worst Godzilla movie, it just went for something different some may consider that a bad thing but personally I didn't have a problem with it, and to be honest this all comes down to preference. Sure you may hate it, but apparently judging by the comments there are plenty of Godzilla fans who also believe this movie gets a bad rep when it doesn't necessarily deserve it.

[i]Not saying good or bad, but depth wise there's really no difference. Once again the characters weren't all that likable or memorable, but neither are most characters from Godzilla movies.[/i] Granted many characters in the Godzilla series aren't memorable, but they typically stand for something culturally important. Emiko and Ogata stood for a change in Japanese tradition at the time-- women refusing betrothed men and pursuing their own lovers. Junko stood for Japanese women standing up and having a voice in their country, as she begged the Shobijin to for Mothra's help. General Tachibana stood for war veterans and an era becoming forgotten by his country's people. The list goes on. Even when the characters were thin, they at least had cultural depth. Regardless, with GINO, depth isn't the problem. Likability is. And regardless of what Godzilla movie you're watching the characters typically have an enjoyable trait that passes the charm and quirks that the series is known for. GINO didn't have any of that. (With the exception of Jean Reno, who was fairly good.) [i]The movie wasn't supposed to be Godzilla that we've seen. It was meant to be a new 1.[/i] But it was supposed to be Godzilla. That was the title of the movie. I'm all for progressing the series, but when you alter the character and its traits to the point of being unrecognizable you've already failed. [i]True it would have been better if the atomic breath was included, or maybe the invulnerability, but once again to be fair that all may have been included had toho not made them change the script, or pay for copyrights to Ghidorah or Mothra.[/i] I'm not entirely sure where this idea that Toho made them change the script came from. If you're referring to the Jan de Bont script, it was largely because it was considered too expensive and, at the time, too impossible to film. The inclusion of the Griffon and the battles they'd have were too big for special effects technology at the time. And this was even after Sony declined to make the film a sequel to [i]vs. MechaGodzilla II[/i]. [i]The mythology around godzilla can't really be included as it changes depending on the movie and series, and he stood for nuclear energy the same as every other incarnation it just wasn't done as well.[/i] Edwards is currently proving you wrong there. He's used the original film's mythology as a basis for the new film, but that's a creative choice. Godzilla has been used for an array of social issues from nuclear deterrence to the supposed wrath of nature. He could've picked any era of the series and current social issues to link to them. The problem in GINO is that the monster wasn't used for any sort of social commentary. Just because it had nuclear origins doesn't mean it stood for anything. After the creature was created the movie didn't explore the dangers of nuclear energy or any other related issues. It was simply a catalyst for action sequences. [i]As I said when comparing it with the worst Godzilla movies as a critic and not a Godzilla fan, or even as a fan it holds up pretty well for the most part, on every aspect.[/i] Not very high praise. Even if GINO is something with more cinematic merit than, say, [i]Godzilla vs. Megalon[/i], it still doesn't capture the same, relevant weight as that movie. Even[i] vs. SpaceGodzilla[/i] had to ram down a forced, 'polluting space' message down our throats. Poorly done and inferior to most aspects of GINO? Yes. Is it a better example of the character and the stories he inhabits? On a thematic level, yes. And that is something even the most highly regarded critics must take into account. [i]A lot of hate it is receiving is just unfair for the most part. When I first saw it I hated it too, as a fan but as I've rewatched it later I realized by no means is it the worst Godzilla movie, it just went for something different some may consider that a bad thing but personally I didn't have a problem with it, and to be honest this all comes down to preference. Sure you may hate it, but apparently judging by the comments there are plenty of Godzilla fans who also believe this movie gets a bad rep when it doesn't necessarily deserve it.[/i] Indeed, preference is what it all comes down to. But it's also important to know why it's accepted as a terrible film. There are expectations when you put a franchise title on any movie and this one did not meet them on any level. It makes a better non-Godzilla movie, granted, but on no grounds does it make a decent film.