Most misunderstood Godzilla movie??

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.