MovieChat Forums > Godzilla (2014) Discussion > 6.5 Rating Now? Seriously?

6.5 Rating Now? Seriously?


What the heck is up with the rating system for this movie? It was bad enough that it was rated at a 6.6 on here a little while ago, and I come back here now, and the rating's dropped again to a 6.5? Come on people, this isn't a bad movie! And yet the users on this website has been giving this movie so much grief since its release last year! There are much worse movies out there! In fact, this was actually one of the better summer movies of last year! Give this movie a break...

reply

That's just what it was: a summer blockbuster nothing more, nothing less. With its lack of depth in storytelling it made up with its visuals. Just really mediocre

reply

The storytelling was fine! And yea, there was a lot more depth to it than most people credit the movie for! It wasn't just a visual effects show, like a Michael Bay movie or anything. It actually did make some solid statements about mankind and dealing with nature. There's a lot more to this movie than just a typical summer blockbuster.

reply

A 6 rating, to me, means decent and while I'd give it a 7, a 6.5 means people are differed between a 6 and 7 which I agree with. It's a good film. Not great. Good. It would've been great if they didn't get rid of Bryan Cranston who was the most interesting and sympathetic character in the movie, to follow boring, poorly acted, dull soldier Aaron Taylor Johnson. And the constant cutting away from the Godzilla battles was repetitive, boring and became annoying. There's only so many times you can fake out from an epic battle to focus on a boring soldier whose emotion never changed before pissing your audience off. If you're going to cut away through the entirety of the film, you better have a damn good final battle and conclusion and it didn't. Especially compared to Pacific Rim. And if they wanted to focus oh humans, which they obviously did, focus on characters who aren't stereotypical, stiff lip soldiers who you couldn't care about at all.

The film would've been great if it focused more on Godzilla, Taylor Johnson died, and Cranston teamed up with Ken Watanbe who was superb in the movie.

reply

[The film would've been great if it focused more on Godzilla, Taylor Johnson died, and Cranston teamed up with Ken Watanbe who was superb in the movie.]

Well said, this turned out to be a stinker imo. I love creature-features and was really looking forward to this, sadly Hollywood disappoints me again.

Make like that's a nipple: John Bernard Books

reply

You're wrong on a number of those points. The cutting away stuff isn't too bad, especially considering it's buildup for a terrific payoff at the end. And Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character wasn't bland OR poorly acted. His performance was a lot more subtle and nuanced while Cranston's was more loud and emotional. Cranston had a good reason to be so, though, just like Johnson did with his. I've written a lot in this movie's defense on this message board before, and it would do you good to go look my stuff up.

reply

[deleted]

You sound like a desperate fanboy who can't accept fair and good criticism.

I actually completely agree with him. The only thing you seemed to have said in its defense is that it isn't [insert well explained and understandable argument against movie #65].

I personally think it is an okay movie, but nothing more and nothing less. Yeh, 95% of Godzilla movies have the monsters show up for less than 15 minutes, but the pacing of these films mostly goes by quickly and the monsters scenes aren't cut in short segments of 10 seconds for every 5 minutes and the human characters, especially during the showa era, were usually very entertaining, most notably in Ghidorah, Invasion of the Astro-Monster, vs. Gigan and vs. Mechagodzilla. Besides Bryan Cranston, whose character is incredibly under-used and killed in a fast and soulless way.

As for the remaining characters, "subtle performance" or not, none of them were either likable or remotely interesting. Watanabe had potential, but like Cranston, he's barely used. And let's not even talk about David Strathairn, Sally Hawkins and most especially Juliette Binoche, who even said she wished she had read the script prior to working on it.
http://variety.com/2013/film/global/juliette-binoche-talks-godzilla-jurassic-park-and-1200907282/

I sincerely hope Gareth and Borenstein will learn from their mistakes for the next film because there's potential with that trilogy. Hopefully though, next time they hire big stars, they use them well.

reply

Yeah I agree with that Brian Cranston being axed off so early was a mistake since he was the one character you really felt a lot of emotion too. The typical "soldier going home" story was bland and I was uninterested. Sad thing is you felt more emotion for Godzilla then aaron taylor's sorry ass. I also agree wit the pacific rim comment. That movie was fun and had a great ending. Pacific rim was what it tried to be: just fun. This movie went for a more serious heart felt approach and it suffer for that. If it was just a plain fun movie it probably would be at least a 7.2 or more.

reply

This was easily better than Pacific Rim IMO, although I like Del Toro. This had a lot more suspense, and editing was more tastefully done than most big movies now a days. Cranstons character was a great addition to the movie, but people die, and unexpected deaths like that adds to the suspense. "Kick ass" isn't terribly interesting but worked well enough, even though they could have worked on that character and priorities in this movie.

All other main characters however; Cranston, Watanabe and the monster itself was well handled, and the movie really had this underlying Hiroshima/unsettling feeling to it, without being fundamentally depressing or unpleasant to watch (which is a very important balance to get right, in thriller/horror/drama IMO)

reply

The storytelling was fine! And yea, there was a lot more depth to it than most people credit the movie for! It wasn't just a visual effects show, like a Michael Bay movie or anything. It actually did make some solid statements about mankind and dealing with nature. There's a lot more to this movie than just a typical summer blockbuster.


I totally agree. I rated it an 8. It was a very entertaining film. On a recommendation I then watched Pacific Rim. What a awful piece of schlock that was. I can't believe anyone would prefer that over this.

reply

The storytelling was fine! And yea, there was a lot more depth to it than most people credit the movie for! It wasn't just a visual effects show, like a Michael Bay movie or anything. It actually did make some solid statements about mankind and dealing with nature. There's a lot more to this movie than just a typical summer blockbuster.



Heh. What STORY?

reply

But a good blockbuster.
Im normally hard to those movies, transformers were a mess, pirates fell on their face after the first one and current wave of superhero movies gets worse by the year.
But Godzilla was one of them i enjoyed a low, amazing visuals, great music and sound design, and a so so script.
A solid 7/10 from me, top notch production values, and outside of the misscasted ford and momentally a weak script its a well made movie.
Wish the fight scenes were longer, those were some amazing cgi we saw here, muto design alone is something to remember, so fresh to see that hard sharp edge design of a modern car on a animal, makes it looks like something not from this planet.

reply

Because it's a sh!t movie that will drop lower now that people have come to their senses about it.

reply

Avengers is crap! You have just a bad movie taste

reply

Agree with machof1 and fatlever. One of the worst movies EVER! Godzilla 98 could eat this man in a fat suit godzilla for lunch!

Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!

reply

Seriously one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Always thought the early reviews and messages here were doctored with a lots of new users to prop up up the ratings and go get ppl to see the movie.

reply

[deleted]

You must not have seen a lot of movies...

reply

You're the reason the concept of Eugenics was created.

reply

you haven't seen many movies.

Well Tony, nobody wants a war. If we can't do business why we'll just shake hands and that'll be it!

reply

I gave it a 4/10 and it's what it deserves!

reply

*beep* you ! A 4/10 means you have a crappy movie taste

reply

Haha. You got pissed off.

It's a 4/10 and that's with all considered.

reply

That's just what it was: a summer blockbuster nothing more, nothing less. With its lack of depth in storytelling it made up with its visuals. Just really mediocre


Lots of other movies are rated higher and they're less than mediocre.

A 6 rating, to me, means decent and while I'd give it a 7, a 6.5 means people are differed between a 6 and 7 which I agree with. It's a good film. Not great. Good
.

If it were my rating system a 6.5 would be right, but since this is imdb and crappy movies get inflated, compatatively this should get a 7.1. Not a great movie but it superceded my expectations of what a Godzilla movie would be.

Because it's a sh!t movie that will drop lower now that people have come to their senses about it.


The People will never come to their senses. Why should they? You haven't.

Seriously one of the worst movies I've ever seen.


One shouldn't give into hyberbole. It makes you a voice on the fringe of insanity.

reply

That's a load of BS. I agree with you.

RIP
Bon Scott
1946-1980

reply

Cuz I'm T.N.T.

reply

What's wrong with a 6.5 rating? On IMDb it's pretty solid.

I saw worlds burning. I saw more; I saw the birth of a star.

reply

Not when avenger has an 8

reply

People who think avengers deserves an 8 on IMDB are utter fools. It's a good action flick but even in the same genre I can list atleast 20 films that are better. Heck, it ain't even the best superhero film. Godzilla: 6.5 and avengers:8.2 haha what a joke

reply

True!

reply

Avengers is highly-overrated. People just want action and just action. Though I agree that this is not a great movie, but it deserves to be rated at least 7!

People who think avengers deserves an 8 on IMDB are utter fools

what about those who call it the best superhero movie ever made?

Actions are not suffice to make a movie great.

reply

It was brilliant up until Bryan Cranston died.

reply

It was brilliant up until Bryan Cranston died.

Definately lost a lot of its heft after that point.

reply