bhaskar (8 out of 10 ) It is a good script with a lot of tension and excitement.
Calvin K (10 out of 10 ) A masterpiece! Also a wonderful motion picture which is even better
than the classic version.
GORIZARD (1 out of 10 ) HORRIBLE SCRIPT FOR A HORRIBLE MOVIE. And Calvin ok, you're an idiot for saying this crap of a film "is a masterpiece". It's not better than the original version, in fact, the original version is a masterpiece and this version is complete utter shit. What is so masterpiece worthy about the 98 film? Was it ground breaking? Was it thought-provoking? Was it allegorical? Was it a cultural impact? NOOO IT WASN'T. The original film was. You want to know a REAL GODZILLA MASTERPIECE?. WATCH THE 1954 ORIGINAL GODZILLA. Since you've obviously never seen it.
TurokSwe (10 out of 10 ) An awesome script treatment which could have been (or maybe still can) become an awesome movie! A real, true masterpiece! And Calvin, I have to agree with you. GORIZARD, you know I disagree about your rude and ignorant opinion. Many people who have seen the 1954/56 original and the 1998 always choose the 98 movie and it's monster over the original, and it's just something you have to accept, my friend. Don't get me wrong, I love both the Japanese Godzilla and the American Godzilla, but you really have to accept and understand that every individual has different opinions. But "Godzilla 2" could have been really good with some more work, and it still have potential, so does "Godzilla 3".
Armegon (1 out of 10 ) "Many people who have seen the 1954/56 original and the 1998 always choose the 98 movie and it's monster over the original", yeah no. Quite the opposite. The original Godzilla is a TRUE MASTERPIECE. This is SHIT! If people truly prefer the 1998 film and its monster, then why didn't they go ahead with a sequel? Why is Legendary & Warner Bros. Rebooting the REAL GODZILLA and not this iguana shit-fest? Clearly, people prefer the original Godzilla and its character than this garbage and its iguana character.
Frankenzilla (1 out of 10 ) As far as being a remake of Godzilla, it is terrible with no redeeming qualities. It stems so far from the source material, that they could've called it anything else and it wouldn't matter. In fact, it wouldn't be hated on as much if it wasn't called "Godzilla". The monster in the movie, whom I will refer to as "Zilla", does not resemble Godzilla at all. Zilla is a mutated iguana with velociraptor-like features, doesn't have atomic breath, runs from the military, is born pregnant, and is all-around too lizard-like. The original Godzilla was a mutated dinosaur that showed the effects of the radiation with his charred and blackened skin, was upright and very powerful looking, never ran from the military and actually took down the military. Also, Zilla didn't even mean to attack, he just relied solely on instinct and was strictly an animal. The original Godzilla was an intelligent being with emotions and was angry at man for turning him into a monster. The original Godzilla was supposed to be a living nuclear bomb, an indestructible force of nature to show the effects of nuclear warfare. Zilla was just an animal, nothing more. The original Godzilla 1954 was dark, dramatic, and serious with a lot of allegory and scenes that are very depressing and scary. This movie is just a typical, mindless summer movie with the nuclear allegory barely even present and no emotional scenes or even slightly interesting scenes whatsoever. Plus, let's not forget the baby zillas, which never happened once in the Godzilla franchise. Yes, the original Godzilla did have children in some movies, but none were actually born of him and were in fact adopted. The baby zillas were born of the monster in this film, a trait that is nonexistent with the original Godzilla. As a standalone movie, not a Godzilla remake, it's barely an okay film. The characters are bland, stereotypical, stupid, and very annoying. The military characters are just there to serve their purpose, with no personality whatsoever. The main characters, such as Audrey, Animal, and Animal's wife are stereotypical New-Yorkers who are very annoying and not likable whatsoever. Nick is just an awkward character who's basically only there to explain everything and be that guy to connect with the monster. He's nothing but a plot device. Also, I hate the Siskel and Ebert characters they included. I understand they wanted to throw in that little burn, but it was done so poorly and wasn't even remotely funny. There are so many flaws that are so prominent within this movie. How do you lose a giant reptilian monster in a city? It makes no sense whatsoever. I'd like to address the "realism" as well. A giant monster mutated from another creature is unrealistic, no sense in changing the character to fit that. But if either of them would be more realistic than the other, it would be the 1954 Godzilla. The effects of the radiation really showed on Godzilla, considering his skin was blackened and had a very rough texture, like he had been severely burned with spines that seemed to be contorted due to mutation. Zilla looked perfectly fine, like it could just be some lost dinosaur, with no radiation scars or even a hint of being exposed to nuclear radiation whatsoever. Also, the original Godzilla had such massive legs in order to be able up the massive weight and size, and walked slowly due to all of the bulk weighing him down. If we were to put both monsters in a realistic setting, then Zilla's legs would've been broken immediately due to the amount of weight forcing it down. Also, considering how large Zilla was, it should've been extremely heavy and should not have been able to run at all. Considering they are giant monsters, there isn't supposed to be anything realistic about them. When it comes to story lines though, the original is much more realistic. In the original, you were shown the effects that Godzilla had. We would be shown that areas were radioactively affected. We were shown the destruction Godzilla left. There were scenes when people cried over the loss of family members. I remember one scene in the original Gojira (1954) where there were people lying on cots on the floor, unconscious or moaning in agony, wrapped in bandages and casts, with burns and scars. The camera then focuses on a few children, surrounding their mother, who was lying on a cot. As the mother's life begins to fade and she is taken away, the youngest daughter begins crying at the loss of her mother and is being held back by the other children, who are trying to remain strong. That is realistic. The original movie does not view Godzilla as just a monster or an animal, but an unknown god-like being with the power to take everything away. In this movie, everyone is just like "oh cool, a monster", and none of the fear of the monster even seems to be genuine. All in all, it's nowhere near a good movie. It fails as a Godzilla movie, and barely does okay as a standalone movie. It's a typical Roland Emmerich movie: an uninteresting, unrealistic, heavily-flawed attempt at a summer blockbuster. Sony REALLY should've gone with the original script written by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio.
Dandeman (1 out of 10 ) I have a strange feeling that Turok and Calvin are Roland and Dean Trolls because anyone that is serious and carries half a brain would realize that the message behind the 54' Godzilla was above and beyond anything this Iguana crawl fest could ever think of accomplishing. This movie is not a true Godzilla movie. If it was called something else, The monster from 20000 fathoms remake then it would be acceptable. But as a Godzilla movie. Nope, it's an insult to the big G and sadly it was proven with Roland stated he was never a fan of the original Godzilla. Boy did it show.