‘Godzilla’ 2014 Review: Great-Zilla


Movie Rating:


The last time Godzilla came to America, he was subjected to the indignity of a rap battle with Puff Daddy. This time he gets a genuinely awe-inspiring, if overly serious, blockbuster worthy of his name. Thank God… zilla!

When Roland Emmerich’s god-awful ‘Godzilla‘ hit screens in 1998, it was preceded by an ad campaign hinged entirely around size and scale. The movie itself featured a silly square-faced cartoon that seemed to have no weight beyond that of failed expectations. (Zing!) ‘Monsters‘ director Gareth Edwards’ drastically better ‘Godzilla’ hits screens with an ad campaign that barely shows the monster, even though the director’s greatest achievement in the film is communicating Godzilla’s scale. Until the glorious finale, Edwards shoots his two-ton star on the ground from a human perspective, and just like the Steven Spielberg movies that inspired the approach, it works beautifully. The movie boasts incredible CGI, and the effects work better than those in competing blockbusters because they’re used by a filmmaker who understands that how you show a monster is just as important as the monster itself. Given that the monster in question is one of the most iconic ever created, Edwards has whipped up one hell of a Godzilla movie and slapped it onto the table to be eaten up by starved fans.

Before that, Edwards is also smart enough to take his time and tease the audience by developing characters and a world rather than just shoving the big guy on the screen. We’re first introduced to Bryan Cranston playing an American scientist in Japan who loses his wife to a tragic accident at a nuclear power plant. We then jump ahead a 15 years and follow Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Cranston’s son, who has a wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and boy of his own. Johnson has to fly to Japan when his father is arrested. He finds Cranston as a broken, paranoid man who has given up his life to uncover the conspiracy surrounding his wife’s death.

It turns out that conspiracy involves a giant monster underneath the power plant, which is explained by Ken Watanabe’s super scientist to be one of many prehistoric monsters stuck in frozen animation beneath the surface of the Earth. A big one named Godzilla popped up in the 1954, but he was bombed back down to the depths of the ocean by all those nuclear “tests “in the ’50s. All this information comes to light just in time for not one, but two monsters to emerge from who cross the Pacific Ocean to meet. Neither one is Godzilla. Nope, they’re new creatures that look like a cross between Rodan and ‘Cloverfield’. Godzilla shows up only to smash those guys into oblivion, because this is secretly an homage to the late Godzilla monster-mash movies, not the city-stomping villainous Godzilla pictures.

As all the monsters first arrive, they’re brilliantly shown in bits and pieces through the perspective of the humans in a terrifyingly visceral way. When they finally come together, it’s for an electrifying 45-minute battle royale with the humans running around like powerless ants amidst the action. It’s a glorious, massive climax that offers more than enough popcorn fun to justify the ticket price (especially the applause-worthy finishing move) and demands the biggest and loudest possible presentation. When it comes down purely to Godzilla and the monsters, the film is a rip-roaring success brilliantly crafted by a filmmaker working on a blockbuster scale for the first time.

The trouble, unfortunately, is in the tone and characters.

While the slow burn opening works well and even teases out themes of nuclear responsibility and Herzogian notions of the deadly power of nature, once the monsters show up, Edwards seems to lose interest in the humans entirely beyond how they see Godzilla and where they slot into the stunning set-pieces. Although it’s safe to say that no one has ever bought a ticket to a Godzilla movie for the human drama, the fact that Edwards bothered to set one up and fill his cast with talented players proves to be frustrating when they have nothing to do. All of the actors spend the last two thirds of the movie either starring off camera stoically or crying, neither of which is compelling for very long.

Likewise, the tone throughout is dark and deadly serious. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself. However, when your movie peaks with something as goofy as a giant monster battle, you may as well have a little fun along the way. ‘Pacific Rim’ might have had similarly boring and serious protagonists, but at least by the time Charlie Day met Ron Pearlman, the humans were almost as fun as the monsters.

While the dour tone and one-note characters might be a problem, I don’t mean to suggest that they kill the movie. The selling points and focus of this flick are Godzilla, his opponents, and how much they smash the hell out of their surroundings. There’s no denying that Gareth Edwards handles all that material exquisitely. His movie delivers CGI monsters with weight and presence, as well as set-pieces that genuinely thrill and take advantage of the blockbuster scale. That’s an increasingly difficult feat to pull off at the movies these days, especially in a franchise-focused studio product. For that alone, Edwards’ ‘Godzilla’ can only be classified as a success.

The film may not be one of the greatest summer movies ever made, but it has the potential to be the very best blockbuster this summer that doesn’t come from a studio that starts with “M” and ends with “arvel.” Godzilla is back, and in such a pleasing package that you’ll actually leave the theater craving a sequel. Hopefully, next time the supporting humans will get to have a little fun backing up their ginormous co-stars.

What Do You Think of the New 'Godzilla'?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. Am going to wait for the Blu Ray but not because the movie may or may not suck.
    There are too many a-holes at the theaters now and you can not have an enjoyable experience-too many distractions.
    Even at a MIDNIGHT movie there’s still the crying babies, cell phone issues, etc..

    • Mark B

      I agree with Dennis. I cannot stand going to the movies anymore, which sucks because I used to LOVE going and spending an afternoon watching a matinee. And of course I’m the A-hole because I’m the person that says something when someone is being inconsiderate. I’m not kidding when a parent let their toddler run up and own the aisle for 5 minutes during the amazing spiderman, and she gave me an attitude when I finally asked her to either sit down or take their kid out of the theater.

    • The girl I saw it with got up in the middle of the film and shamed a grown man into shutting off his cell phone. It was one of the single coolest moments in a theater besides the movie I’m there to see.

  2. Zerozep

    Just got back and it blew me away, so unexpected and dark, to be honest I can’t believe it was made the way it was because it seems like the director was able to made the film without the usual Hollywood crap in it, although, was it just me or was something extremely borrowed from a not so much older movie? Lol, won’t spoil.

    • Jerryz

      Yep, that as the point. To revive the Godzilla franchise following the same premise of the 60s and 70s films, return to the classics !

  3. Saw it in IMAX last night. (Real IMAX not LIEMAX). The theater was packed and I really enjoyed the movie. As a strong 3D enthusiast I can wholeheartedly recommend not seeing it in 3D as it did nothing to enhance the movie. Save your four bucks. If you want to see it in IMAX, you may not have a choice. Not a perfect movie but definitely headed in the right direction. Just five extra minutes of Godzilla himself would of brought the movie up another point for me. It would also be nice to have some more kaiju daylight scenes. All in all very cool flick, the M.U.T.O.S. were pretty cool and there’s plenty to see with them. I may go see it in 2D this afternoon.

  4. This movie was everything I hoped for, and the ending will blow any Godzilla fans away. You will not be disappointed if you are expecting a Godzilla movie and will make you easily forget the horrible Roland Emmerich film.. Hail to the King baby.

  5. I saw it on a big screen presentation (CineCapri) which means 2D, but bigger screen than most IMAXs in the area, and it had Dolby Atmos.

    Most of the people I went with said it was the best Godzilla movie they have ever seen, and I see where they are coming from. This is a really good movie.

    My problem is that I did not see it as a good Godzilla movie – ie you have an expectation of what a Godzilla movie is going to be. The movie got to be really slow in the middle, and I found myself frustrated in many places. There is far too much focus on story and the other monsters, and not nearly enough screen time given to Godzilla. Now when Godzilla was on screen, it was awesome, but for a movie named Godzilla, I would have loved to have seen more of Godzilla, and not so much of the Rodan-wannabe.

    There was quite a bit of hommage played to several different Toho films, which was nice. If you get the closed captioning device, you will probably pick up that for a good portion of the movie, he is being called Gojira, which was nice.

    Its a good movie and I am looking forward to a sequel. I just would have liked to have seen much more of Godzilla and a bit less story. I can’t believe I am saying that, but there was so much story going on here, I actually found myself bored in the middle of the movie. Looking forward to a fan edit eventually.

  6. Drew


    It doesn’t matter if you see this film on a genuine 15/70 IMAX screen, or on a digital IMAX one. The size/aspect ratio will be identical. This is a 2.40:1 picture. See it on a screen that’s 3,000 feet tall, and the image will be identical in size to the one that is projected on to a screen of any height, that is also the same width (assuming the screen is at least tall enough to achieve 2.40:1, at the same width). There’s no point to seeking out a 15/70 IMAX for this one. It will always be projected at 2.40:1, regardless.

    With that said, I absolutely loved it. I’ve seen it twice; in IMAX, both times. I’m still marveling at the grandeur and spectacle. It’s the most satisfying Monster/Dinosaur film, since the original ‘Jurassic Park’.

    • Aspect ratio aside, the old IMAX 15/70 theaters tends to have larger screens than the IMAX digital auditoriums, which are only slightly larger than your average multiplex screen (if even).

    • I agree, but for different reasons. As Josh said, the old IMAX screens tend to be bigger – in fact, I find many of the non-Imax theaters to have bigger screens than the LieMax converted auditoriums

      My issue is, this film was not filmed in IMAX – its a conversion. And no one wanted to see it in 3D, so we saw no reason to pay $17 a ticket for it. We went an saw it at the CineCapri, which has bigger screens than most of the IMAX in the area, it was in 2D, had Dolby Atmos, and was only $10 a ticket.

      I see no reason to seek out seeing this in an IMAX screen at all. As there are no IMAX scenes and stuff, it is going to look the same on an IMAX 15/70 as it looks on an XD, Xtreame, or CineCapri screen. Why pay the IMAX upcharge?

    • I get the aspect ratio thing, and I know it wasn’t shot for IMAX, but wouldn’t it still be larger than an average theater? Like the smaller auditoriums have smaller screens. Anyways, I also enjoy the surround there, it seems to have a little more oomph.

      • I actually found the converted IMAX screen at my local AMC to be the smallest screen in the building. You see, they put in an IMAX aspect ratio screen. So, as the auditorium was designed for 2.35:1, while the screen was taller, it wasn’t as wide. However, if the movie does not have any native IMAX screens, and is 2.35:1, and they project it on this screen….. So, depending on the theater, the IMAX screen may actually smaller than their other screens

  7. Drew


    That’s not true. In fact, while I have a gigantic 15/70 screen, within about 30 minutes of my home, the largest IMAX screen is a digital one, that opened less than 2 years ago. It’s probably at least 15% bigger than the 15/70 screen that opened in 1998. There’s another digital IMAX screen, nearby, that’s very close to the size of the 15/70 one, as well.

    • This may vary by region. Around here, all of the digital IMAX screens have been retrofitted from existing multiplex auditoriums. I can find larger screens at several non-IMAX theaters.

  8. Drew


    Apparently so. We only have one IMAX, in my area, that was retrofitted from an existing auditorium. And even that one is outrageously huge. It was retrofitted from one of those auditoriums that was about 10 times to large for its original screen. When they converted it to IMAX, a screen that literally covers the entire front of the auditorium was installed. It’s very nearly the size of the 15/70 IMAX screen, that’s close by.

    There are 8 IMAX screens, within a 50 mile radius. Only two of them are barely larger than a very large regular screen. The rest of them are positively marvelous.

  9. Drew

    As I said before, William, it all depends on the auditorium. In the example that I gave previously, the auditorium was literally 8-10 times too large for its original screen. It’s an extremely tall and extremely wide auditorium, and the front wall was a perfect 1.9:1. This allowed for an installation of one of the 5 biggest IMAX screens I’ve ever seen. (I’ve visited 5 true 15/70 IMAX screens, and roughly 25 different IMAX screens, total, in various areas).

    • William Henley

      I understand. In my area, though, I try to talk people away from the retrofitted theaters. There are a couple of auditoriums in the area that were built for IMAX 15/70. One has converted to digital, the others show both digital and film. If I go to Imax, I still go to one of them, rather than one of the converted ones. Those screens are still huge.

      For this movie, though, I saw no reason to go to IMAX. Many other large format screens in the area are larger than most of the IMAX screens in the area, the movie was not shot in IMAX, had no IMAX special scenes, the digital intermediary of the movie was only 2k so 2k is as good as the movie is ever going to look, and the other large format screens tend to be cheaper than IMAX (still more expensive than a regular screen).

      I’ve lost my love for IMAX. In my opinion, IMAX pretty much whored themselves out, and because of this, there is little that sets them apart from any other large format screen. There is the ocassional movie that has IMAX ratio scenes, but those are the exceptions. I don’t think there has been a full feature length movie that has bad more than a few scenes shot in IMAX, and now that IMAX has gone digital, I really don’t see the point.

      About ten years ago, I would catch about 4-5 movies a year at the Imax. Now I do about one every 18 months.

      • William Henley

        *clarification after I read my comment

        If I go to the IMAX, I go to one of the auditoriums that was originally designed for 15/70, not one of the auditoriums that was designed for 2.35:1 and retrofited to IMAX

  10. Just got back and thought it was just okay. A good film, but too many issues to be a great one. The best character (I won’t say who or how) disappears from the film less than halfway through, and the other leads just aren’t strong enough or well-written enough to prevent the film from really sagging during the middle part. The ending picks things up again, but 3 out of 5 for me. I liked it enough to want to see a sequel, but didn’t think they knocked this one out of the park…it’s more like a solid double – reminded me (for some reason) of Rise of the Planet of the Apes – the story is almost a prequel to the one you really want to see. 🙂

  11. Oh, one more thing…what’s everyone’s estimate on how long GODZILLA actually appears (meaning full-body, not just his tail or spine) in this thing? It HAS to be less than 15 minutes. Heck, it might be less than 10.

    Who would have thought GODZILLA would be a supporting character in his own freakin’ movie? 😉

    • For perspective, I watched the 1954 original this weekend (via Criterion Blu-Ray), and there’s only about 3 minutes of Godzilla on screen – and I’m including a couple of shots where you can just see his head pop over a hill in that count.

    • William Henley

      Full body shot? I would say less than two minutes. If we are talking about where we can see his face (ie torso and up) we might be able to extend this to 5 minutes. Yeah, as I mentioned above, I really would have liked to have seen more screen time for Godzilla

      • Yeah, I pretty much meant anything that shows his face or him from the waist up – as opposed to all the shots we get of his back and tail swimming in the ocean.

        I’ll have to go back and watch the 1954 version again – but I’m sure I’m not the only one in the theater who thought – well, once we see Godzilla, we’ll see a lot of him. Nope. 🙁

        • Mike

          Just to put things in perspective, the shark in Jaws is on-screen for about 2 minutes. Gareth Edwards clearly took some cues from vintage Spielberg for this film, moreso than the original Godzilla films probably. I thought it was one of the film’s strengths rather than a weakness. The 20 minutes of nonstop creature action at the end was awesome, but any more than that would have been excessive. I’m so glad the film didn’t succumb to Roland Emmerich’s style of bloated neverending destruction.

          The first full reveal of Godzilla in the film gave me chills. The buildup was awesome.

          That being said, I thought Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s performance was totally flat and dragged the movie down significantly. Had they cast a better actor, this could have been a classic. As it stands, we’ll have to settle for it being the best Godzilla film ever made.

          • William Henley

            The 20 minutes of nonstop creature action at the end was awesome

            Yes, but how much of that 20 minutes had Godzilla in it? I mean, if you watch Godzilla vs Mothra, you may have about 15 minutes of monster destruction, but it isn’t all Battra that you see, you see Godzilla and you see Mothra. In King Kong vs Godzilla, there is easily 15-20 minutes of monster destruction in it, and you actually see King King and / or Godzilla. And each of those movies are 100 minutes long each.

            All I am saying is that in a movie called Godzilla, I would have liked to have seen more Godzilla, and less of the other monsters. I am not saying the movie is bad, just that I wish there had been more of a focus on Gojira.

  12. I have been a Godzilla fan since being a small boy and I want shout out how great of an experience this movie was. They nailed Godzilla perfectly. The crowd emotions were on display at the movie also. Young children quickly took Godzilla side and were cheering like crazy. I thought the theater was going to explode twice when Godzilla back started turning blue and at the very end. It brought back memories of being so entrenched in the earlier Godzilla movies. Everyone has to see this movie “the Big Guy is back with a boom and a huge roar”. Worth ever penny I spent! Bring on the sequels and hurry I am 61 years old….

  13. Drew


    I can’t agree with your statement regarding IMAX. You’re forgetting about one crucial aspect that sets IMAX apart. Do you care about audio as much as video? I certainly do. I might even care more about audio. While XD, RPX, and other large formats do feature a slightly improved audio experience, they don’t even hold a candle to what IMAX delivers. For this reason, I prefer to go to a Dolby Atmos auditorium, over one of the other large format options. In fact, I’ve reached a point where I will only see my most anticipated blockbusters in either IMAX or Dolby Atmos (Thank you for pointing out that ‘Godzilla’ is an Atmos feature. I’m going to see it in that format, this week, before X-Men takes all of the Atmos auditoriums).

    There are no regular screens that are larger than even the smallest IMAX screens that we have, in my area. We have about 3 regular screens that rival the size of the smaller IMAX screens, and while those screens are very new, and incredibly nice, the audio featured in their respective auditoriums is no better than what I have at home. It’s not only the size of the screen that matters to me. I’m just as invested in the aural experience; if not, more so.

  14. Drew

    Well, William, we are not comparing IMAX to Atmos. I even mentioned that I only see my most anticipated Blockbusters in EITHER IMAX OR Atmos.

    Your original statements were trying to convince me that IMAX doesn’t offer a worthwhile advantage over “regular screens”, or other large format screens. The Atmos auditorium that I attend has 128 speakers, and claims to deliver over 40,000 watts. In spite of that, I can personally attest to the fact that the best IMAX auditoriums are a lot more powerful (you feel them, a lot more). Now, this might be attributed to better/wider range subwoofers, employed by IMAX, but nonetheless, if you can FEEL more power and HEAR more power, I don’t care what the watt statistics say. But, nonetheless, we are not comparing IMAX to Atmos. You were trying to say that IMAX doesn’t offer a big advantage over a “regular screen.” It absolutely does. A HUGE advantage!

    • William Henley

      Here is what I said:

      There are a couple of auditoriums in the area that were built for IMAX 15/70. One has converted to digital, the others show both digital and film. If I go to Imax, I still go to one of them, rather than one of the converted ones. Those screens are still huge.

      For this movie, though, I saw no reason to go to IMAX. Many other large format screens in the area are larger than most of the IMAX screens in the area, the movie was not shot in IMAX, had no IMAX special scenes, the digital intermediary of the movie was only 2k so 2k is as good as the movie is ever going to look, and the other large format screens tend to be cheaper than IMAX (still more expensive than a regular screen).

      I’ve lost my love for IMAX. In my opinion, IMAX pretty much whored themselves out, and because of this, there is little that sets them apart from any other large format screen. There is the ocassional movie that has IMAX ratio scenes, but those are the exceptions. I don’t think there has been a full feature length movie that has bad more than a few scenes shot in IMAX, and now that IMAX has gone digital, I really don’t see the point.

      I am talking about Digital Imax, and their higher prices, and theaters that have retrofitted existing auditoriums to IMAX. Theaters that were built for IMAX originally DO have those HUGE screens. I like those. But there are only a handfull of them. Most Imax screens you see now were retrofitted after IMAX prostituted out their name. None of the retrofitted theaters show film – they are two 2k projectors lined up (so you can theoretically go 4k, but I think it is just 2k and they are using two projectors to increase brightness).

      With Godzilla, the digital intermediary was 2k. It is never going to look better. You can upconvert it, sure, which is pretty much what DMR is. Godzilla is a DMR upconvert. So I guess you can claim that upconverted movies look better than the non-upconverted.

      New theaters that are being built now that are putting in CineCapris, XDs and Xtreams have screen sizes that rival the old IMAX screens. No new IMAXs that have been built in my area come anywhere near the size of the other large format screens.

      So, let me summerize:
      Dolby Digital < Imax Sound < Dolby Atmos

      Screen size:
      Imax Retrofit < Regular Screen < Imax 15/70 < Other large format < Imax Dome

      Video Quality
      Sony projectors < Christie projectors = Imax Digital projectors < Imax 15/70

      Regular Theater < CineCapri <XD, Xtream < Imax

  15. Drew

    William, I think we’re done. There’s no way you can expect me to take you seriously, after saying that “Other Large Format” auditoriums are superior to IMAX 15/70.

    With that said, I will say that I have been to the CineCapri, in Colorado. It was a glorious experience. I’m jealous that you have one, close to home. However, many of the IMAX 15/70 auditoriums, including the one that I regularly attend, are vastly superior. Moreover, the new Digital IMAX, that I mentioned in one of my initial comments, is also better, by a wide margin.

    • William Henley

      I will admit that the largest screen I have ever been to was an Imax. That was at the Luxor in Vegas. I saw Matrix Revolutions there. That was an experience. And Imax Domes are huge.

  16. Drew

    I never said a single word about film vs digital. I don’t disagree with a single one of your statements, in regards to that subject.

    Let’s just agree to look at it this way…

    Obviously, the quality of IMAX (or lack thereof) is based on the geographic area. We have a digital IMAX that opened less than 2 years ago, that has a screen size that is positively enormous. It rivals any screen you’ve ever seen. The presentation is truly spectacular. It even offers reclining luxury seats.

    While I still don’t believe that Digital IMAX offers an image as good as 15/70 film, all of the other large format options are also protecting digitally, so it’s a moot point.

    Digital IMAX auditoriums that are truly magnificent are continuing to be built. I recently visited my sister. While there, we visited a brand new (Opened within the last three months), Digital IMAX that featured a screen that was quite a bit larger than the one at the Colorado Cine Capri (Do all CineCapris have the same size screen?). The entire presentation/experience was mind blowing.

    • William Henley

      I haven’t been to the CineCapris anywhere else, but I think they are the same size.

      I just wish they would build more Imax 15/70s. I understand why they don’t, but that was an experience that couldn’t be rivaled.

      Now, there is an Imax 15/70 screen near me that is TALLER than my CineCapri, but its not as wide. – Actually, just checked the site, looks like another theater chain bought out that theater, and according to the movie listings, it looks like they no longer have an IMAX screen. Pitty, that was the largest IMAX screen in the area, other than the domes at the Science theaters.

  17. Drew


    Help me understand…

    First, you say that “Other Large Format” theatres are superior to 15/70 IMAX. Now you say that 15/70 IMAX is an experience that “couldn’t be rivaled.”

    There’s no way that you can suggest that other large format options are superior. Did you see ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’ or ‘The Dark Knight’ in genuine 15/70 IMAX?

    • William Henley

      Correction – I never said that Other Large Format screens were superior to Imax 15/70, I said that screen size, other large format screens had larger screens. When I say larger I mean wider – Imax is almost always taller because of the aspect ratios of their screens. The exception was the Imax at the Luxor in Vegas, and pretty much any Imax Dome, which are the largest screens in the world.

      I did see The Dark Knight at an Imax, as it had Imax Scenes. It was also the last Imax film I saw in 15/70 (although that was DMR)- with the exception of the domes, all the other Imax theaters in my area converted to digital.

      The Hunger Games Catching Fire I saw on a CineCapri. The closest theater showing it in Imax 15/70 was an hour away, and we didn’t feel like driving that far – not for The Hunger Games.

      The last two movies I saw at Imax were The Wizard of Oz, which was on an retrofitted AMC auditorium, and Jurassic Park, which I saw at a converted Imax (IE was 15/70, then it was digital, now it doesn’t exist as an Imax screen any more). I was not happy with the Imax 3D experience at either movie (I have both on 3D Blu-Ray and think they look fantastic, just do not like how Imax does 3D – you turn your head in the slightest and you loose the 3D effect). I was not at all happy with the Imax Digital at the theater that had been converted that I saw Jurassic Park at- the screen was huge (ie tall), but scan lines were appearing (this may have to do with how Imax does 3D, but I could not say). So, with two bad 3D experiences with Imax Digital, I have not felt like giving it another shot.

      So keep in perspective what I am saying. Imax 15/70 quality, as well as the auditoriums built to house Imax 15/70, were fantastic. Imax Digital, and the retrofitted theaters that have them, are horrible. Imax Digital projected on an Imax 15/70 screen does not impress. And I have never seen an auditorium built for Imax Digital (you say you have, so I have no grounds to base an argument on that as I have not experienced it).

      So look again what I said up above. I said that picture quality wise, Imax 15/70 had the best picture quality, and I am sticking to that, and that is the experience that can’t be rivaled.

      As far as large screens, with a few exceptions (Imax at the Luxor), other large format screens tend to be bigger than Imax. However, Imax Domes (formally called Omni Domes, and still are at many science musuems) have the largest screens.

      I think it is pretty simple what I am saying, and I don’t understand why it is so hard to understand – I am saying that picture quality wise, Imax DIGITAL and other large format screens offer a similar experience, but neither come close to Imax 15/70. Screen size, other large format screens win out, with only a few exceptions. Sound quality wise, Dolby Atmos is superior to Imax sound. And price wise, CineCapri is the cheapest, followed by XD and Xtream, with Imax being the most expensive.

      Long story short – if the movie is available in Imax 15/70, and has exclusive Imax scenes, THAT is the way to experience it. However, if you have to choose between Imax Digital and other large format screens, I would pick the other large format screens any day.

      This is VERY much an argument about TRUE Imax experience versus digital Liemax.

  18. Every now and then…a movie pops up that can only be viewed in one type of theater….and this year it was Godzilla that tickled my fancy to take the 45 min drive to Gosport, IN to watch the large reptile at a Drive-In Theater. It did not disappoint.

    • harry

      You didn’t like the original? I know it looks dated by today’s standards, but compared to sci fi and monster movie special effects of the era it was outstanding.

  19. harry

    I’m do happy the studio didn’t have Michael Bay direct this movie and Marky Mark isn’t in it. I saw Monsters when I heard Edwards would be directing and I knew he wouldn’t let us down. Michael Bay of of sset Godzilla movies back another 15 years like Emmerich did. Try to watch the next Transformers movie with Marky Mark in it to give you an idea how awful A Michael Bay Godzilla movie would of been 3 hours of blurry choppy cgi and Marky Mark pretending to be a badass and thinking he really is.

  20. Jonathan Doan

    I enjoyed the spectacle, and the video/audio in the theater were superb!

    But strip away all of that, and you’re left with a rather bland movie with boring characters I just couldn’t be forced to like.

  21. Chris B

    Saw this last night and was super dissapointed. I wanted to love it but it really fell flat for me, like shannon said; the best character dissapears halfway into the movie. Not to mention it doesn’t even feel like Godzilla is the main focus, all the humans are flat and uninteresting and the score did nothing to enhance the onscreen action. Credit where credit is due though, the CGI looked fantastic and Ken Wattanabe was solid as always, but overall the movie just wasn’t FUN. Half the time I was thinking to myself either “I don’t even care what’s happening” or “I’d rather be watching Pacific Rim”. A real misfire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *