Godzilla now has a rating from Rotten Tomatoes and it's good!

There have been negative reviews.

Most negative reviews center around:

The lead should have been Cranston

The characters are flat, almost pointless

Not quite enough Godzilla

Jaws is like that and Alien silly critics with not quite enough monster

Would a good or bad review stop you from seeing it, OP? Lets face it, what matters is whether that film appeals to you the audience member, not what some film critic think, good or bad.

I don't really care what ratings Rottentomatoes or metacritic has for the movie, so long as I personally enjoy it. After all, that is what truly matters in the end... 

@GodzillatheKing

I don't think most of us are concerned with the reviews in terms of needing/wanting them to influence our own opinion. 

Rather, the reviews give us an idea of the potential box office draw and whether general audiences will be persuaded to see it. 

And that we do have an interest in, as the more positive word of mouth increases sales, the more likely it is we get a sequel :-)

@Godzillatheking123 - No, good or bad reviews wouldn't make a difference to me. I just think it's a wonderful thing that Godzilla is getting good reviews. Like Madison said, it gives an idea of how it will succeed at the box office and it will persuade people to watch it. Not many people are going to watch a movie with bad ratings. But naturally everyone who is a Godzilla fan will see it whether it has a bad or good reviews. Personally, like you said, it just matters about whether you enjoy it or not. But, anyway the whole point of this topic was to just share the good news about Godzilla's new reviews. Nothing more :)

"Not many people are going to watch a movie with bad ratings."

Doesn't seem to faze Adam Sandler or those awful Transformers movies.

I mean, there are exceptions to every rule (heck the 1998 American Godzilla is probably one of the strongest examples of an exception)

But generally, yeah, the better reviews, the more likely the movie will be profitable. I'd say there are way, way more examples of movies that get bad reviews, and nobody sees it, or movies that get good reviews, and get benefits from that; than examples of well reviewed movies that fly under the radar, or piece of crap movies that just barrel through and make money anyway like a honey badger.

That being said, those honey badger movies, like Transformers....yeah....they baffle the crap out of me. I really don't understand how/why those are still as successful as they are.

Right now the Rottentomatoes rating stands at 91%.  By the end of the week it will probably end up at around 76%-80%.  Rottentomatoes ALWAYS start out high and goes down as more established reviewers (Time, Variety, NY Post) chime in.  76% is still pretty good.

Metacritic will give you a better idea of just how good the movie is, overall.  Right now they have a rating of 60.  That rating will probably end up at about 55.

It appears as if Gareth Edwards, who is relatively new as a director. stills has a few things to learn. 

@RatedRex

Your analysis that the scores trend downward the longer a movie is out is GENERALLY correct, and your Rotten Tomatoes estimate seems spot on. 

But the reasons for the film's average reviews seem to have very little with Gareth Edwards. In fact, Edwards' work seems to be a major highlight of the praise. For him, I really think this is going to be his breakout movie, which is going to get him hired to do a lot more other things. 

People seem to be upset about the 'script by committee', weak human characters (mainly ATJ), and the fact that monster 'metaphor' seems shoe-horned in, rather than genuine. 

Edwards can elevate that content to a certain extent, but there is only so much he can do if he has sup-bar material to work with. Especially a young director just wouldn't have the permission or confidence to challenge the studio execs on script problems. As opposed to somebody like George Lucas or Christopher Nolan who basically have 100% latitude to change, improve, or screw up whatever they would like in their movies. 

Maybe Edwards will earn the right to have complete control of his movies down the road, but for now, he's probably working with some studio limitations. For his part, it sounds like Gareth did a GREAT job with the parts he did have more direct control over.

I'm not saying that if Gareth would have had more control, that all the problems would have been fixed. Who knows, maybe if Gareth had total control he would have screwed them up worse? We won't know until Gareth gets more control over his movies/scripts. 

I prefer looking at the audience ratings rather than what the critics think. Rottentomatoes can be quite biased at times.

RatedRex and Madison-

Neither of you have seen the movie yet and you are already debating the merits and weakness of the movie? Don't want to sound harsh, but I think its better if you wait until you actually have seen the movie for yourself before you judge the film's pros and cons. 

Right now you are debating based on what some other people think. They may or may not share your view once you actually seen it. So its best to leave the debating until both of you have actually seen the movie first.

I dunno, my main point is just that Edwards isn't what is being criticized about the movie. Edwards' contributions are even getting compliments. Which is just a descriptive truth, whether I've seen the movie not. 

I understand I shouldn't judge the movie myself until I see it for myself. I'm not trying to make my own personal judgements here. I'm more just trying to talk about what the critics are talking about. 

Who knows? The critics could be totally off-base. I can't know whether or not they are until I see the movie. 

But between now and then, I do enjoy talking about the critics comments, and analyzing what parts of their critiques may or may not be legit. I just consider it a different form of speculation. 

@GODZILLATHEKING93 & MADISON

I'm not debating the movie.  I'm only speculating about the eventual ratings from rottentomatoes and metacritic.

I have yet to see the movie, so you are right, I need to see for myself before I make any statement that makes sense.  But for now its fun to add my two cents just for the hell of it.  That's what this forum is for, right? 

I don't like when critics say "too much human action, not enough monster", because you know that if there was a lot of Godzilla they'd say "too much Godzilla, not enough human action". I think critics just need something to pick at or else they seem meaningless.

@SLIRPY - I know right. That's so true. Critics have always been like that and they will never change.

I don't think they're flip flopping. I think it really varies depending on the cast you have to work with and what you ask them to do. Take an example like:

Jurassic Park 

vs. 

Transformers

Jurassic Park had some really cool human characters and philosophical debates. If you cut out the human part of that story and replace it with mindless dino action.....you get The Lost World. 

Transformers had Shia Labeouf and Megan Fox.....if you gave those two any more screentime....people would have started throwing rocks at the screen. That movie needs giant robot battles to cover for the fact that is has NOTHING else going for it. 

It seems to me that the critics are upset with Godzilla because it offered up a Jurassic Park serving of monster action....while offering more of a Transformers helping of human action (that's probably not quite a fair comparison, but the principle remains the same....it was a bad combination)

If EITHER the monster action stayed the same, but the human element was stronger

OR

The human element remained the same, but there was more monster action

Then critics would have been happy. It's not that their flip floppy, it's that each movie has different circumstances and needs to strike its own balance. It sounds like Godzilla didn't quite do that from what they are saying anyway. Who knows, maybe they are just flat out wrong. 

@Madison - That is a really good point you got there. But sometimes critics can be a bit flip floppy. But yeah, I see what you are getting at.

right now i see it at a 77%, i will still go see it

Madison:

The difference betweem Jurassic Park and Transformer is:  Steven Spielberg directed Jurassic Park and Michael Bay directed Transformer.  If Michael Bay had directed Jurassic Park we would have had an entirely different movie. 

Spielberg knows how to incorporate the human interest with the monster.  We've seen him do it in Jaws, Jurassic Park, and in Close Encounters.  Those three movies did not show the monsters, (or aliens for Close Encounters...) until late in the movies.  Which is why I mentioned in a pevious post that Gareth Edwards still have a few things to learn.  Imagine the human story if Spielberg had directed Godzilla.

A good director can always get a good performance out of his actors.  Spielberg, Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola are good examples of directors who do.  A gay like Michael Bay is just the opposite.  He's good at action and explosions but he sucks at character developement. 

According to the reviews the character developementin Godzilla is lacking, which is often the blame of the director.  I'll know for sure when I see the movie next Saturday.