Skip to content

Godzilla -1998- «OFFICIAL»

Is it a fun, dumb, mid-90s disaster flick? It has a killer Jamiroquai song on the soundtrack, an awesome design for a different monster, and a solid third act. If you rename the creature "Giant Iguana from France," it’s an entertaining two hours.

When you say the name "Godzilla" to a movie fan, you usually get one of two reactions: a respectful nod to the Japanese original (1954) or a groan followed by the words, "That awful 1998 American one." For over two decades, Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla has been the black sheep of the franchise—a film so divisive that Toho (the Japanese studio behind the real Godzilla) famously disowned it and renamed the creature "Zilla." Godzilla -1998-

But is the 1998 film really a bad monster movie , or is it simply a bad Godzilla movie ? Let’s take an objective look back at the film that tried—and largely failed—to bring the King of the Monsters to the West. The idea of an American Godzilla film was a development hell classic. For over a decade, studios like Columbia TriStar (Sony) tried to get a version off the ground, with directors like Jan de Bont ( Speed ) attached at various points. De Bont’s version, which never got made, allegedly featured a more traditional, ray-breathing Godzilla fighting a giant monster called "The Gryphon." Is it a fun, dumb, mid-90s disaster flick

So grab some popcorn, turn off your inner fanboy, and enjoy it for what it is: the most expensive B-movie ever made. Just don’t call it Godzilla in front of a Toho executive. 2/5 Rating (as a cheesy 90s blockbuster): 4/5 When you say the name "Godzilla" to a

What do you think? Does the 1998 Godzilla deserve its bad reputation, or is it unfairly hated? Let me know in the comments.

Later, Toho officially recognized "Zilla" as a separate kaiju—one whose only power is speed and burrowing, who was killed by conventional missiles in its own film, and who is considered a disgrace to the Godzilla name. Is Godzilla (1998) a good Godzilla film? No. It ignores the character’s history, powers, and meaning.

Is it a fun, dumb, mid-90s disaster flick? It has a killer Jamiroquai song on the soundtrack, an awesome design for a different monster, and a solid third act. If you rename the creature "Giant Iguana from France," it’s an entertaining two hours.

When you say the name "Godzilla" to a movie fan, you usually get one of two reactions: a respectful nod to the Japanese original (1954) or a groan followed by the words, "That awful 1998 American one." For over two decades, Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla has been the black sheep of the franchise—a film so divisive that Toho (the Japanese studio behind the real Godzilla) famously disowned it and renamed the creature "Zilla."

But is the 1998 film really a bad monster movie , or is it simply a bad Godzilla movie ? Let’s take an objective look back at the film that tried—and largely failed—to bring the King of the Monsters to the West. The idea of an American Godzilla film was a development hell classic. For over a decade, studios like Columbia TriStar (Sony) tried to get a version off the ground, with directors like Jan de Bont ( Speed ) attached at various points. De Bont’s version, which never got made, allegedly featured a more traditional, ray-breathing Godzilla fighting a giant monster called "The Gryphon."

So grab some popcorn, turn off your inner fanboy, and enjoy it for what it is: the most expensive B-movie ever made. Just don’t call it Godzilla in front of a Toho executive. 2/5 Rating (as a cheesy 90s blockbuster): 4/5

What do you think? Does the 1998 Godzilla deserve its bad reputation, or is it unfairly hated? Let me know in the comments.

Later, Toho officially recognized "Zilla" as a separate kaiju—one whose only power is speed and burrowing, who was killed by conventional missiles in its own film, and who is considered a disgrace to the Godzilla name. Is Godzilla (1998) a good Godzilla film? No. It ignores the character’s history, powers, and meaning.