Kaiser wrote:eabaker wrote:Godzilla's Revenge, as has often been argued on this board before, is a pretty good kids' movie that only looks bad when you judge it by standards that don't really apply.
This argument feels like such a cop-out to me. A bad movie is a bad movie no matter what genre it fits into or what it's target audience is. It also seems somewhat patronizing that it being a "kid's movie" means it's not held to the same standards as the other entries in the series or "adult films" in general.
Fortunately, that's absolutely not what I said. Saying that it should be judged as a kids' movie doesn't mean that it should be held to
lower standards than if it were intended for a different target audience, only
different standards, because it has a different set of aims.
It isn't that it's forgiven for being bad because of its being in a given genre; it's that most people consider it bad primarily for its failure to be in a different genre. A good movie is a good movie, even if it's not a movie that applies a style or tone one happens to personally favor, or that matches one's expectations going in.
I've mentioned many times before that even as a kid I disliked the movie, but aside from that it really isn't a technically well-made film
Except in many ways it is a technically well-made film. The structure, pacing, cinematography and direction are all solid, and the musical score is rad.
and its message is muddled and confused.
This one has been debated on this board many times (and at least it is a standard of particular relevance to the genre), but I generally side with those who see the message as being nuanced or multi-faceted rather than confused.
Before someone mentions the budget or anything to the effect that they did the best with what they had, excuses may help understand why something is bad but it shouldn't make you any less lenient towards the final product.
But this isn't a case where the budget prohibited them from doing something they attempted, and thus led to failure. The budgetary considerations were taken into account at the earliest conceptual stage, and defined the form the thing took; the filmmakers used their low budget exceptionally well. It is only when we watch the movie as "fans" preceiving it as part of a collection viewed repeatedly and often in close succession - and always with a clear conception of the movies from which its stock footage is lifted - that the budgetary issues effect it at all.
This isn't gradeschool, you don't get points for effort in movie-making (unless you're attempting something extraordinarily ambitious; but let's face it, many words can describe All Monsters Attack, but ambitious isn't one, not that that's a fault per say but it still doesn't get any effort points) and as well-intentioned and budget hampered as All Monsters Attack may be it's still a bad film at the end of the day.
Except that it works for a lot people (and not across the board undiscerning people); it is an enjoyable and engaging product. As many flaws as one can find when going out of one's way to pick it apart, in movies you get credit not for effort, but for the effectiveness of the final product, and in this case, the final product works. People enjoy it.
Tokyo, a smoldering memorial to the unknown, an unknown which at this very moment still prevails and could at any time lash out with its terrible destruction anywhere else in the world.