Guest-Starring Godzilla…
Mothra battles the evil moth Battra, while Godzilla gets in the way.
GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA might be construed as a rematch (after the 1964 movie of the same name), if only Godzilla knew why he was here and what he was doing, instead of wandering around like a senile old man at a retirement community. Seriously, it would have made more sense to name this movie MOTHRA VS. BATTRA. (The American edit of this movie was renamed GODZILLA AND MOTHRA: THE BATTLE FOR EARTH, because they wanted a title even less connected to the plot.)
After writing two reasonably bad GODZILLA entries (VS. BIOLLANTE and VS. KING GHIDORAH), Kazuki Ohmori writes his worst Godzilla film yet, and director Takao Okawara makes a hash of the first of his four Godzilla films.
Again, the prelude story, of a thief (Tetsuya Bessho as Tekuya), his ex-wife (Satomi Kobayashi as Masako) and a company man (Takehiro Murata as Andoh the comic relief) employed by the government to retrieve a gigantic egg unearthed by a meteor, is enjoyable fluff, but wholly unnecessary when the monsters arrive in screeching wet explosive rubber glory.
The egg is transported on the deck of a ship (no scenes of the equipment used to transport the 30-foot diameter egg from the top of a mountain to the deck of the ship – that would have been mind-blowing!) back to Japan. Cosmos 1 and Cosmos 2, two annoying tiny fairies who ward the egg, inform Tekuya, Masako and Andoh that it contains Mothra, and that her evil counterpart Battra might also have been unearthed by that same meteor.
Mid-ocean – Godzilla attacks. Why? Oh, no reason. Unintentionally funny scenes as Mothra hatches as a caterpillar, clings to Godzilla’s tail, shoots jizz in his face, and swishes about the waves. Then the giant evil caterpillar Battra attacks. Why? Well, because Mothra is his sworn enemy! How did he know she was here? Who cares? Rubber ocean threeway!
Sensuous bathing – the first sign your Just Friend has crossed a line.
Ship sails off, humans avoiding the melee, while Mothra escapes, skimming dolphin-style across the waves, as Godz and Batty sink, in an intriguing special effects scene of underwater battle, while opening up an undersea volcano.
There are environmental messages all over GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA, explicit, in-your-face political plugging of keeping the environment clean, don’t rape the land, the Earth is angry and punishing us for our arrogance, the entire human race is to blame… It was 1992 and the American Democratic Party was on the rise, Al Gore was the vice-president elect and the Environmental Justice Act of 1992 was introduced (but not passed), so there was all that synergy, and to find out whether the world was affected by America’s politics, we need just cast an ear over this movie’s incessant Earth-friendly roar. Still, come on guys, do you think your target demo of 7-year-olds is getting the message?
There is the romantic subplot of Takuya and Masako re-igniting their passion, connecting it to Mothra, “We all have to grow up. We can’t be in our eggs forever.” “Maybe humans can learn something from Mothra.” Uh, not unless you want to learn how to float like a butterfly and jizz like a bee.
There is the Godzilla Detection Network, where a monitor buzzes to life: “GODZILLA DETECTED!” He just surfaced in an arbitrary part of the ocean – exactly how many sensors have you placed on the ocean’s surface to read him way out in the middle of nowhere? The ONLY good part about this scene is that Godzilla has brought – Akira Ifukube! Composer Ifukube’s majestic Godzilla Theme will not just be a standout musical cue amongst someone else’s tunes (as so many Godz films have done); Ifukube returns to the Godzilla franchise (last heard in 1975’s TERROR OF MECHAGODZILLA) to compose the full soundtrack!
A semblance of plot point when the humans disembark, and Takuya and Masako’s daughter (who misses daddy) runs to meet them, but Takuya has disappeared with the fairies, intending to sell them to an American bad actor for 1 million dollars. (And when I say “bad actor” that’s not a metaphor for him being a villain.)
Masako finds Takuya with the aid of a psychic chick, Miki (Megumi Odaka), who just appears out of nowhere. If we didn’t know her from the past few Godz movies, there is no introduction here, no indication that she is an empath; just riding with Masako, telling her which way to turn, as she homes in on the fairies’ awful singing or pussy juice or something.
Meanwhile, Mothra has made landfall, crushing cutely through buildings as a caterpillar, homing in on the fairies herself, because her jizz is totally attracted to their pussy juices. Takuya, now reunited with his wife and daughter, all subplot of selling the fairies forgotten, lets his daughter raise the fairies to talk to Mothra, “We are here! Please behave.” Mothra nods—wait, that was just plain Japanese. You mean there’s no special code or sounds or language you speak, you just speak Japanese to Mothra? That means you can have whole conversations with her and explain the concept of not destroying people’s homes as she slides through the city. Apparently there must be some cultural misunderstanding – as Mothra turns back to the sea obediently, mowing down buildings in her path as usual. So… uh, what did you fairies mean by “behave” anyway? She wasn’t flattening those buildings through malice in the first place, so why did you imply she was misbehaving?
Mothra uses her heavy jizz to make a cocoon on a building and pupate.
Mount Fuji erupts. Godzilla appears. For no reason, walking around breaking stuff. Most notably, an incredibly highly-detailed small-scale model of a full city by the bay that must have taken uncountable man-hours to build! Hats off to you model-builders! Reporter asks, “How did Godzilla get here?” B-actor answers: “It must have traveled under the Earth’s mantle and broken out of Mount Fuji. It’s beyond our comprehension.” Way back then, the Hollow Earth Vagina Theory in practice.
Godzilla stands before the City Built By Men – really meticulously.
Godzilla rampages. Fairies sing. Mothra emerges a full moth. Battra appears. (Interesting to note there is no one inside the rubber moth suits – they are full puppets on cables.) Battra shoots eye-lasers at Mothra like a Stormtrooper, meaning he’s hitting all the toy buildings and toy ships but hitting nowhere near Mothra, who is completely outmatched in firepower, so her “battle” consists of fleeing from Battra.
This production had a massive explosives budget – if it’s not being blown up by Batty, Godz is walking into it and it’s exploding for no reason.
Mothra apparently has these magic sparkles that she blings all over Battra, which puts him in the Friend Zone – why not LEAD with that power, woman?! Both the moths then fight Godzilla, simply because he’s here and, like an annoying drunk, wants to insert himself into the conversation. But Mothra then sparkles all over Godzilla, who goes down! Woman – what’d I say about leading with those sparkles?!
Godz and Batty go down into the ocean, presumably dead together, while the fairies inform the Japanese populace, “It was Battra’s job to stop a meteor that will destroy mankind at the end of the 20th century. Now Battra has given the job to Mothra.” Wait-whaaat?! Wasn’t Battra evil? Wasn’t Battra trying to flatten Tokyo an hour ago?
Yes, but Godzilla – oouwaaah!
END
GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA (Dec 1992) | Unratedaka: GODZILLA AND MOTHRA: THE BATTLE FOR EARTH
aka: GOJIRA TAI MOSURA
Director: Takao Okawara.
Writer: Kazuki Ohmori.
Music: Akira Ifukube.
Starring: Tetsuya Bessho, Satomi Kobayashi, Takehiro Murata, Saburo Shinoda, Akiji Kobayashi, Akira Takarada, Makoto Otake, Keiko Imamura, Sayaka Osawa, Megumi Odaka, Tetsu Watanabe.
GODZILLA: Kenpachirô Satsuma. BATTRA: ‘Hurricane Ryu’ Hariken.
Version: Japanese w. English subtitles.
 |
 |
One Comment on “GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA 1992”
Jon Dunmore’s Review of Godzilla vs. Mothra (1992): A Hollow Take on a Hollow Movie
Where to even begin with Jon Dunmore’s review of Godzilla vs. Mothra? It’s a masterclass in misguided mockery, blind condescension, and shallow observations that do nothing to actually understand or appreciate the movie, its context, or its audience. If Dunmore was attempting to demonstrate his deep, intellectual disdain for giant monster films, he should be commended for getting exactly one thing right: Godzilla vs. Mothra might not be the most sophisticated film in the franchise, but it’s not trying to be. Unfortunately, Dunmore doesn’t seem to get that at all. Instead, he spends the entire review belittling the film, the genre, and the fans, all while barely scratching the surface of what makes these movies fun. Here’s a breakdown of why his review deserves a hard pass.
1. A Misunderstanding of Godzilla’s Core Appeal:
From the start, Dunmore seems completely unable to appreciate the inherent absurdity and fun of a Godzilla movie. Instead of embracing the monster madness, he critiques the plot with a tone of superiority, acting as if the film’s campy absurdity is somehow a failing. He complains that Godzilla “wanders around like a senile old man,” but isn’t that precisely what makes these movies so fun? Godzilla is not a complex, layered character; he’s a giant, destructive force of nature. The movie doesn’t need a tight, intricate narrative to work. Yet Dunmore seems baffled that a Godzilla film can’t be a more “serious” affair. Godzilla movies have never been about logic or deep plot—it’s about spectacle, fun, and a bit of tongue-in-cheek absurdity. But rather than rolling with that, Dunmore spends most of the review acting like he’s been asked to critique Shakespeare when he’s clearly out of his depth.
2. Ridiculous Hyperbole and Snarky Derision:
Dunmore seems to think that the mere presence of Godzilla in a movie entitled Godzilla vs. Mothra should have deeper meaning or context. He mockingly asks, “Why is Godzilla here? Oh, no reason.” Well, no, there isn’t a grand philosophical reason for Godzilla’s appearance, and that’s the point! He’s a destructive force that just shows up and wrecks things. But instead of engaging with the absurdity in a lighthearted manner, Dunmore can’t resist piling on unnecessary sarcasm. His quip about Godzilla “wandering like a senile old man” isn’t a clever critique; it’s just lazy, over-the-top mockery of a movie that knows exactly what it’s doing—creating a fun, chaotic spectacle. Dunmore treats the film as if it were a tragic melodrama when in fact it’s a giant monster romp.
3. The “Plot”—Actually, Who Needs It?
Dunmore spends a significant chunk of the review bashing the film’s narrative, which he claims is entirely incoherent. Well, yes, it’s a Godzilla movie. The plot is secondary to the destruction and mayhem. Godzilla vs. Mothra is a spectacle-driven movie, and that’s how it was intended. But Dunmore’s obsession with “why” Godzilla is in the movie and his unrelenting criticism of the human characters and subplots (like the romantic arc between Takuya and Masako) misses the point entirely. The humans are simply window dressing for the monsters, and their subplots are nothing more than an excuse to get the monsters into battle. And yet, Dunmore spends an inordinate amount of time complaining about them. Did he think he was watching Citizen Kane?
4. Taking the Film’s Environmental Message Far Too Seriously:
Ah, here we go. The 90s Godzilla films were infamous for attempting to inject environmental messages into the franchise, and Dunmore is quick to mock this, especially in the context of 1992’s climate-conscious political atmosphere. Sure, the environmental messages are a bit heavy-handed, but Godzilla movies have never been about subtlety. They are a reflection of the times in which they were made. Dunmore criticizes the film for “in-your-face political plugging” of environmental concerns as if Godzilla vs. Mothra was supposed to be the next great work of eco-politics cinema. The movie’s central environmental message—don’t pollute the Earth or face the consequences—is standard fare in a genre that often uses monsters to metaphorically represent humanity’s self-destructive tendencies. But instead of acknowledging this as a piece of pop culture commentary, Dunmore spends his time mocking it, completely ignoring the fact that the film’s environmental message is, at its core, a tongue-in-cheek metaphor. And who are we kidding—who’s expecting subtle political discourse in a movie about giant bugs fighting a radioactive lizard?
5. Offensive Mockery of the Fairies and the Mothra Mythos:
Dunmore goes out of his way to mock the two fairies, Cosmos 1 and 2, with crude and uncalled-for language. For someone supposedly critiquing a Godzilla movie, he seems bafflingly unaware of the long history of Mothra’s connection to these twin fairy characters. This isn’t just an arbitrary subplot—this is a key part of the Mothra mythology. But instead of recognizing the importance of these characters within the broader scope of the Godzilla universe, Dunmore uses them as a punching bag for juvenile humor. Phrases like “jizz in his face” and “pussy juice” are not only unnecessary, but they undermine any attempt at a legitimate critique. They come off as puerile and dismissive, as though Dunmore is unable—or unwilling—to take a giant monster movie on its own terms. Instead of appreciating the whimsical, childlike qualities of the fairies, he devolves into gutter humor, assuming it’s all ridiculous because it doesn’t cater to his overly serious expectations.
6. Repetitive Mockery and Pointless Asides:
Dunmore’s review is filled with snarky asides that distract from any meaningful critique. For example, he wastes time pointing out the “arbitrary” detection of Godzilla by the so-called Godzilla Detection Network. Yes, it’s convenient. But again, this is a Godzilla movie, not a hard-hitting documentary. And yet Dunmore feels the need to mock every little thing without understanding the genre conventions at play. The same goes for his complaint about Godzilla traveling “under the Earth’s mantle.” It’s an explanation for how Godzilla might have arrived, but Dunmore ridicules it as though it’s some sort of incomprehensible scientific blunder. What’s the problem? This is a kaiju film! You want scientific accuracy? Try Interstellar. Here, it’s all about fun, explosions, and watching monsters fight.
7. Unsubstantiated Complaints About the Monsters:
The entire second half of the review, which focuses on the monster battles and the “unexplained” motives of Mothra and Battra, is an exercise in missing the point. Dunmore is upset that Mothra is “outmatched” by Battra, calling the battle “fleeting” and “fleeing,” as though the movie is some deep, philosophical struggle between good and evil. But in reality, Mothra and Battra’s fight isn’t about who has the most powerful lasers or who’s going to “win” in a traditional sense—it’s a spectacle. It’s a moment of chaos between two iconic kaiju. But instead of appreciating the special effects and the pure ridiculousness of it all, Dunmore focuses on how “stupid” it is that Mothra can’t beat Battra. Why does he care so much? The whole point is watching these ridiculous creatures clash and wreak havoc—focusing on the plot logic is the last thing any Godzilla fan cares about.
8. Overall Missed Opportunity for Actual Criticism:
The harshest critique here is that Dunmore completely misses the forest for the trees. His entire review is laced with misdirected rage at a movie that’s clearly not meant to be dissected in such a serious manner. He misses out on the intricate craftsmanship behind the model sets, the charm of the classic kaiju, and the return of Akira Ifukube’s iconic music. Instead, he spends the entire review bogged down in nitpicking, undercutting the movie’s entertainment value with his tedious insistence on applying a level of critique it simply doesn’t deserve.
Conclusion:
Jon Dunmore’s review of Godzilla vs. Mothra is a deeply flawed exercise in snark, laziness, and ignorance. Instead of appreciating the absurdity, spectacle, and charm of a Godzilla movie, he chooses to belittle it at every turn. His inability to understand the film’s tone, message, and purpose is only surpassed by his condescending attitude towards both the film and its audience. If you’re looking for an insightful critique of this fun, if flawed, film, Dunmore’s review is a dead-end—another example of a critic completely missing the point.