Hmmm...well, while I certainly don't 100% agree with the negativity towards the American edit in the review, I do feel that the American cut does cheapen the story to a certain degree (i.e., the subtext and original characterizations, present in the Japanese original, are mostly removed for the monster stuff and usual exposition). Frankly, it's the over-exposure of the American edit that has caused many "serious" critics not to even bother with the Japanese original due to being released during the 50s boom era of sci-fi schlock ("Beginning of the End" and "The Giant Claw" anyone?); shame because they don't know what they are missing. But then, like many here in the US, I grew up with the American cut and had that not been made we would've never gotten to see the film at all. Thankfully, the Japanese original is now available for compare-contrast; I have my admirations to the effectiveness of the American edit (i.e., Raymond Burr does take the proceedings very seriously and his performance is acceptable), but the Japanese cut is the better version by far.

Nonetheless, this review from The Guardian is pretty banal and way overblown in it's arguments. It can definatly be mounted alongside Roger Ebert's untolerable hate-review of the Japanese original in the category of "Most Closed-Minded Reviews Ever Concieved!"

Last Edited By: Chris Koenig Jun 18 09 11:28 PM. Edited 1 times.