Noé

When putting on Noah I had heard a lot of negativity about this movie. I do not know if it is Christians not supporting this adaptation, or if it is atheists thinking it is way to much Christian propaganda. I am a atheist, and I like good stories on the screen. What I liked about this movie was that feeling of adventure the likes of LOTR and Star Wars, a movie adaptation of a biblical story that is up there with other science fiction and adventure films. It didn't make the story about Noah more plausible, but it was a great story, set in timeless environments. I have read the genesis story even though I'm not a Christian, and in my opinion this adaptation is quite accurate and true to the biblical story, with some tweaking here and there. A little gnostic view points here and there, but all in all something fresh made from a old and boring book, made a little bit more interesting. Have an open mind, and don't watch it with an preconceived notion. Watch it like you would with any other story made for the screen.

I don't understand why people hate this movie. I understand how it's pretty stupid but it still manages to entertain the viewer as well build a great amount of suspense in the 3rd act. Also props to Russell Crowe and Emma Watson for delivering great performance. Everyone else... Meh! The story is about Noah and how he is shown by god that a flood would be arriving soon due to how badly humankind has evolved. Noah and his family then go and visit Methuselah,played wonderfully by Anthony Hopkins who gives Noah his insight to building an ark. On the way Noah finds Ila who is injured badly and is unable to conceive. From there his family takes care of her and one of Noah's sons falls in love with her. 15 or so years later when Noah has almost finished building the ark a king comes and threatens him. Then the flood hits and chaos ensues with a great 3rd act and a suspenseful battle. The animals in the film looked quite unrealistic but the scene where the flood hits is outstanding and awesome. You are also introduced to these rock transformers who look cool but awfully unnecessary for a biblical film. There is also a great battle which includes them in it. The film is also enjoyable but quite slow in parts. The story is very nice and entertaining but has trouble in the 1st act by being way too slow. The 3rd act was awesome though. The script is pretty clichéd and stupid but if you endure these things you can have a good time with this film. The acting is also good but I still think that Logan Lerman is forced and too shy but he was good in the 1st Percy Jackson film. in this he didn't suit the role

Am I compromised? Is this review tainted because I'm a Catholic cinephile? If you've seen my star rating than you probably figured you can rule that out. I was excited, A film from Darren Aronofsky is an event for me akin to the Olympics. That is, many years pass between his films, and when they arrive, they're freaking awesome.

Within the first few minutes, all my pent-up affection leaked away. Despite Noah's fervent source material (and that's as religious as I'll get in this review, pipe down) the narrative is extraordinarily weak, and the plot feels empty, despite the 138 minute runtime. The acting is terrible, especially from Emma Watson. (it's time we stop considering her an actress and call her what she is; a model) Even the brilliant Jennifer Connelly uncomfortably shifts between hammy underacting and cringe-inducing overacting. There is no progression or cohesiveness, Noah is corrupted by a jumpiness that completely disconnects you from the film. And it uses it's largely, if 100%, CGI landscape as a crutch instead of a supplement.

But the real kicker, the REAL kicker, is that there is no evidence Darren Aronofsky had any part in this film. His trademark deep darkness isn't there, his infinitely interpretable script isn't there, and his quick-cut, close-up camera isn't there. You could've told me f*****g Brett Ratner directed this and I would've believed you.

It probably would've been more efficient for me to layout this review with bullet points. Noah's whole ethos counters what I stand for. It's the sort of blinged up executive express that takes a brilliant story in vain, and tries to pass as profound. I have nothing but contempt for this movie.

I came into this movie without any foreknowledge of how the story would be presented so I was quite surprised that it turned out to be a movie about environmentalism rather than religious sin or anything like that. On the contrary while the movie does highlight what is good about religion, at the end Russel Crowe's Noah goes into a state that warns of the dangers of religious fundamentalism and what such people are capable of doing. All the same I think this film has a good chance of reaching those who need to get the message about climate change and animal rights the most. Noah presents us with an earth that is dying and will be flooded. Just like some scientists predict that the ice caps may melt and flood coastal areas. Just as in our world, Noah's world has naysayers as well. The film asks us to consider what a good person is and why bad people act the way they do. With the level of senseless violence that modern society is plagued by these are certainly valid questions. Russel Crowe does a job of playing the sober Noah who is tasked with doing a job for God rescuing the innocent animals. When he finally does display an outburst of emotion it is all the more dramatic because he is so steady throughout the earlier portions of the movie and leaves a lasting impression with us when we leave the theatre. My only complaint is that the film runs a little long drawing down.

I was really looking forward to this for one reason and one reason only . The director Darren Aronofsky is just about the most interesting director working today . He doesn't always hit the bullseye but he did direct REQUIEM FOR A DREAM one of the very few films I would describe as a masterpiece and he really upset an uninformed audience who went in to BLACK SWAN thinking it was going to be a high brow film featuring ballet as its theme . Indeed the only time I've seen audience members walk out in obvious disgust was during a screening of BLACK SWAN . With a title like NOAH one wondered Aronofsky might have the same effect on Christians . This is a film that promised to be controversial and as soon as preview audiences saw it there was a very sharp divide between love and hate . Interesting that it had an average rating of 8.8 then quickly started falling as people on this site gave it bad reviews . One can't help thinking there's a campaign by religious believers who seem angry at this film because it deviates from scripture . As an anti-theist my only reservations before seeing it were that the trailers looked like it was inspired by Peter Jackson's version of Tolkien

The bad news is that we've got Peter Jackson meets Peter Watkins meets Professor James Lovelock . NOAH is a heavily religious film as you might expect but not in the way you're expecting . From the outset we're told that the tribe of Cain have built " industrial cities " and it's this that has brought " the wrath of the creator " . It's not the religion of the Abrahamic cult but the cult of environmentalism and Gaia theory . The subtext is so obvious that it doesn't qualify as subtext because it's far too blatant . Noah and his family are all vegetarians who don't eat meat while the villain Tubal-Cain does because .... well he's the bad guy . Actually this is the major failing of the film . There's no one to root for because the screenplay is an absolute mess . Tubal Cain shows signs of Darwinian practicalities by eating animals in order to survive but there's no real in depth psychological analysis to the character . He wants the Ark because the story needs a villain and is so overdone you're surprised why the other characters can't see through him . . Noah isn't any better because he's an animal loving psychotic misanthrope . Can you think of any obvious society full of nature loving animal loving psychotic misanthropes ? I'll give you a clue . It was a Central European country built on Neo-Pagan ideals that used an ancient Sanskrit symbol and lasted from 1933 to 1945 . People should stop to consider who they should adopt as role models and when people treat environmentalism as a religion bad things will surely happen but we're ordered to take the side of environmentalism and not to question it

In the hands of a lesser director NOAH would have sunk at the box office but thankfully we are talking about Aronofsky . And the good news he's reigned in some the excesses that made me hate THE FOUNTAIN . Yes it owes a lot to Peter Jackson but Aronofsky recognises the strengths of Jackson when he made the LOTR trilogy . We see beautiful locations that captures the bleak brutal beauty of nature throughout the film and some of the cinematography is genuinely stunning . The cast are rather uneven which is hardly surprising considering the screenplay and an audience will find their performances divisive , none more so in Crowe . Connelly is rather bland , Winstone is rather one note and is ...well Ray Winstone .love him or loathe him . By far the best performance is by ,Emma Watson as Ila who might have been a mere cypher or plot device and yet manages to flesh out her role without being showy in any way .

In summary NOAH might just fall in to a" flawed masterpiece /interesting failure " camp . It's an extraordinarily beautiful looking film that I'll buy on DVD and one hopes it'll be up for Best Director , cinematography and score when the Oscars come around but since it's been released in the Spring the studio don't seem to have much ( Pardon the pun ) faith in it and it'll be quickly forgotten . While the visuals deliver it does have a very sententious , sombre confusing screenplay that feels the need to both shout at and talk down to the audience . Whatever the flaws of this film it still showcases the talents of Aronofsky and here's to the future and whatever it brings