Noah

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

Greetings again from the darkness. Since I am no biblical scholar, my comments are those of a movie lover. Tackling any part of a story from the bible is a journey filled with land mines and aggressive criticism - and that's before your movie is released! Surely director Darren Aronofsky was prepared for backlash from those who forbid any interpretation of the Good Book. The story of Noah lasts but a few pages in the bible, meaning Aronofsky had to creatively fill some space to produce a 2-plus hour film.

Russell Crowe makes a fine Noah. He is relentless in his quest to fulfill The Creator's request ... and he flashes his "Gladiator" glare on a few occasions. Rather than an uplifting childhood bedtime story, this Noah carries the burden of God, his own family and the survival of all beings ... his days are filled with moral dilemmas much larger than what you and I go through.

With all the miscommunication afforded by email and text these days, imagine if God conversed with you through images in your dreams. Maybe that process creates some areas of gray? Not if you are Noah. I guess he only dreams when God wants to show him something, so his decision making and mission is pretty focused. He is to build a giant floating warehouse to save two of every creature. Yes, that means a lot of death for those not invited. See, God is using Noah and his family to help cleanse the earth of mankind ... God is ready for a re-boot. He is really not happy with how mean and nasty man has become ever since that whole apple debacle and the murder of Abel by Cain.

Some of the visual effects are spectacular. I especially enjoyed the high-speed montage showing the creation of life ... you know that first week. Also, the beginning of the flood is quite a spectacle, but the ark itself is actually quite stunning ... constructed per the size noted in the Bible. The animals are all digitally created and we actually see little of them, though the on-boarding process goes remarkably smooth - considering this happens before the herbal sleep concoction is disbursed.

Most of the discussion will probably be on The Watchers ... the fallen angels who once tried to help mankind, and for their efforts, God turned them into giant stone creatures. I will add that The Watchers need a new nickname since they did the bulk of the manual labor in constructing the arc and then protecting it ... not much watching going on for these poor guys (voiced by Nick Nolte and Frank Langella, among others).

Noah's wife is played by Jennifer Connelly and their sons are played by Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth and Leo McHugh Carroll. They welcome Emma Watson into their family in what turns into a very odd plot twist, and the villain, Tubal-Cain is payed by Ray Winstone. Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, is played to the hilt by Anthony Hopkins. All of these characters are pretty one dimensional, but this is Noah's story. The burden he carries is quite heavy and his decisions aren't always popular.

If you are looking for the well documented story of Noah, it's no mystery what book you should be reading. If you are after a pretty impressive visual interpretation, you could certainly do worse than Aronofsky's take. And the best news ... no Morgan Freeman voice-over!

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.

As someone who has seen some of Aronofsky's other films---Requiem for a Dream, Pi, and The Fountain, I came to Noah familiar with the director but not entirely sure what to expect from an adaptation of one of the most important Bible stories. Staying true to his style, Noah is a dark, surreal, psychologically disturbing, and modernized version of the classic biblical story.

I personally am not sure how much Noah actually stayed true to the Bible or how much it deviated, but it was nevertheless interesting to see. The film takes a while to get off the ground, with the first half being somewhat slow and somewhat bewildering, but the second half pulled me in with some great plot twists. The cast was great, with some very strong performances, especially from Russel Crowe in particular. The special effects were well done, but could have been better.

Not really a must see movie, in my opinion, but good enough to watch and enjoy once. 7/10.

Just watched this on Pay-Per-View having missed a chance to see in theaters (dithered over whether or not to see it due to wildly mixed reviews). It was visually engaging enough to keep me watching till the end but as the credits began to roll, I found myself feeling dissatisfied.

Some of the scenery and shots featuring animals were really cool, I found myself wishing for more (that is, more time spent on animals...and a closer look at different species as imagined by the creators of this film).

Ray Winstone is a distinguished actor but I found his portrayal at times creepy, at times laughable, overall weak (how much of this was due to direction and/or other factors...not sure, when it comes to this film I didn't get a sense either way). Emma Watson and Jennifer Connelly impressed me, I got a sense of quiet strength from their characters.

Russell Crowe, also one of my favorite actors (I thought his Robin Hood was masterful, a fresh new take), disappointed. Without giving anything away, there were some parts of this film that called for a more dramatic narrative...his timing and (at times) rushed speech took away from the grandeur of what was meant to be an epic film. You find yourself wishing he would deliver certain lines a bit more theatrically, like David Wenham in 300 or one of the greats of classic film (Charlton Heston, perhaps).

I didn't realize when I started watching that Anthony Hopkins was also in the film. When he popped up on screen I laughed and thought: 'Of course...can't make an epic film without Anthony Hopkins!' Probably just me but it seemed a bit tired as far as casting goes.

I might have enjoyed it more on the big screen but don't regret watching at home on my TV. Bottom line, entertaining enough to watch...just a bit of a let-down.