I saw Darren Aronofsky's Noah this morning, and although it had flashes of goodness it was mostly an dark epic that was LOTR-lite in the first 80 minutes and an annoying family in drama that almost sunk the ship in the last hour.
I knew there were going to have to be major liberties taken to make a 2 hour and 20 minute movie out of a few verses from the Bible. I'm not a Christian and wasn't offended for any religious reasons, but some of the additions and plot twists were just stupid.
Slight SPOILERS........................................
There were rock giants who turned out to be fallen angels that fused with the ground and wanted to return to Heaven.
Ray Winstone played an evil king who stowed away on the ark and conspired with Ham to kill Noah and take over the new world! (LOL)
End slight SPOILERS.........................................
Russell Crowe played Noah like a crazed cult leader driven to do "The Creator's" will at all costs; neither the words God nor Yahweh are mentioned. It's a valid and interesting take, but wasn't the right choice for a bloated epic.
It is hinted that Noah is a vegetarian and that the world is facing destruction because of disregard for ecology just as much as sin and vice. The Creator seems more like mother earth than the Old Testament God, and this was one of Aronofsky's better changes to the narrative.
I expected more, but I did enjoy it a little more than my friend who seemed to hate it, ha.
I will see this on DVD
Revisit the 60's movie The Bible with John Huston as Noah and real animals.p
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/10/08
And you get to see Michael Parks nude as Adam.
He kind of disappeared after Then Came Bronson
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/10/08
He actually had parts in some big recent movies. Argo, Diego Unchained. Not a big part, but at least he's working.
The Bible is a hysterical, but interesting mess. (The Movie, not the book, though the book is too.) Michael Parks is good as Adam however, even if he'll always be Bus Riley to me (when will that finally get a re-release?)
I'm intrigued by Noah. The mixed reviews, with a number very positive, are intriguing--as is Whizzer's take...
It was to be the first in a series covering specific books in the old testament. The others were never made as epics went out of style.
I was into Eve and I have no idea who played her
I thought it was better than LOTR. At least The Hobbit series. It was nice to see a fantasy film and not think "eh that part was in there for the kids".
And I think the film makers treated this as fantasy, retelling a parable. It wasn't interested in being a literal retelling of the bible story.
Updated On: 3/30/14 at 09:25 AM
Whizzer, I'm not quite sure why any of those are stupid. Is it because you felt they didn't gel with Aronofsky's overall vision of the narrative or because they were disarmingly different than what one expects from the Noah story.
btw there is mention of "giants in the earth" in the book of Noah.
I loved the rock giants. Especially the battle scene with them towards the end. I didn't find them any more unrealistic than anything else in the "traditional" Noah story.
Darren Aronofsky on Colbert
Better the comical take of the musical Two By Two
This would be a great encores choice
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/9/04
I enjoyed it quite a lot, particularly Emma Watson's performance. I didn't mind the family drama - I liked seeing both sides of Noah. I really enjoyed the performances and some of the cinematography was stunning.
Henrik, maybe I should have used the word silly instead of stupid. The rock monsters made me laugh at first...after I found out their origin story I understood where he was coming from, but by then I couldn't help but feel he was borrowing a little too heavily Peter Jackson. I am that big battle scene couldn't have been more the end of Two Towers.
I wasn't expecting (nor wanting) a word for word adaptation, but I did not enjoy the stowaway and family drama wrench that was thrown into the story. It gave Watson some good material, but it just didn't work for me.
Videos