Noé

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

Get your feet wet Upon a terrifying nightmare that is clearly an omen, Noah(a roaring and fanatically determined Crowe), along with his family, begin building an ark. They get some unexpected help, but will it be enough? Especially when the king of the land(Winstone at his most vile, representing the wickedness of our species) shows up with his army, threatening that if that boat is the only safe place, they will board it one way or another.

Causing controversy from before anyone had watched it, this is a non-literal update-for-our-times take on the Bible story, that nevertheless seeks to engage with the same, genuinely universal, values – honestly, everything added here is not only critical to even make it a feature length drama(such as adding a present, physical form to the evil that is being drowned out, as it were), it serves to flesh out what was already there. This is aggressively environmental, thus rendering it highly relevant; the Earth(which could be 1000 years in the past, or the future) is here a barren, post-apocalyptic wasteland, and while it could have been made clearer, the idea is that excessive and relentless mining of resources is the cause. Not only are we beyond rescuing, the storm that will come will deliver water sorely needed to reinvigorate nature.

This has everything we've come to expect from Aronofsky: solid production values in every aspect, with a solid, and nicely limited(so that there is room for them all to represent some element endemic to us Homo Sapiens, and this is very much a character study of our titular protagonist, and an examination of humanity) cast, a compelling Clint Mansell score, and, of course, amazing(and all with a distinct purpose, artistically) visuals(the desperation of a dying breed is one of the images that will stick with you, something that is in everything Darren has helmed), employing techniques not often seen in the mainstream, including silhouette(such as a brief and stunning extrapolation of Cain) and time-lapse photography(the construction process itself). If you at all intend to watch this, and your first viewing is not a 3D showing, you will be committing a cardinal sin.

There is a lot of brutal, gory, violent and disturbing content and some sexuality in this, none of it gratuitous. I recommend this to anyone not put off by it being based on a Genesis account or the fact that it takes liberties with it. 7/10

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.

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

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.