Noé

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.

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'll start by stating I'm a Christian, and of course the movie is different from the Genesis account, because it also adds a bit from the Apocryphal text of the Book of Enoch, although there are differences there too, and it's a movie and needs embellishing because Noah's story is only like three pages. Artistic license in any film is a given. You think Braveheart is historically accurate? No, but it's a darn good film and nonetheless it's true.

I believe Christians get too caught up in the "letter of the story" and can't accept the Spirit of a story. Noah is a deeply complicated man in this film, as all people prophets of God are. I felt the filmmakers captured the spirit of the man well. I love how it shows his personal struggle to even want to save mankind after witnessing the violence and depravity of most of his fellow beings. Do we deserve to survive? The movie tackles that head on and says unequivocally ,"Yes!" in the end. God loves us and knows we can be good if we choose to follow him.

The story is fun, uplifting, and shows the true difficulty of interpreting and following the will of God. This film shows the power of forgiveness and redemption also, first with the fallen "Watchers" from the Book of Enoch, and then Noah's family as well. The Watchers also gave the film a "Lord of the Rings" vibe which I appreciate. The story is complicated and there are moral dilemmas to be solved.

Is it a perfect film? Heavens no! But it is a good one and made me appreciate what Noah and his family may have gone through in all its richness and complexity, and made me grateful to have Mr. And Mrs. Noah as my ancient covenant parents. I enjoyed it thoroughly and will watch it again one day.

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

The film reaches a good level of quality. The character interpretations are decent. The story is not exciting. It contains action, drama and biblical teaching from a modern point of view, it's written to approach new audiences. Quite often I find that some of the actors exaggerate when they scream and cry; Ray and Russell are handling very well not to get out of their paths. I would have given more stars but it is very annoying when within the dialogs and the biblical teachings there are actors who impose their presence above the calibration of their colleagues. Very nice photography and intelligent scenery with smooth advanced effects which give life to the narrated story of Noah. Creator and creations, will and desire, all are placed together and in the end it all makes sense.