Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 5:40 PM   
 By:   philiperic   (Member)

anyone else see this ?
I saw it last night ----

I liked some of it but what killed it for me as a film experience were the giant talking rock transformer- like creatures called Watchers - supposedly fallen angels who build the ark free of charge . Why are these nonsensical creatures in this supposedly serious work? It's like a sci-fi biblical epic. Just ridiculous.

once they were gone, it was better - some good acting from all the leads - but the Watchers !! should all be digitally removed .

 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 5:58 PM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)

Not sure why it was called, NOAH. It has nothing to do with the Bible story of Noah. I thought it was ridiculous. So, instead on mankind being sinful and being punished by God for their sins, they were being punished for not being "green"? The audience was laughing at it at the showing I went to, earlier today.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 6:11 PM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

Saw it last night.

It was completely laughable. Nothing redeeming about it at all.

Woeful performances. Hammy overacting by everyone.

Anthony Hopkins seemed to be the only person treating the movie as the joke it was.

By the way, I have no issue with the religious or biblical inaccuracy of the film. That doesn't bother me at all. I went to the movie be entertained - to see an enjoyable movie. I got neither of those.

 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 6:57 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

You know way back in 81, I thought "Raiders of the Lost Ark", was gonna be about finding Noah's Ark.

 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 7:24 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

Not sure why it was called, NOAH. It has nothing to do with the Bible story of Noah. I thought it was ridiculous. So, instead on mankind being sinful and being punished by God for their sins, they were being punished for not being "green"? The audience was laughing at it at the showing I went to, earlier today.

My apologies in advance Mr. PhiladelphiaSon, but have you actually seen this film? There's nothing of this content within the picture. In fact, quite the opposite occurs. There is heavy material regarding Man's warmongering, distrust of each other, and sinful behavior as being the cause of Noah's spiritual visions, faith towards his God, and willed decisions.

My personal opinion of the film is mixed. Overall it is the most noble attempt of co-writer and director Darren Aronofsky's best and worst traits. The first half of the film, which details Noah's faith, visions, and building of the Ark is filled with beautiful and strange mysticism. This is also where the story and performances are strongest. After the Flood occurs and Noah's family find themselves at sea, I nearly lost interest.

From here on it collapses into overwrought melodrama which I think Aronofsky is guilty of each time he's got a film out. Despite the Oscar win for Natalie Portman's performance in Black Swan (which retro-actively feels more and more like a "career win") I find Mr. Aronofsky to be a flawed director of women. His depictions of female characters are miserable and un-involving, and Jennifer Connelly feels entirely unconvincing in the second half of the film. Likewise for Emma Watson. I found Russell Crowe and Ray Winstone to be the most capable overall, with Crowe's performance being very grounded, emotional, and even inspiring.

I really loved the more fantastical and mythic representations of these events, especially the wild depiction of Nephilim angels as fallen from the grace of God for assisting in human events and being encased in stone. The visual effects for these golems were incredible, and I felt as though I was watching a new film with Ray Harryhausen effects in the 21st Century. The unique animals were also a brilliant touch, I think. All of this stuff was very inspired, like the visuals.

There is an amazing montage which details the creation of the universe and God's creations which leads into the history and evolution of murder and war which I felt alone was worth the price of admission. I'd liken it to Mr. Aronofsky taking an acid trip with Terence Malick and feeling truly exhilarated. Another scene finds a young Methuselah defeating an army of Cain's descendants with a flaming sword which engulfs the landscape in flames. Composer Clint Mansell and cinematographer Matthew Libatique emerge as the true talents behind this film after all of the good will Aronofsky brought forth in the better parts of the picture, the director inflicts too much of his patented brand of tedium.

 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 7:31 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

Edit... double post.

 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 7:37 PM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

I wasn't particularly impressed. I also thought the fallen angels took away any possible believably the film might have had. My review below:

Biblical movies have a bit of a high bar to live up to thanks to some powerful cinematic achievements during the 50s and 60s. Despite some high expectations from the director and cast, Noah doesn't live up to expectations. It has some engaging visuals but doesn't reach the same heights as other similar films.

Noah opens with a creation story and takes its sweet time to get to the juicy part. While in some films this would be much needed character development, it felt to me like it was dragging its feet. As things finally get to the building of the arc and what happens after, it still feels unnecessarily fleshed out. The film spends too much time on minor characters who shouldn't be given much development at all.

There is also the problematic story element of the fallen angels in the movie. Though they bear striking similarities to the living trees in Lord of the Rings, it was a bit surprising to see them helping Noah build the arc and fighting off other men who tried to board the giant vessel. Though it is hard to believe that Noah and his family would have been able to build such a giant boat without assistance, I found they removed all sense of realism from the story. It makes me wonder why nothing of them was shown in the trailers.

Musically, Clint Mansell provides a largely droning atmospheric score for the film that is heavy on simplistic motifs. The music largely feels cheap with the film because of a lot of synthesizer effects applied. The music takes on a strange ephemeral character that only furthers the lack of realism in the movie. While it did enhance the dark feel of the movie, it might have been more effective if the music was more traditional.

I wouldn't be particularly bothered by some of the variations from the traditional story if they had resulted in an engaging film. Most of the movie left me feeling like the characters weren't particularly sincere in their belief. The darker side of some of the characters, though in line with the recent trend in film-making, felt forced and didn't really make the characters any more interesting.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 7:46 PM   
 By:   philiperic   (Member)

I wasn't particularly impressed. I also thought the fallen angels took away any possible believably the film might have had. My review below:

Biblical movies have a bit of a high bar to live up to thanks to some powerful cinematic achievements during the 50s and 60s. Despite some high expectations from the director and cast, Noah doesn't live up to expectations. It has some engaging visuals but doesn't reach the same heights as other similar films.

Noah opens with a creation story and takes its sweet time to get to the juicy part. While in some films this would be much needed character development, it felt to me like it was dragging its feet. As things finally get to the building of the arc and what happens after, it still feels unnecessarily fleshed out. The film spends too much time on minor characters who shouldn't be given much development at all.

There is also the problematic story element of the fallen angels in the movie. Though they bear striking similarities to the living trees in Lord of the Rings, it was a bit surprising to see them helping Noah build the arc and fighting off other men who tried to board the giant vessel. Though it is hard to believe that Noah and his family would have been able to build such a giant boat without assistance, I found they removed all sense of realism from the story. It makes me wonder why nothing of them was shown in the trailers.

Musically, Clint Mansell provides a largely droning atmospheric score for the film that is heavy on simplistic motifs. The music largely feels cheap with the film because of a lot of synthesizer effects applied. The music takes on a strange ephemeral character that only furthers the lack of realism in the movie. While it did enhance the dark feel of the movie, it might have been more effective if the music was more traditional.

I wouldn't be particularly bothered by some of the variations from the traditional story if they had resulted in an engaging film. Most of the movie left me feeling like the characters weren't particularly sincere in their belief. The darker side of some of the characters, though in line with the recent trend in film-making, felt forced and didn't really make the characters any more interesting.


good review

I think that the Watchers were left out of the trailers because the "producers" realized that audiences would have mixed feelings about them and many would be put off by this invention.

 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 9:51 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

I also found the movie ultimately mediocre, in the sense that some bits really didn't work at all and some were quite effective, but different things threw me than threw others, it seems. The Watchers didn't bother me, but the bronze age post-global-industrial-civilization thing did. I appreciate that Noah was a vegetarian, but in that barren wasteland what exactly was he eating? Were we meant to believe that he was literally being sustained by the creator, or were there plenty of edible plants just offscreen? I appreciated that the movie attempted to deal with the dominion/stewardship thing, but then it did it so clumsily, getting into the pristine pre-human "balance of nature" nonsense, that I couldn't take the treatment seriously. I found the gender dynamics troubling: if you're going to go to the trouble of crafting anachronistic reasons for divine judgment, why not keep going and have the protagonists see women as having value beyond their ability to provide children for men? (Also the idea that children are necessary and sufficient for happiness in life rubs me the wrong way.) And what was the story with the magic rocks again?

 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 11:03 PM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

I appreciate that Noah was a vegetarian, but in that barren wasteland what exactly was he eating? Were we meant to believe that he was literally being sustained by the creator, or were there plenty of edible plants just offscreen? I appreciated that the movie attempted to deal with the dominion/stewardship thing, but then it did it so clumsily, getting into the pristine pre-human "balance of nature" nonsense, that I couldn't take the treatment seriously.

Yup totally agree. There was almost zero greenery around where they were living before the film starts, yet they were somehow surviving on nothing?

Also I agree that random golden explosive everyone had seemed totally out of place as well.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 2:40 AM   
 By:   philiperic   (Member)

I appreciate that Noah was a vegetarian, but in that barren wasteland what exactly was he eating? Were we meant to believe that he was literally being sustained by the creator, or were there plenty of edible plants just offscreen? I appreciated that the movie attempted to deal with the dominion/stewardship thing, but then it did it so clumsily, getting into the pristine pre-human "balance of nature" nonsense, that I couldn't take the treatment seriously.

Yup totally agree. There was almost zero greenery around where they were living before the film starts, yet they were somehow surviving on nothing?

Also I agree that random golden explosive everyone had seemed totally out of place as well.


why was Noah suppose to be vegetarian? wasn't it Abel who was a "vegan" and Noah was supposedly the descendant of Seth ? is this what you mean by Noah's stewardship - "to take care of the world"?

edit : just read that Seth was born to Adam + Eve as God's replacement for Abel - so there's that answer.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 5:58 AM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

edit : just read that Seth was born to Adam + Eve as God's replacement for Abel - so there's that answer.

Seth?? SETH??

That was my first laugh out loud moment in the movie.

 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 6:11 AM   
 By:   Heath   (Member)

You know way back in 81, I thought "Raiders of the Lost Ark", was gonna be about finding Noah's Ark.

Oddly enough, I just found out that Hercules and Sinbad were NOT characters from the Bible. Who knew...?

 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 11:24 AM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)

Not sure why it was called, NOAH. It has nothing to do with the Bible story of Noah. I thought it was ridiculous. So, instead on mankind being sinful and being punished by God for their sins, they were being punished for not being "green"? The audience was laughing at it at the showing I went to, earlier today.

My apologies in advance Mr. PhiladelphiaSon, but have you actually seen this film? .



Unfortunately, yes, I actually saw it. I could respond to the greater portion of your post, but the film's just not worth my time. I'll just reiterate that the story in the Bible, which is about particular sins, is completely ignored in this film. The film is about man's treatment of the earth, with a Noah that is pretty much a maniac.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 11:56 AM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

You either believe in something with faith or you don't believe in something in faith. Everybody has there own interpretation of biblical scriptures, who can say what is written in stone. If you believe in the old testament then you believe GOD can do anything I find it a bit trite to say well because these things come into the film I can't take it seriously anymore. Who is to judge, all religions are based on some type of supernatural occurrences, can one really say one is more fanciful then another? CHRISTIANS believe that JESUS CHRIST is there savior , they believe in both the old and new testaments. So who can say what is more less likely to be true, the creatures in NOAH, THE DUPLICATION of loaves of bread, Raising the dead from the grave, a behemoth etc etc.Any faith you either believe or you don't. Generally speaking at least.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 12:31 PM   
 By:   philiperic   (Member)

You either believe in something with faith or you don't believe in something in faith. Everybody has there own interpretation of biblical scriptures, who can say what is written in stone. If you believe in the old testament then you believe GOD can do anything I find it a bit trite to say well because these things come into the film I can't take it seriously anymore. Who is to judge, all religions are based on some type of supernatural occurrences, can one really say one is more fanciful then another? CHRISTIANS believe that JESUS CHRIST is there savior , they believe in both the old and new testaments. So who can say what is more less likely to be true, the creatures in NOAH, THE DUPLICATION of loaves of bread, Raising the dead from the grave, a behemoth etc etc.Any faith you either believe or you don't. Generally speaking at least.

Faith in the case of the Watchers in NOAH has nothing to do with it - they are a creation of a screenwriter+director and as far I know, they come from no Biblical or extra Biblical source.
And IMHO, they are lame. Aronofsky,an atheist, feels he can embroider whatever fanciful ideas he has on to the Bible story.

 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 12:37 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

And Moses didn't look like Charles Heston. It's a Hollywood movie folks. roll eyes

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 12:52 PM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

I'd quite like to see this, having read the posts above. Even though there are some criticisms that some aspects of the story are, er, made up.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 1:06 PM   
 By:   Kev McGann   (Member)

I think I read somewhere that the film deviates from the Bible story in some way to do with Noah and the age he had his kids. I'm sure I read that in the Bible story he didn't have the kids until he was 500!! I am (was?) a catholic but I only remember the Ark story vaguely and I don't remember anything about him being 500 and having kids at that age. I'm sure even at a young age I would have rolled my eyes at that one.

 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 1:29 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

is it better than THIS IS THE END?

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.