Noah - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Noah Reviews

Page 1 of 370
Super Reviewer
½ April 6, 2014
A multilayered parable that defies us to consider the implications of serving the demands of a cruel, manipulative, petty and sadistic Creator (entity and faith) instead of facing Him to follow our hearts - which is something that unfortunately happens even today with many religious people.
The Gandiman
Super Reviewer
December 13, 2014
Overblown epic; grandiose filmmaking watered down by self-seriousness.

Game performances, amazing special effects but too cumbersome to get through.
Super Reviewer
March 24, 2014
It has some glaring flaws, but overall, Noah is an enjoyable movie that is entertaining and thought-provoking. Aronofsky deftly blends his own unique interpretation of the story with the Biblical power and mysticism of the original. The film is a visual treat and features fantastic, powerful performances from Crowe and Watson.
jjnxn
Super Reviewer
September 11, 2014
An impressive visual achievement but the script sinks on ice.
Bathsheba Monk
Super Reviewer
August 21, 2014
Interesting take on what the world was like in darkness, when The Creator wouldn't answer man because man was corrupt. That The Creator wanted to end mankind--chilling but frankly not entirely unbelievable. I liked the Watchers--something, literally, out of the stone age. I thought Russell Crowe did a wonderful job as the man entrusted with the most horrible task imaginable--I've seen that kind of single-minded ruthlessness in the cause of supposed goodness: jeez, just look around the world today. I loved Ham and his conflict with his father. Highly highly recommend.
Super Reviewer
½ August 12, 2014
Truthfully i couldn't get into it. Like it is visually beautiful and the cast is brilliant and the direction is fantastic but I dont have any love for the film and felt no thrill for it
Super Reviewer
August 2, 2014
Loved it! Russell Crowe is always great in epic films like this and Aronofsky did a really good job putting his stamp on this story.
Super Reviewer
July 31, 2014
If you didn't know it was a Bible story, this would just be bizarre and hard to follow. If you know it's from a Bible story, it's still bizarre -- just in a different, more frustrating way. Acting is up to par and costumes are better than average, but the CGI and cinematography are a big, bland "m'eh". I was kinda praying that the Creator would have flooded the editing room and washed away this project before I could be duped into buying the ticket.
Super Reviewer
½ September 15, 2012
Although occasionally descending into typical blockbuster territory with its gigantic special effects, Darren Aronofsky's 'Noah' is a thought-provoking and at times intense depiction of the Biblical story with an intriguing examination of the titular character.
Super Reviewer
January 31, 2014
Equal parts strange and stunning, Darren Aronofsky's biblical epic is a brooding revisionist work that's a singular artistic achievement of both honest power and otherworldly gravitas.
Super Reviewer
May 13, 2014
Though some of the CGI feels a little clunky, Aronofsky places his indelible touch on this bible epic with breathtaking visuals, an engaging story, and great performances from the entire cast, especially Crowe.
Daniel Mumby
Super Reviewer
April 17, 2014
Back in April I wrote an article for WhatCulture! about the career of Jennifer Connelly to mark the release of this film. In a section covering Requiem for a Dream (which remains her finest performance), I said that the film's director, Darren Aronofsky, "likes to mess with your head. His films are hugely ambitious, visually extravagant, narratively complex and often push the boundaries of what an audience can stand, in terms of taste or style of storytelling."

Though I wrote these words before seeing Noah, they are an apt way of describing my feelings towards the film. It's impossible to just dismiss it as a bloated, overblown folly, since there are a number of interesting ideas in there which are approached intelligently. Equally, calling it a masterpiece of any kind is far too generous, since the film is riddled with faults, particularly in its second half. In the end, all you can say about Noah is this: it is a flawed but fascinating epic, whose many shortcomings make its successes all the more intriguing.

Before we begin to analyse it, we should probably address the controversy that the film has created among religious communities. There are opinions on both sides within both the Christian and Jewish faiths, with responses ranging from the film being a valuable document of an important story to a Kabbalistic tract which doesn't even mention the Creator as being God. Perhaps the most measured response is that of Justin Welby, the incumbent Archbishop of Canterbury, who described it as "interesting and thought-provoking" - an ambiguous and typically Anglican turn of phrase, designed to avoid or mitigate this kind of controversy.

It is, frankly, both foolish and narrow-minded to view Noah purely in terms of its relationship to the Biblical story - in other words, to reject it outright if it doesn't literally correspond to our accepted version. The account in Genesis is relativel yshort and has a lot of gaps in the story where time passes - gaps that have to be explained if an audience will continue to suspend their disbelief. There have been animated treatments of this story in short form, both humourous (Disney's Silly Symphonies) and serious (the BBC's brilliant Testament series), but to make it work as a feature film, the story simply has to be expanded. The language of Hollywood is different to the language of the Bible; in order for us to get anywhere, there have to be concessions.

To try and address this problem, Aronofsky bring in elements of other creation or flood stories, particularly those from the Gnostic or Mystical elements of the Jewish tradition. It is from this that we derive the fallen angels or Watchers (spiritual beings imprisoned in rock), the serpent's skin having magical properties, and the idea of Adam and Eve only gaining a recongisable physical form after eating the forbidden fruit.

Aronofsky's main reason for this - aside from an interest in Kabbalah present in his other works - is to address some of the logistical and technical questions that a modern audience may have about the story. For example, the Watchers provide an explanation as to how the Ark was able to be built in what seems a short space of time, and the descendents of Cain (led by Ray Winstone's character) give things an extra sense of urgency. For viewers who haven't grown up with faith or regard the concept as somehow anti-intellectual, such explanations are welcome even if they're not always completely believable.

You have to admire what Aronofsky was trying to do with Noah. On the one hand, he is attempting to bring the Biblical epic into the 21st century, explaining for modern audiences what previous generations may have taken for granted. On the other hand, he tries to address the story in humanistic or even atheistic terms, telling the story of Noah as that of a man suffering delusions and uncertain over what his awful visions mean. Trying to tell a Christian story in a 'post-Christian' world can be a tall order at the best of times, but trying to combine it with an alternative interpretation of the same story is really challenging. Aronofsky is trying to pull together multiple versions and interpretations of the story of Noah to try and find a common, greater truth in among the details - a task that is by no means easy and which is highly commendable.

To this end, Noah is filled with some truly fantastic and striking imagery. The CGI is impressive on a general level, with Industrial Light and Magic giving the Watchers a real physicality and bringing a forest convincingly to life out of nowhere. But the most impressive sections are Noah's visions, in which he images his feet sinking into the blood-soaked earth, then finds himself underwater drowning in a sea brimming with corpses. At times the film is truly terrifying, and its nightmarish feel is a welcome change from the more fresh-faced, sanitised versions of the story.

Up until the battle for the Ark, Noah is a very interesting if bizarre portrait of a man following his faith, in a manner which is somewhat condusive to the Biblical story. There are some silly moments in this section (such as Anthony Hopkins' performance as Methusalah) but it is a well-written drama, whose characters have believable and complex motivations, and in which the role of God is left open to interpretation. Much of this is made possible through Connelly, who gives a great performance as Noah's wife Naameh.

But once the battle happens and the Ark 'sets sail', the film slowly begins to unravel and becomes steadily more indulgent. Once the action is solely confined to the boat, the film begins to plod, as if it was searching around for something interesting or shocking to do in order to fill the many days and nights. Because there is less sense of momentum, all the plot points that are introduced feel jarring and awkward, and the film slowly becomes less interesting and less believable.

The two biggest missteps that the film makes are epitomised by its central male performances. On the one hand, having Winstone's character stow away on the Ark rests on a massive contrivance: if he had really hacked his way in like that, chances are that the whole thing would have sunk. This in itself could have worked, providing tension and surprise, but instead the character becomes a lazy cipher for all the evils in Man, and Logan Lerman isn't skilled enough either to hold his own against Winstone or to make his decisions that result from his presence seem believable.

On the other hand, Noah himself undergoes a jarring shift from man of faith to psychopath in under 20 minutes. It's all very well showing Noah as having survivor guilt and wondering whether he has done the right thing - all of that is believable and interesting. But to suddenly have your main protagonist turn around and say that everyone he was worked hard to save should be killed, including his own children, is a huge betrayal of trust.

There's nothing wrong with having Noah as a morally ambiguous protagonist, who may tip over into darkness and despair but is compelling in the way he behaves and the decisions that he makes. But Aronofsky's Noah doesn't do this. Instead, it presents him as a good man with good intentions, who is doing the right thing in building the Ark, and then out of nothing decides to makes him a monster. Having worked so hard to make Noah so appealingly ambiguous, Aronofsky plants his flag in the sand and compromies the whole project. Even if do you buy the character development, the conflict that results is so dragged out that it becomes difficult to sit through.

Noah also fails to address other problems or discrepancies with this story. We might buy into the explanation of how the animals are put to sleep, but the death of one animal is glossed over without giving us an idea of how the new creation's nature is permanently altered by its absence. The film tries to shed light on the rejection of Ham by giving said character more agency, but ultimately its explanation isn't dramatically satisfying. Finally, with the flood now gone, it leaves us with no idea - well, no comfortable ideas - of how the human race will repopulate itself from just two baby girls. Having done the legwork to explain things in the first half, moments like this are inexcusably lazy.

Noah is an admirable yet ridiculous epic, a film that can neither be entirely dismissed nor unconditionally embraced. Aronofsky's ambitions for the story are very interesting, and taken on a visual level alone the film is quite extraordinary. But it's ultimately hobbled by several poor narrative decisions and a feeling of needless, growing indulgence. In the end it's neither a triumph nor a tragedy, balancing, like the Ark on Ararat, somewhere in the middle.
sanjurosamurai
Super Reviewer
April 30, 2014
as a theology major i could fill this review with the details of where i thought aronofsky did well, and where i thought i went a bit loopy, but ill spare the excess. as a film, it was incredibly interesting to think through and talk about with friends, but also felt a bit uneven. at points it felt like a character study, at others no more than mindless blockbuster entertainment. overall, worth a watch.
Super Reviewer
½ April 12, 2014
Ironically, the people snubbing their noses at the ludicrosity of "rock monsters" in their Noah story don't acknowledge the same scale of absurdities that come with believing in this story as literal history. "Noah" stays creatively and intelligently within bounds of its source - the rock guardians don't alter the vague story as it is written. They aren't ever mentioned in the text, no, but then neither are the dinosaurs. The story is even more outlandish, not less, without them or some other kind of unwritten supernatural assistance in building the ark and protecting both it and Noah's family against all the lives surely trying to violently escape their doom. In truth, the written version is useful to us mostly as a parable exploring our ancestors' perceptions of their humanity and worldly place, and the movie successfully nudges the arguments into relevancy for our own current debates, fears and hopes for mankind's future.

Rather than just an excuse for another apocalypse movie, this is a study of the Bible's depiction of human nature, and a character study of its god and of Noah. This is the one time in the Semitic religious texts where man teaches its god something about the preciousness of life here on earth, and its god listens and agrees ...for a little while. But it's easy to see that the Bible's man is just as dark as its god, since just after having witnessed all of human and animal life destroyed, save for the few on the ark, Noah, supposedly the best of humanity, has such a poor perspective that he curses his own son's lineage into being "the lowest of slaves." That part was politely altered in the movie since it's a bit of a buzz-kill for mankind 2.0, but it doesn't make it into the Sunday school teachings either.

Of course, the world's pre-flood history as written in Genesis would have to have come through Noah and his family of survivors. Aronofsky includes the tradition of verbally passing down these chapters, but he ingeniously deconstructs the narrative we see in Genesis today into two perspectives, starting from the beginning when there was nothing. First we hear Noah's version, centered around the creation of a harmonious world, pure and holy, except for man; then we hear Tubal-Cain's version, centered on man as the only creature created in god's image and master of the world's creatures to do as we see fit. By splitting the first chapters of Genesis into two different perspectives, Aronofsky breathes life into the text as a cultural collaboration of early mankind battling then as we do now over the always clashing values of living conservatively and harmoniously or pursuing power and self-fulfillment.
FiLmCrAzY
Super Reviewer
April 10, 2014
I dark take on a biblical story, but the style and direction that Aranosky uses leaves a dull taste.
An inconsistant, mediocre acting and no rewards at the end!
A tiresome bore if a movie.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
April 6, 2014
Darren Aronofsky has crafted some standout feature films throughout his career. With Noah, he crafts a film that tries to be way too ambitious and in turn, it just ends up being an average film. The film tells a good story, but the problem is, is that that it relies far too much on CGI to tell it, and it doesn't leave a whole lot to tell a truly gripping story, which this should have been. Noah is a film that is entertaining, but it is also one that never realizes its full potential of being a truly engrossing film going experience. My expectations for this film were very high, and I was let down a bit. I didn't hate the film, but I felt that it could have been better, considering the story. Luckily the cast here make this film watchable, and add to that some good, tense moments. Obviously the standout of the film is the flood sequence, which is truly exciting. Russel Crowe here gives a terrific performance as Noah, and I felt that he was well chosen for the part. In terms of a Biblical epic, Noah isn't on par with so many others like Ben-Hur and the Ten Commandments, and at times it does leave room for improvement, but for what it is, it's good for the most part, but it's not one of Darren Aronofsky's best either. I expected Noah to be a memorable picture, as it stands, it tries to be far too ambitious than it needs to be, and it peppers you with big ideas that kind of ends up feeling hollow. All in all, this is a good film, but one that tries to be far too grand than it needs to be. Luckily the performances are great, as it's really what saves this film from being a total mess. Of all of Aronofsky's films, Noah is my least favorite, and he has made far better films than this. When the credits started to roll, I was indifferent at what I had seen. Noah is a film with big set pieces, and grand storytelling, but it just doesn't truly capture your sense of wonder because Aronofsky has directed far better movies. Noah has some terrific performances and a good story at hand, but you simply want a bit more structure to the film in order to make this really standout. The film had so much potential of being much better than this.
Nate Z.
Super Reviewer
April 2, 2014
Meticulous director Darren Aronofsky gained a lot of creative cache after Black Swan raked in over $200 million worldwide, a Best Actress Oscar, and heaps of critical acclaim, including from myself (not to imply I was a deciding factor). The man had what all artists dream of, a perfect moment to seize whatever creative project his heart desired. And what he chose was to remake the biblical story of Noah for the masses, with an artistic fury and idiosyncrasy the likes of which audiences have never witnessed. The decision left many scratching their heads, wondering why Aronofsky would waste his time with a story already well told, in an outdated genre (Biblical epic), that would likely turn off evangelical ticket-buyers with any deviations and turn off mainstream audiences with any devotion. It looked like a big budget folly with no way of winning. The box-office is still unwritten, though I suspect the effects will net a pretty penny in overseas grosses, but as far as a creative statement, Noah is far more triumph than folly.

Noah (Russell Crowe) is living his life in isolation from the communities of king Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone). Noah and his wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly), their two older sons Shem (Douglas Booth) and Ham (Logan Lerman), youngest son Japheth (Leo Mchugh Carroll), and adopted daughter Ila (Emma Watson), are living on the outskirts of civilization, aided by a group of fallen angels. Then Noah is given apocalyptic visions of an oncoming flood and the mission to save the world's animals. After speaking with his 900-year-old grandfather Methusselah (Anthony Hopkins), Noah is convinced what he must do, and it involves a lot of intensive manual labor.

Aronofsky treats Noah and the beginnings like Greek mythology mixed with a Lord of the Rings-style fantasy epic, and it's madly entertaining. The visuals are stirring, large-scale, and sumptuously memorable (the Earth covered in spiral weather patterns is a standout, along with Noah's visions and a Tree of Life-style triptych narrating the birth of life). The film has come under fire from conservative critics for its creative deviations from the Bible, but sidestepping a larger conversation, why should a movie be punished because it wants to entertain a wider berth of people than the faithful? Does it truly matter that the people refer to the Big Guy as "The Creator" rather than "God"? Would these people even use the word "God"? This just seems like a petty battle of semantics. It seems like certain critics are looking for any nit to pick. Sure giant rock monsters that were fallen angels might make people snicker, but why should this aspect of the story be any more preposterous than a man and his family gathering two of every biological creature on the planet? I loved the rock creatures, I loved how Aronofsky introduces them, I love how they walk, I love that Aronofsky even finds a way to give them a redemptive storyline, offering an emotional payoff. Seriously, why should these be any harder to swallow for narrative stability?

There were fears that Aronofsky would be less than reverent to the source material with his additions and subtractions bringing it to the big screen; Noah is a Biblical epic for our modern age but also one fervently reverent to the lessons of the tale. First off, a literal version of the Genesis tale would be boring and short. There is going to be some additions and they should be welcomed. What Aronofsky and his co-writer Ari Handel (The Fountain) have done is taken a story filled with casual larger-than-life events and given it a smaller human perspective that is thought provoking. When Noah's sons ask about wives, it's personal planning but also a necessary part of, you know, repopulating the planet. They're being anxious teen males but the small, relatable plot line also finds a way to relate to the larger picture, a tactic Aronofsky frequents. There's a focus on family, fathers and sons, jealousy, but it really comes down to a personal level, differing perspectives about the overall purpose of man. The human-scale provides a richer context for the Biblical tale's better-known aspects, like Noah turning to the bottle. As a result, we get the special effects spectacle without sacrificing the potent human drama at work. While the movie may never refer to "God" by name, it's respectful and reverent.

Another aspect about what makes Noah so daringly visionary is that it doesn't blink when it comes to the darkness of the story. Over the years popular culture has neutered the tale of Noah into a cutesy tale about a guy on a boat with a bunch of happy animals. I think we've purposely ignored the lager picture, namely how truly horrifying the entire story is. It's an apocalypse, humanity is wiped out; children and babies are drowning. Everybody dies. The later brilliance of Noah is that it doesn't mitigate this horror. Once Noah and his family are inside, the floods having arrived, they painfully listen to the anguished wails of those struggling for life in the waters. The movie forces the characters, and the audience, to deal with the reality of a world-destroying cataclysm. Noah's visions of the ensuing apocalypse are beautifully disturbing. The film takes place eight or nine generations removed from Adam, and God is already willing to take his ball and go home. After watching mankind's wickedness, you might sympathize with The Creator. Aronofsky's film has an unmistakable environmentalist stance (how does one tell this story without being pro-nature?), but he also shows you the brutality of mankind. The citizens of Tubal-cain have no respect for life, at one point kidnapping crying young girls and literally trading them for meat to eat. Resources are dwindling and people are pushed to the brink. There's some sudden and bloody violence, as death is not treated in the abstract or with kid gloves. This is no cutesy story for the little ones. No stuffed animal tie-ins.

Of course once the flood occurs, the story seems like it's at an end, Noah and his family having only to patiently wait out before starting over. It's during this second half where the movie becomes even more personal, challenging, and philosophical. Noah believes that his family was spared to save all of those creatures born on Days 1-5, not so much Day 6 (a.k.a. mankind). He accepts this burden with solemn duty, declaring that his family will be the last of mankind to ever walk the Earth. However, spoilers, his own family pushes him to the test of this declaration. His adopted daughter is pregnant. There is hope that mankind can continue if the child is a girl. Noah sticks to his guns, saying that the child will live if a boy but killed if a girl. Now we've got a ticking clock, so to speak, while in the ark, and it manages to be a personal test of Noah's own faith. How far will he go to enact what he believes to be God's plan? He's single-minded in this regard but he's no zealot, more a flawed and troubled man of virtue trying to make sense of an improbably difficult conundrum. That's the stuff of great drama, finding a foothold in a debate over the nature of man, whether man is inherently evil and shall lead, once again, to the ruination of God's paradise. Can Noah place the personal above his burden? This looming conflict tears apart Noah and his family, forcing them into hard choices. Even assuming the film wouldn't end with Noah butchering his grandchildren, I was riveted.

There's an intellectual heft to go along with all the weird, vibrant spectacle. The film doesn't exactly break new ground with its fundamental arguments and spiritual questions, but when was the last time you saw a Biblical movie even broach hard topics without zealous certainty? Definitely not Son of God. There's an ambiguity here to be admired. Noah isn't a spotless hero. The villain, Tubal-cain, actually makes some good points, though we all know they will be fleeting. Tubal-cain is actually given more texture as an antagonist than I anticipated. He's a man who interprets man's mission on Earth differently. Whereas Noah views man's role as being stewards of the Earth, Tubal-cain views man as having been given dominion. They were meant to reap the pleasures of the Earth. Before marching off to take the ark, Tubal-cain pleads for The Creator to speak through him; he longs for a connection that he feels is missing, and so, perhaps a bit spiteful, he declares to act as the Creator would, laying waste to life. That's far more interesting than just a slovenly king who wants to live to see another day.

Aronofsky also benefits from a great cast that sells the drama, large and small. It's been a long while since Crowe (Les Miserables, Man of Steel) gave a genuinely great performance; goodness it might have been since 2007's 3:10 to Yuma remake. The man can do quiet strength in his sleep, but with Noah he gets to burrow into his obsession, which just so happens to be sticking to the edict that man does not deserve to spoil the Earth. It's a decision that challenges him throughout, forcing his will, and Crowe achieves the full multidimensional force of his character. He can be scary, he can be heartbreaking, but he's always rooted in an understandable perspective. Connelly (Winter's Tale) overdoes her mannerisms and enunciation at times, like she's practicing an acting warm-up, but the strength of her performance and its emotions win out. Watson (The Bling Ring) is winsome without overdoing it, Hopkins (R.E.D. 2) provides some comic relief without overdoing it, and Lerman (Percy Jackson) gets to thrive on angst without overdoing it. In short, you'll want these people to live. Winstone (Snow White & the Huntsman) is always a fabulous choice for a dastardly villain.

Darren Aronofsky's Noah is a labor of love that maintains its artistic integrity amidst special effects, threats of infanticide, and giant rock creatures. Aronofsky has forged a Biblical epic that reaches beyond the pew, providing added surprise and depth and suspense. The man takes the modern fantasy epic template and provides new life to one of mankind's oldest tales, staying reverent while opening it up for broader meditation. It's a weird movie, but the silliness is given a wider context and grounded by the emphasis on the human perspective. It's a dark movie, but the darkness is tempered with powerful feelings and a sense of hope that feels justified by the end. It's also a philosophical movie, but the questions are integral, the stakes relatable, and the answers hardly ever easy to decipher. This is a rare movie, let alone an example of a Biblical film, that succeeds by being all things to all people. It's reverent, rousing, thought provoking, exciting, moving, and a glorious visual spectacle of cinema. Aronofsky's epic is a passionate and thoughtful movie that deserves flocks of witnesses.

Nate's Grade: A-
Super Reviewer
½ April 2, 2014
A movie about a biblical tale will always spawn controversy, whether you stay close to the origins of the story or take your liberties. Director Darren Aronofsky's version of Noah's tale ranks somewhere in between. You can tell that he did his homework, but it's also clear that he'll get a lot of opposition about the added fantastic elements and Noah's character development in the final act. In the end every viewer, atheist and believers alike, will have to make up their own mind about the film and the story.

From an artistic point of view there is little to complain about. Aronofsky conjures up breath-taking visuals and special effects, great cinematography and you can tell he knows how to direct actors. From Russel Crowe's great physical presence that carries the film down to the shortest roles of the child actors, Aronofsky manages to generate excellent performances by everyone, even baby face Lorman who hasn't exactly had an impressive track record of multi-dimensional roles so far.

Both the director's art house fans and the religious purists might have problems with the fantastic elements of the film that culminate in an almost Lord of the Rings-esque battle between rock Transformers and an opposing army. That scene does feel out of place in the film, despite of its flawless effects and great visuals. But the third and final act suddenly shows Aronofsky comfortable in his true element: directing actors in narrow space, telling the story of a person obsessed with their dreams (see: Black Swan, The Wrestler). Here, the film finds its dramatic footing and can rely on its actors for a pretty strong solution and surprisingly touching ending.

Of course the message of preserving nature and having respect for all beings is somewhat simplistic and naive, some might say preachy. But at least it's got its heart at the right place and in this day and age more important than ever.

Was Aronofsky torn between two point of views when creating this or did he enjoy taking the middle path? Few scenes help you decide to answer that, especially not the beautifully animated story of creation Noah tells his family, that's combining biblical texts while showing a pretty scientific depiction of the big bang and evolution. I've decided to applaud Aronofsky for this attempt, even if the result is far from flawless or particularly even. At least it's a very peculiar, odd and challenging film that doesn't rely on the easy way out and yet manages to be entertaining at any moment.
Super Reviewer
April 1, 2014
This is one of the few movies that has clearly divided people. Friends on facebook, critics, doesn't matter. People have a LOT of strong feelings about this movie. Now, I'm not a religious person at all. I go to church every now and then, but I'm not devote or anything. Having said that I can see why religious people would not like this. It's Darren Aronofsky's interpretation of the Noah story. It's like when I read a book to my son every night. I always do crazy weird voices for the characters. Why? Because it's how I interpret it. I only know the basics of the Noah story. Even read Grant a Noah childrens book a lot. So I have no clue what is or isn't in the Bible, and actually feel compelled to find out, because it's a very interesting and thought provoking movie. Do I believe in rock monsters helping to build the ark? No not really, but it's an interesting idea. In the bible does Noah go a little crazy? No clue, but the way the movie does it, it is very believable as to why he would think the things he does. I thought the effects of the movie were pretty darn good, although the rock monsters did look a little cheesy. It does drag in spots and runs about 20 minutes longer than what it probably should have. All the performances were decent, nothing Earth shattering or award worthy, but very good none the less. Aronofsky is probably the most unique director today. I've seen all of his movies and some I really like, and a couple I just scratch my head and say "huh?", like I did during the "Fountain". He is a dangerous filmmaker who really makes you think and shows you something different. Don't believe me, watch "Requiem for a Dream". This is like him doing a big Hollywood budget movie, and it works some, but I think he works better in smaller movies. This movie is not going to be for everyone, but do yourself a favor and watch it for yourself. I liked it, not as much as I hoped, but it is what it is. I always tell people to watch and judge for yourself. If someone talks about how horrible it is, check it out for yourself. Just like the story of "Noah", everyone will have a different interpretation of it.
Page 1 of 370