Noah - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Noah Reviews

Page 1 of 373
½ November 30, 2016
Thought the movie was decent until I sat back and thought about some of the flaws (most of which were addressed in everyone else's posts) but the one thing that stood out to me that I didn't see much mention of is the fact that the ancient relic that Noah had possession of was snake skin! Wtf! If nothing else, this alone destroys everything that the story stood for (or was supposed to stand for). Officially trash in my book.
November 25, 2016
Evan Almighty was truer to the original, and funnier. This one should have a different name... Perhaps "Evan?"
November 23, 2016
Pretty enjoyable even if you're not a believer. Stunning visuals and great acting from Jennifer Connelly.
½ November 19, 2016
A dramatic story that is an overly dramatic movie. Ridiculous subplots with little or no Biblical basis. Tedious and overly long. On the plus side, giant rock angels that would not seem out of place in the original 1981 Clash Of The Titans. So there's that.
½ November 18, 2016
zalama. awesome scenes. epic feel. dark tone with aronofsky's unique touch (2 viewings)
November 2, 2016
I think it's wrong to take scripture and have Hollywood make it their own with different twists.
½ October 15, 2016
The SiFi elements were unexpected in a Biblical Story. Although beautifully done, I don't think liberty should be taken when it comes to the Bible.The audience that comes to a Biblical film has certain expectations that weren't honored or taken into consideration here. I usually ,as an artistic person,love a creative take on an old story. Even though I'm more Spiritual than Religious, I watched thinking "how dare you mess with the Bible". I guess they must've played subliminal tapes over the intercom in my Catholic Grade School,cause I was suprised at my own reaction. It was beautifully done, but I was disappointed because it was not what this story deserved
½ October 5, 2016
Yep, I watched it. Even more ludicrous than the novel. The creation sequence is fairly cool; those few minutes are on YouTube. Skip this.
½ October 4, 2016
While the biblical account is somewhat sketchy and certainly leaves room for interpretation, this film was probably understating things when it mentioned (almost in passing) its use of "artistic license" in the opening caveat. As it stands, it's more apocalyptic sci-fi/fantasy than historical/period drama--not necessarily a bad thing per se, but it probably won't impress fundamentalists.

Script/Direction: B
The beginning trickles slowly, almost excruciatingly; the climax is like the bursting of a dam. I'm not so sure about the fast cutting--it gives the film an amateurish and low-budget/indie feel.

Cast/Acting: B+
Has a number of British actors. (Generally I like British actors, because they usually have such clean and clear enunciations, even when they're screaming.) Ray Winston, as the antagonist Tubal-Cain, stood out for me.

Aesthetics: B+
While I have no doubt that the effects (animals, water, etc) are no mean technical feats, they don't really make that much of a visual impact on me. Noah seemed to be wearing denims at one point, which struck me as kind of odd. All in all though, the film looks good, if a little bland.

Bonus: +10%
It's a novel approach to a biblical story for sure, but when you pretend it's not a biblical story (not hard to do), then it loses its novelty immediately. It just so happens that I'm a fan of (post-)apocalyptic sci-fi/fantasy though, so I appreciate this film as a nice (even if not exactly breakthrough) addition to the genre.
½ October 3, 2016
Noah is the worst film I have seen all year!
Beyond redemption! Ready for the ultimate smiting!
Only redeeming feature: That I'm descended from Emma Watson. I like that!
½ September 18, 2016
My Gods, I'm not a religious person at all. So this is not based on any of that all. With that said, this movie is just God awful! Just plainly and painfully awful. How can so many wonderful actor have taken part in this tremendous atrocity. Words cannot accurately describe just how appalling this whole horrible movie is. I want my time back and eyeballs to have unseen it.
September 7, 2016
Epic, and has the excellent Russell Crowe-- but disappointing.
½ September 4, 2016
One of the most atrociously bad films I've ever seen! It has nothing to do with the story of the Bible. In one scene, rock monsters help build the flipping ark! ROCK MONSTERS! Then an army of these old guys invade Noah's camp to kill him (and the rock monsters), and steal the ark. The Bible says that everyone mocked Noah, and thought he was crazy for building the ark, not jealous that he heard from God, and was chosen to survive the flood. And another thing, after the flood was over, Noah planned to just die, and prohibited his children from having children, believing that his purpose was to survive the flood- and then die. How does that make any sense? God didn't choose him to survive the flood just to die after that. If that were true, then there would be no point in building the ark, other than preserving animal life. And another thing, one of my favorite scenes, the funniest part, is when Ham comes to Noah, shouting, "The animals are eating each other!" What in the world!? The animals are EATING each other!? What in the silver age do you mean they are eating each other? Another funny scene is when an old guy is eating berries in the woods, and then gets swept away, or the old guy clinging to the side of the ship who gets swept away, and then magically reappears aboard the ark! Oh my flip. Also, Ham and Japheth didn't have wives- the Bible explicitly states that all three sons and their wives were aboard the ark. But, I guess that the fact that Shem and his wife have twin daughters (infants, who Noah almost kills in what would have been the first post-birth abortion, according to this useless, piece of crap, inaccurate, and misleading film) makes up for that. NOT. It says that all three had their wives on board the ark! They boarded the ark with them! I could go on and on about all of the scriptural inaccuracies in this film. The fact that this most likely, intentionally, chose not to stay true to the Truth, doesn't really make up for that. I can at least give it one thing though. There were animals and a big boat. They just took what they remembered from Sunday school when they were 5, and added to their own "inventive" take on the story. The only thing that could have made this film funnier is if an iceberg hit the ark. It was BAAD. But fun to watch. If you are looking for a movie with fantasy monsters like rock monsters, and animals eating each other, Noah is the movie for you! And if you want a Biblically accurate film, AVOID NOAH!
½ August 30, 2016
Making Noah a heartless killer doesn't make me like him or even relate to him more than if he was portrayed as a really righteous person.
The first half though far fetched is an interesting time. It's when the rain starts that the movie falls apart completely.
August 23, 2016
It's not really faithful to the Bible and the script isn't perfect,but strong performances and great visuals are holding this movie on the high level of quality.
½ August 21, 2016
I was reluctant to watch this movie as I recall it being widely abused during release. But, with a lack of anything else to do, I thought I'd give it a go. I was pleasantly surprised. It is visually excellent, had pretty good acting that showed the ethical and familial struggles they all faced. After having seen this movie, I think it was unfairly panned. For the record, I don't have any religious affiliation that would have skewed my impression of the movie.
August 20, 2016
This movie has given a bad name to the real Noah, the story and especially to Christianity!
½ August 19, 2016
How this turgid piece of rubbish got past the script stage defies logic.
½ August 16, 2016
If you're a filmmaker and you're going to take on the Bible as your subject matter, you better have huge ego, chutzpah, cojones or something along those lines. Inevitably, your film is going to be compared to the source material and you're probably going to lose.

In the Bible, the story of Noah and the Great Flood only takes up 114 lines. That's not a lot yet director Darren Aronofsky managed to make a 137-minute film out of it. To achieve that, he took a lot of liberties with the text, sometimes taking it literally and at other times reinterpreting it altogether. For people like me who are purists, NOAH is a bit of a disappointment.

According to Aronofsky's version of events, following Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden and the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, man (in the gender non-specific sense) is exiled into the Wilderness. (The film was shot in Iceland which is the place to go if you want wilderness.) There, the children of Cain multiply and spread throughout the land, raping and pillaging both it and each other wherever they go. Meanwhile, the children of Seth are less prolific. There is only Noah, his wife and their three sons. They are environmentally sensitive; they take only what they need.

One night, Noah has a vision that "the Creator" will destroy life as they know it. Noah has been selected to build an ark to house pairs of each mammal, bird, insect and reptile and deliver them to the cleansed new world. For Noah and his family, they are only the zookeepers. They are destined to die out on the other side, leaving the world to the animals.

And this is just beginning of Aronofsky's interpretations. While it's correct that the Bible mentions Cain's offspring in great detail and Seth's much less so, Aronofsky takes the Bible to the letter, postulating that the only remaining descendants of Seth were Noah, his family and his grandfather, Methuselah. In the Bible, Noah's father, Lamech lived to the ripe old age of 777, while in the film he is killed by one of Cain's descendants, Tubal-Cain, when Noah was a boy.

Not only did Aronofsky change the story, he also missed out on some great cinematic opportunities. The Bible says that the animals arrived two by two, or seven by seven, depending on the animal. (Check your Bible if you don't believe me.) Of course, in film these days you don't have real animals. Everything is done using CGI. So we were treated to some nice digital fauna. But here is where Aronofsky blew it: In the film, Noah and his wife created some concoction that drugged the animals so they slept while they were on board the ark. Aronofsky felt that audiences wouldn't be able to believe that the animals could all get along well on the ark and wouldn't try to kill each other. But this is the Bible, man! If we're going to believe that the animals came on board on their own accord in the first place, then why can't we believe that they lived together in harmony while on the water? Aronofsky was cherry picking what he wanted the audience to believe. My feeling is that the audience is either going to believe everything or it's going to believe nothing. I would have preferred to have seen the animals interact with each other and with Noah's family. It was a missed opportunity for sure. (For US$130 million, you'd think he could have had the animals do something other than sleep.)

Aronofsky also had an interesting take on how the ark looked. While the Bible does mention its size, it doesn't mention its shape. Aronofsky's ark looked like a gigantic shipping container. He said that the vessel did not need to be sleek. Its only purpose was to carry the animals from one point to the other. Fair enough but a large rectangular box doesn't show a lot of imagination.

In the film, Noah experiences survivor's guilt, which again diverges from the Bible. He believes that man will end with his family once they reach the other side. Only the animals will live on. However, in the Bible, Noah is told by G-d that he and his family will form the basis for a new population.

Alright. I think I've slammed the script enough (but I could go on).

I saw the 3D version, which once again proved disappointing. The glasses just cut down on the amount of light that reaches our eyes. As a result, the ark, which was dark enough without the 3D effect, becomes an indistinguishable mass of greyish brown. In one scene between Ham and someone I won't name because it would spoil it if I did, you can barely make out the animals that are sleeping next to them. For me, there weren't enough of the kind of effects that can turn the film into a "wow" experience. A couple of flying doves, the rain... not much more.

The acting was average at best but, with a lousy script, what can you do? Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connolly star as Noah and Naamah respectively. (Again, in a diversion from the Bible, Naamah is the sister of Tubal-Cain. In the film, this is omitted altogether.) The two actors previously starred together in A BEAUTIFUL MIND. He was more convincing than she was, although the hair styling was a bit OTT. Anthony Hopkins stars as the oldest man on Earth, Methuselah. He has so much presence that he just has to squint and he's won our hearts. Emma Watson is competent as Ila, a character that isn't even mentioned in the Bible. As an orphan, she is adopted by Noah's family. Later, she becomes Shem's wife. Ray Winstone plays Tubal-Cain, the film's requisite bad guy, which he does with suitable relish. Nick Nolte and Aronofsky regular Mark Margolis do the voices for two of the Nephilim, the fallen angels that Aronofsky's reimagines as Tolkien-esque rock creatures who support Noah in his ark-building mission.

Darren Aronofsky is most definitely not in the league of Steven Spielberg and Cecil B. DeMille. NOAH is a very average movie at best. Go read the book instead.
August 12, 2016
Watched this the other day and it was fun flick.
Page 1 of 373