Noah (2014) User Reviews

They should have called it something else

[john-denny · 5/10 · 13 April 2014]

Having watched the trailers, I was so looking forward to this film, and even took my friends. As the Bible account of Noah can fit into a page of A4, obviously the film makers had to add a lot of plot to fill it out to a feature length film. Indeed there is a lot of scope to do this: Noah's wife and his three daughters-in-law are hardly mentioned in the Bible, not even being named, so the film-makers had to develop their characters, and could create interesting sub-plots around the various relationships. In the film Noah has a series of dreams about the flood; now this is not mentioned in the Bible, but it is certainly one of the methods God uses to communicate with men, so it is an addition rather than a distortion, and adds a bit of excitement and gives them a chance to show off their skills with CGI.

But to call the film "Noah" surely requires that they leave the basic story-line intact. But they didn't. The angels who came to earth because they fancied the women were turned into bizarre stone men (very uncomfortable for the women, but they didn't go into that); as a consequence the Bible description of what happened to their offspring had to be abandoned. Instead of taking three daughters-in-law onto the ark, they took one girl-friend, who Noah thought was infertile. One of Noah's enemies managed to sneak onto the ark without Noah's knowledge. Perhaps the worst thing, in my opinion, was that God was left on the side-lines, and couldn't even make the decision himself to preserve humans or not, so left that decision to Noah.

So whether or not we agree with the personality they decided to give Noah is a matter of individual taste. Drugging the animals so they didn't interfere with the film may have been a cop-out, but we could have gone along with that. But playing fast-and-loose with the story just seems unnecessary. Who is the film aimed at?

All in all, very disappointing. Bring back Cecil B. DeMille!

A very ambitious effort from Darren Aronofsky but also an uneven one

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 31 July 2014]

Judging from the hate Noah has gotten on here I was expecting very little. Actually Noah was nowhere near as bad as heard, and while very flawed and by far the worst film of Darren Aronofsky(with his others ranging from very good to outstanding) it did have some impressive things. On the most part the film is brilliant visually, the barren apocalyptic landscapes and later more colourful ones were really striking and the cinematography has a sweeping yet somewhat surrealistic effect. The opening and creation sequences were beautifully done with the latter quite harrowing without being too heavy-handed, and the flood scene was intense and jaw-dropping in spectacle. Noah's dreams had a real creepiness too. Clint Mansell's music score swells thrillingly and has an epic sweep, enhancing crucial scenes and not drowning stuff out. The sound is thrilling in its authenticity too. There are some good performances, the best of which coming from Russell Crowe, who plays with real steel and a powerful charisma. Jennifer Connelly is a sympathetic and touching wife and mother figure, and has a scene in the last act that really does hit home and is not over-the-top. Some have disliked Emma Watson's performance but for me she brought genuine heart to a role that was more of a plot-device up until the last act, at that point she becomes the character you relate to the most. Anthony Hopkins does not have much to do but he is gleefully enjoyable in his role of Methusalah.

Noah did personally fall very short though, and actually the little relation to the Bible no matter how people carp on about it is the least of its problems. Douglas Booth is rather bland and too pretty-boy-model-like while Logan Lerman came across as wooden and forced, Ham could easily have been the character we related to but for that to happen I think the film could have expanded much more on his character arc and situation. Ray Winstone is the most disappointing, he's done some great performances but this is not one of them, he is saddled with a very clichéd villain role that has no development to him and he overdoes it in a way that feels straight out of another film entirely. The characters generally are underdeveloped, especially the villain and Ham's subplot had potential to be expanded much more but Ila's character has a lot of heart and effort is made to humanise Noah although some of his decision making comes across as rather sudden.

The special effects are a mixed bag, the flood effects are outstanding and the built-to-scale ark also looks incredible, both of which with much grandeur. But the Rock Monsters(or the Watchers) have a dated look, are written in a way that feels irrelevant to the story or in a way that doesn't gel with everything else going on and slightly like Transformers clones, and some of the animals(notably the snakes) look like computerised toys that don't blend within the scenery very well. The dialogue does often feel stilted and confused, especially in the first act, while taking an overwrought if well-intentioned turn in the last and coming across as a little heavy-handed in places. The story does have a number of bright spots and contains some powerful messaging, but does drag a fair bit and has some stuff that felt like filler, the film easily could have been half-an-hour shorter. The story is also a bit of a weird one, and one that leaves more questions than answers, in a sense that it does feel like it doesn't quite know what it wants to be, there's some sci-fi, some action-epic and some character-driven study(which takes up the last act), all three of which with uneven results. The ending is for my liking a bit too convenient as well. Aronofsky's direction is broad and is at home with the style of the film and the spectacle but he fails to make the story properly engage(which is unusual for Aronofsky). Overall, ambitious but uneven. Noah is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the negative reviews have said and the stick it gets for not being close to the Bible is on the unfair side- in all fairness though Noah was advertised in a way that was suggestive that it was an adaptation of the biblical story when really it is the bare bones- but it does have a lot of flaws and could have been better considering how much talent was on board. 5/10 Bethany Cox.

Some Cool Visuals But Lacking in Depth

[PanamaVeggie · 6/10 · 11 August 2014]

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.

Fragments of a better film put as a whole but none of them able to sustain or lift the final product

[bob the moo · 28 July 2014]

I was very much on the sidelines but even I noticed some back and forwards over the film Noah. Some seemed furious that it was not in line with Biblical teaching while others seemed to take glee in the religious objections to the film; for me I don't really have a dog in that fight so the fuss did not interest me and the film didn't seem like something I wanted to pay £10 a seat to go and see. That said, I was curious to watch it because I found it hard to believe that Darren Aronofsky would churn out a blockbuster without something of interest in it.

The film wastes no time with adding flesh to the basic bones of the story and, if you're looking to get upset by the presence of fallen angel rock monsters, then the film serves them up to you right at the front. I guess if you came to see a bible story then this may upset you since the bible does not mention these creatures, but for me coming to a film, I really don't care what characters it creates or devices it uses as long as they work. From here we find Noah living with his family separate from men, tending to a nature that the others exploit - again an environmental message of stewardship that (oddly) upset those that proclaim the bible as the truth. As per the story, the message comes of the destruction of man and Noah along with his family and rock monsters, get to building an ark for the animals which will be saved to repopulate the world. It is quite the story and, if you are honest, were it not for the fact that it is lifted from the bible, it is a story that would pretty much get laughed out of any pitch meeting.

So it is to the film's credit that, although it is inherently senseless, it makes a decent fist of telling it. Given the resources available, it does this primarily by throwing effects and scale at the viewer. This works to a point and it is a pretty good looking film with some particularly memorable scenes. The main thing for me that offered interest was that the central character of Noah is essentially a religious extremist who is dooming a world of men to death because of something god told him. The film disappoint though because it doesn't do enough with this. It plays it straight and sets it up and there are points where you are not sure who is the "good guy" here since Tubal-cain is really just trying to survive death, likewise the obsession of Noah of ending man's time on Earth and only leaving animals. It doesn't work though because it doesn't go harder on this and instead of drawing us into the madness of his obsession and the terrible things he therefore stands by and watches, the film actually feels plodding and not entirely sure of itself throughout these aspects. On the other side of this, the film never throws itself into the "epic effects blockbuster" camp either and, while noisy and large, the action sequences don't really work either.

It doesn't feel like an Aronofsky film; it doesn't feel like there was much here to challenge or to be explored - or rather it does feel like there is, but the film doesn't go for it. The cast play it straight and professionally but not always to the film's benefit. Crowe in particular is a straight bat and even when he is acting in extreme ways, you feel like he maybe doesn't "get it" since earnestness is his consistent approach throughout. Connelly and Watson are both more expressive and I guess the idea was that their performances would be our way to experience the darker side of Noah's steadfastness. Winstone gives out a good series of gowls when called upon but again his weaknesses are more to do with the film not exploring his character and Noah better (to be fair though, I am so sick of his floating head on the TV encouraging me to gamble with mockney geezerisms that I wasn't keen to be stuck with him again here).

Noah is not an awful film mainly because it is basically lots of fragments of better films put together. So the spectacle is good at times but never goes for it, while the character piece is hinted at but not given over to in a way that really works. Everyone plays it down the middle of these and there is not too much of interest beyond the moment - which is a shame for a film so long and filled with such talent.

Dogs and cats living together! Mass Hysteria!!

[george.schmidt · 7/10 · 28 March 2014]

NOAH (2014) **1/2 Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth (voices of Nick Nolte & Frank Langella) Epic and grand undertaking by filmmaker Darren Aronofsky (who collaborated on the adaptation with Ari Handel taking many liberties with its source) depicting the final days of Earth before the biblical 'great flood' laying waste to mankind except for chosen titular peaceful farmer (Crowe very good and somewhat low-key humble) and his family to build an ark and rescue only the planet's animals for a new world to populate. While the CGI f/x are clearly the stars of the production Aronofsky manages to pay credence to the short passage of Genesis yet imbibing in some fool-hardy Hollywood big-guns (i.e. giants ala THOR's ice giants meets Tolkein's Ents and pyrotechniques and fireballs) to appease the masses. Fine camera work by longtime colleague Matthew Libatique and a few amazing sequences edited by Andrew Weisblum keep things in perspective: man truly is an island unto himself.

Peter Jackson Meets Peter Watkins Meets James Lovelock

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 7 April 2014]

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

Not biblical at all

[neatmachine · 3/10 · 7 July 2018]

The only part of the bible this movie follows is that there's a man called Noah, there's an ark and a flood.

First off I don't remember reading about Korg being in Genesis. Second, Noah didn't try to kill a baby. Third, some evil man didn't sneak on board. Fourth, Korg and his friends didn't build the ark. Fifth, there's no mention of the tablet with the instructions to build the ark. Sixth, there's no mention of evolution in the bible. .. Noah waited 100 years for the flood ... Noah was an old man at the time of the flood ... What's with the magic tape?

TL;DR: This movie is not biblical at all

Man Broke This

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 30 March 2014]

Greetings again from the darkness. Since I am no biblical scholar, my comments are those of a movie lover. Tackling any part of a story from the bible is a journey filled with land mines and aggressive criticism - and that's before your movie is released! Surely director Darren Aronofsky was prepared for backlash from those who forbid any interpretation of the Good Book. The story of Noah lasts but a few pages in the bible, meaning Aronofsky had to creatively fill some space to produce a 2-plus hour film.

Russell Crowe makes a fine Noah. He is relentless in his quest to fulfill The Creator's request ... and he flashes his "Gladiator" glare on a few occasions. Rather than an uplifting childhood bedtime story, this Noah carries the burden of God, his own family and the survival of all beings ... his days are filled with moral dilemmas much larger than what you and I go through.

With all the miscommunication afforded by email and text these days, imagine if God conversed with you through images in your dreams. Maybe that process creates some areas of gray? Not if you are Noah. I guess he only dreams when God wants to show him something, so his decision making and mission is pretty focused. He is to build a giant floating warehouse to save two of every creature. Yes, that means a lot of death for those not invited. See, God is using Noah and his family to help cleanse the earth of mankind ... God is ready for a re-boot. He is really not happy with how mean and nasty man has become ever since that whole apple debacle and the murder of Abel by Cain.

Some of the visual effects are spectacular. I especially enjoyed the high-speed montage showing the creation of life ... you know that first week. Also, the beginning of the flood is quite a spectacle, but the ark itself is actually quite stunning ... constructed per the size noted in the Bible. The animals are all digitally created and we actually see little of them, though the on-boarding process goes remarkably smooth - considering this happens before the herbal sleep concoction is disbursed.

Most of the discussion will probably be on The Watchers ... the fallen angels who once tried to help mankind, and for their efforts, God turned them into giant stone creatures. I will add that The Watchers need a new nickname since they did the bulk of the manual labor in constructing the arc and then protecting it ... not much watching going on for these poor guys (voiced by Nick Nolte and Frank Langella, among others).

Noah's wife is played by Jennifer Connelly and their sons are played by Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth and Leo McHugh Carroll. They welcome Emma Watson into their family in what turns into a very odd plot twist, and the villain, Tubal-Cain is payed by Ray Winstone. Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, is played to the hilt by Anthony Hopkins. All of these characters are pretty one dimensional, but this is Noah's story. The burden he carries is quite heavy and his decisions aren't always popular.

If you are looking for the well documented story of Noah, it's no mystery what book you should be reading. If you are after a pretty impressive visual interpretation, you could certainly do worse than Aronofsky's take. And the best news ... no Morgan Freeman voice-over!

Awful

[Kassdhal · 1/10 · 23 June 2015]

Well this is the absolute proof that even with good actors you can make one of the worst movies of all time. Beyond the scenario that makes absolutely no logical or scenaristic sense (let alone any consistency about the underlying world in which this story is supposed to happen), this is overacted, the characters have no depth nor any kind of personality whatsoever. On top of that the colours and the lights are badly done.

This is absolute crap of a movie that does not deserve any minute of anyone's time. Pass this movie and go see anything else out there, as anything else will bring you either a smile or a feeling, which this movie don;t provide.

How to waste 100m budget...

an epic with too many leaking holes

[vistheindian · 6/10 · 13 April 2014]

Quickie Review:

Noah is a new epic that is based on the biblical story, and helmed by director Darren Aronofsky. The story is about a man who is tasked with building an ark to save the innocent, from the cleansing of the world by a great flood. With a stellar cast of Russell Crowe (Noah), Jennifer Connelly (Naameh), Ray Winstone (Tubal-cain), Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Anthony Hopkins, and Nick Nolte, Noah truly had everything right to be an incredible movie. Unfortunately, the pacing of the third act falters and all the character development of the main cast is spiked up to the extreme, rendering them completely un-relatable. In the end, this is quite a forgettable movie that doesn't need to be seen from a purely movie quality perspective.

Full Review:

I feel that I should state this before I go any further – I do not affiliate myself with any religion, nor am I against religion. This review comes purely from someone who loves movies in general. Nothing more, nothing less.

With that out of the way, let's move on with the review. In the movie, Noah (Russell Crowe) lives in a dark world that is corrupted by wickedness. He receives messages from the creator, showing him visions of a great flood that covers the whole world. Noah must now build an ark with his family to save the innocent (all wildlife other than mankind).

I'll start off with some things that I did like about this movie. Normally Darren Aronofsky is known for tackling deeply personal stories that are more of a character study. It is nice to see him break from his norm and make a movie of a much grander scale, while still bringing his touch when it comes to developing his characters, especially with Noah. Russell Crowe should also be commended for his great performance. Just from his facial expression, you can tell how much burden he feels weighing on his shoulders. The world that is created is extremely well realized. The atmosphere is dark and drab, and you really feel the rotting air of the world. Overall the movie was captivating and well- paced… right up until the third act, after the flood scene.

Third act is really where everything just falls apart. Now I won't spoil anything, for anyone who wants to watch the movie. Still I need to mention few things to explain why things go wrong for this movie. For some reason the whole cast makes a sudden shift from balanced and complex characters, to be completely driven and defined by their base instincts. So for example, Noah becomes completely blinded by his devotion and divine purpose that he almost becomes villainous. These changes in character comes so suddenly that it feels out of place. Also the movie comes to such a snail crawling pace that I felt the need to check my watch a few times.

This was a movie that had the potential to be a great character driven movie, set in an epic scale. It did show this promise for the most part in the beginning. However, a sudden change in tone and pacing issues ended up making it feel like it was dragging on. I say skip this movie, because even if you watch it, you will forget about it in a few days.

NO-ah!

[anaconda-40658 · 1/10 · 21 May 2015]

Noah (2014): Dir: Darren Aronofsky / Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone: Perhaps the worst excuse for a Biblical movie ever made. Darren Aronofsky has directed such great visual films as Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan but here he presents a pathetic charade that barely scratches the surface on the account in Genesis where Noah is given visions from God to build an ark for he and his family as well as two of every animal because God was set to destroy the earth via flood due to man's rebellious nature. We have giant rock creatures that were apparently fallen angels. We have rebellious attitudes from Noah's son Ham in regards to mating, which goes against the fact that Genesis states that Noah's children were on board with their wives. Russell Crowe plays Noah as a barbaric nut case who battles enemies including an ark stowaway that results in a brutal fight. Jennifer Connelly plays his wife. Anthony Hopkins is totally over the top as Noah's father who lives in the mountains. Emma Watson plays a young female found who could not bare children and is touched by Hopkins and given the ability. Then she bangs one of Noah's sons and has twins, which Noah nearly daggers. Finally we have a useless appearance by Ray Winstone as the film's villain. He apparently stows away and gets into a fist fight with Noah. Christians are at opposites ends with this film and despite it getting some folks looking at scripture for themselves, it doesn't change the fact that the story is moderated to action, violence, and a visual world that doesn't fit. This film should be flushed down a toilet. Score: 1 / 10

I honestly don't understand the hate on this one.

[Allfacat · 8/10 · 6 August 2014]

When putting on Noah I had heard a lot of negativity about this movie. I do not know if it is Christians not supporting this adaptation, or if it is atheists thinking it is way to much Christian propaganda. I am a atheist, and I like good stories on the screen. What I liked about this movie was that feeling of adventure the likes of LOTR and Star Wars, a movie adaptation of a biblical story that is up there with other science fiction and adventure films. It didn't make the story about Noah more plausible, but it was a great story, set in timeless environments. I have read the genesis story even though I'm not a Christian, and in my opinion this adaptation is quite accurate and true to the biblical story, with some tweaking here and there. A little gnostic view points here and there, but all in all something fresh made from a old and boring book, made a little bit more interesting. Have an open mind, and don't watch it with an preconceived notion. Watch it like you would with any other story made for the screen.

More Environmentalist than Religious

[tariq-hossenbux · 7/10 · 11 May 2014]

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.

No, no, Noah

[genyus-368-930765 · 2/10 · 15 April 2014]

I've been an IMDb lurker for several years and this film was so poor that I felt motivated to write my first-ever review. It's bad on so many levels, I'm not even quite sure where to begin...

Storyline: This film probably represents the biggest rick-roll I've ever seen. Naturally, when people see a film about a great flood, titled Noah, the automatic assumption is that it's a re-telling of the biblical story. This film cynically exploits that expectation and then drops a hammer on the bewildered audience. I believe most people who watch this film will recognise that something is deeply "wrong" in it's portrayal, but they're less likely to realise that the fundamental reason is because the director has flooded (pun intended) his movie with imagery and references based not in Christian theology, but Gnostic mysticism. I'm not Christian, so I wasn't offended by this perspective on a theological level, but that didn't lessen my disappointment on a cinematic level at all.

Special effects: Wow. Just... Wow. The effects in this film wouldn't look out of place in Jason and the Argonauts, or The Golden Voyage of Sinbad. If you're not familiar with either of these (much better) movies, it's possibly because you weren't born when they were produced, way back in the 60's and 70's. In any case, it saddens me to know that in 2014, effects of this standard are deemed acceptable for general release. But as soon as I finish this review, I'll be dusting off my Magnavox for a quick game of Wipeout just to complete the sensation of time-travel.

Acting: This film sports a strong cast with some of my favourite actors and most of them discharge their duties as well as might be expected given the script they're stuck with. I did feel there was some overacting with some of the more emotionally loaded scenes, but overall, I'm more disappointed with the cast for accepting their roles than how they actually played them.

Conclusion: Dear reader, I implore you. Go for a walk. Read a book. Call that friend you haven't caught up with for ages. Do anything but watch this film. I didn't pay to watch this mockery, but I still feel cheated. My OH slept through most of it and I feel jealous. If you avoid it altogether after reading this and other reviews, then I can at least feel like I've done my good deed for the day.

Get your feet wet

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 5 April 2014]

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

Quite astray from the Old Testament story, it still is an enjoyable movie.

[TxMike · 13 August 2014]

I remember all the controversy while this movie was being made and then publicized. I'm sure many Bible fundamentalists were highly agitated, but as the disclaimer at the end states, the movie is a fictional story with fictional characters. Yet that too will upset all of us who believe Noah and Old Testament characters really did live.

But none of that upset me, I fully expected it to be a big movie with fictional elements and lots of special effects. So, how did it do, regarding what it tried to do?

I have to say very well. It was a costly venture, and likely will only recover its costs with after-release DVD and BD sales, rentals, and eventual TV revenue. But if you take it for what it is you get an entertaining movie.

Perhaps the most glaring departure are the large rock-like creatures that eventually protect Noah, his family, and the Ark as the bad people attempt to overrun it. And the volumes of water spouting from the ground which, along with rain, caused the great flood.

But the end has a tone of hope, that the surviving people will build a better mankind. Russell Crowe is always good and here he is good as Noah. He was paired again with Jennifer Connelly who was his wife Naameh. And Ray Winston was good as the villain Tubal-cain who managed to get aboard the Ark as it sailed, and who tried to kill off Noah.

Updating well known stories, good idea or bad ?

[karagoraymond · 6/10 · 18 March 2015]

A mixture between a good CGI film and Hollywood elements! For better or worse that's up to the viewer to see. Personally, though I do not find the film to be a great adaptation, there are some very impressive features about the film.

Russell Crowe was fantastic as Noah, what I liked about it (which was just as much to do with the writing as Crowe's performance) was the morale dilemma that this man was forced to suffer. You can clearly see that though he thinks he his doing the right thing, Noah is forced to make some very tough decisions such as potentially killing his own grandchildren. The rest of Noah's family (Watson, Connelly etc.) they were all wonderful. Another strong aspect of the film where some of the awesome angles and shots that Aronofsky got of the landscape as well as the CGI.

However, where the film fell short was in some of the Hollywood Clichés and strange adaptations. For example, though I am a fan of Ray Winstone I do not believe that he was right for the part of Tubal-Cain, his cockney mannerisms just hindered me from seeing a character, all I saw was Ray Winstone! I could have seen Liam Neeson, Gerard Butler or Brendan Gleeson pulling of the role better. Also the use of the "watchers" put me off, both in terms of their design and the fact that they did not contribute hugely to the story and I feel they could have been written out and the film could still have been as affective, if not more.

Overall, I did enjoy Noah, despite its flaws and it's not for everyone. I'm glad I saw it and will probably see it again.

Taking liberties with The Book

[davidgee · 4/10 · 9 April 2014]

Where is Cecil B. De Mille when you need him? It ought not to be possible to make a dull movie out of the story of Noah and the Ark, but Darren Aronofsky has managed to do just that. This leaden, plodding epic is a real dog's breakfast. The script is unremittingly grim, the music relentlessly dour.

The Bible tells us that "God spake unto Noah"; He spoke very vividly to Charlton Heston in De Mille's THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. In this version God has a non-speaking role; Noah (Russell Crowe) gets his orders via visions of a drowning world and the appearance of miracles. The Bible mentions that there were "giants" in the world at the time; this version recreates them as a cross between today's Transformers and the Golem monsters of Hebrew folklore - they do most of the labouring jobs and also fight off the Wicked People who, despite being armed with some very medieval weapons, are destined to perish in the Flood..

Taking further liberties with The Book, the writer/director gives Noah's three sons only one wife between them, which makes for an eyebrow-raising Mystery about how the post-Flood world is going to be repopulated. One of the sons of Noah is called Ham, although ham could also be the word that applies to Ray Winstone's performance as the leader of the Wicked People, unnamed in the Bible and here given a role to rival Noah's. Russell Crowe is a commandingly stern presence, a believable if unlikeable patriarch. Jennifer Connelly looks very modern as Mrs Noah, and their sons, like the Giants and the Wicked People, seem to belong more to Middle Earth than to the time before Abraham. Anthony Hopkins has a thankless cameo as Methuselah, Noah's grandpa, here gifted with miraculous powers to rival God's.

God is not called God in this version; He's called The Creator - perhaps in a nod to the Creationists in America's Bible Belt. But when Noah recounts the story of Creation to his family, the accompanying flashback looks more than a little Evolutionary. Trying not to offend people of different faiths, Aronofsky has probably managed to offend them all. GLADIATOR was a thrilling revamp of themes from BEN HUR. This revamp of the many takes on the story of the Ark, despite the addition of Giants and Ray Winstone and state-of-the-art CGI, is anything but thrilling.

Acceptable as a film

[jeffreyhillen-364-945381 · 6/10 · 12 October 2014]

When a film company decides to make a film about themes very much about the Bible than that is a tricky thing to do. You have to be not only as film company but most certainly as Director sure about where you are beginning with. It is very controversial; many people will like it as a movie but some people will not like it because they are not an atheist.

Personally I believe in God, but I also am a movie addict, and a huge fan of Harry Potter. First of all I think it must be possible to like what you want without other saying it can't because...Also I went to this film because it was an interesting theme to see on screen. I didn't watch it so I could say : "Oh this didn't happen in the bible". I can't agree more with the Director to add these giants in the film. As a filmmaker part of your job is that audience will see the whole film. It must continually be interesting. And that was the reason of the giants and it was a great choice.

I think the storyline was well written there were good relationships between those characters and there was done a great job on telling the story. Which is something very important in not only a movie but certainly in a movie like this. The audience must get this connection this special moment when they watch a film. Looking at the storyline it worked. I liked the moments of the snake and the apple Etc. they solved that "problem" on a good way.

Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly has done a wonderful performance in this film. The whole casting really did their best to deliver a job that would deliver a sort of truth to the story. They respected the story and it was great to see their amazing performance.

I rate this film 6/10 because of the great performance of the actors.

Utter Celluloid Trash

[greekgod41 · 1/10 · 20 October 2018]

This movie was a cruel joke perpetuated upon an unsuspecting public who were hoping to see a biblical epic translated to film. Instead what we got was an abomination of a disgusting vile piece of celluloid filth that was neither accurate to the biblical account but deviated so far off track that it was actually offensive

Fallen Angels are now transformer rock creatures! Seriously??, Noah was portrayed as a violent psychopath who tried to murder his grandchildren, and Obiwan Methusalah gave him a magic bean that transforms the utter barren waste land where they loved into a lush green forest within minutes......nope I'm not kidding The special effects were utter garbage, something that came out of a Disney movie 30 years ago, I mean the animals were so fake it was laughable Also the dialogue could hardly be heard as it was so quiet Overall an utter garbage of a movie that was a waste of money and time.....the only reason I gave it a 1 as there is no option to give it zero stars. I think the director's and producers of this movie should feel utterly ashamed of themselves, they had an opportunity to give us a massive big budget biblical epic, but instead they completely botched it and made a mockery of the bible's account Avoid this movie at all costs

Raindrops Kept Falling On His Head!

[zardoz-13 · 7/10 · 8 April 2014]

Visionary filmmaker Darren Aronofsky is an acquired taste. The Brooklyn-born, Harvard University graduate makes esoteric films with a film festival-oriented sensibility, and he dabbles in subject matter and story-lines that may strike some audiences as provocative but offensive. Most of the time, Aronofsky helms R-rated movies that are far from being family friendly. "Black Swan" (2010), "The Wrestler" (2008), "Requiem for a Dream" (2000) and "Pi" (1998) carried R-ratings, while the MPAA gave "The Fountain" a PG-13 rating. Despite his debatable subject matter and story lines, Aronofsky takes his movie-making efforts pretty seriously. Indeed, Aronofsky lives up to his provocative but offensive reputation with his sixth feature-length film. "Noah" should not be mistaken for a conventional Christian movie. Writer & director Aronofsky and co-scenarist Ari Handel draw not only on the Biblical Book of Genesis: Chapters 6-9, but also the apocryphal Jewish Book of Enoch. Aronofsky has described "Noah" as "the least biblical film ever made." This ambitious but uneven 138-minute Old Testament tale bristles with surprises that drastically differentiate it from most theatrical Christian films. According to Aronofsky, he wanted to explore the Great Flood as "an environmental apocalypse," and he classifies Noah as "the first environmentalist.". Superficially, the "Black Swan" filmmaker's adaptation adheres to the broad, general outlines of the Biblical saga of Noah and the Great Flood. This Paramount Pictures release, however, constitutes the first Biblical blockbuster to incorporate supernatural elements which have been confined traditionally to either science fiction or fantasy films. The supernatural elements in part come from the Book of Enoch, principally the fallen angels referred to as 'the Watchers.'

Noah" opens with the title hero as a child. Noah's father Lamech (Marton Csokas of "Kingdom of Heaven") unravels a sacred snake-skin and tells Noah about it when Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone of "The Departed") and henchmen interrupt them. No sooner has Tubal-cain shown up than he murders Lemech without a qualm. He smashes Lamech in the skull with a hammer. Decades afterward, Noah (Oscar-winner Russell Crowe of "Gladiator") has grown up. He has a wife, Naameh (Jennifer Connelly of "Blood Diamond"), and three children, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Noah and Naameh have kept themselves busy raising their three sons. They behave like hermits and shun city-living. Since the Fall of Adam, the Earth has degenerated into a desolate, inhospitable Hell on Earth. Indeed, "Noah" resembles "Mad Max" because everything looks sun-sorched and everybody dresses as if they were in a leather-clad, medieval movie. At one point, Methuselah appears in full body armor with an extraordinary sword. As vast armies of men charge headlong toward him, Methuselah hoists his sword and then plunges it in the ground. Miraculously, when he shoves the sword into the Earth, the effect is comparable a modern-day fighter jet dumping napalm, and Methuselah incinerates the entire army! Much later, Noah has a dream. He finds himself underwater with thousands of corpses. When he awakens, he has his marching orders. He visits Methuselah, now an ancient man in a remote cave atop a huge mountain and explains that the Creator will destroy the world with water instead of fire. Along the way, Noah and company come across some brutal but sad looking hulks of giants referred to as Watchers. The Book of Enoch contains references to these Watchers. In this instance, the Watchers are fallen angels. Eventually, Noah recruits the Watchers to help him construct the Ark. Once the villainous Tubal-cain learns about Noah's plans, he shows up with his army to take advantage of this golden opportunity. Tubal-cain demands that Noah assure him passage aboard the ship, but our hero defies him. When Tubal-cain makes threats, the Watchers line up ominously behind Noah to defend him. Meantime, Noah and Naameh have taken in a poor girl left-for-dead, Ila (Emma Watson of the "Harry Potter" movies), and she becomes Shem's playmate. Family tensions arise between Ham (Logan Lerman of the "Percy Jackson" movies) and Noah, when Ham is not allowed to take a girl for himself from Tubal-cain's kingdom.

As historical Biblical films go, "Noah" is nothing like the earlier release "Son of God." Moreover, little in "Noah" resembles the 1966 epic "The Bible: In The Beginning" that cast John Huston as Noah, with an ark that looked more like a ship more than a wooden cargo container cargo. Russell Crowe's darkly-clad Noah qualifies as much as an action hero as a patriarchal figure who shuns meat as a part of his diet. He can wield a knife with the best of them, and he acquits himself admirably in close-quarters combat when he clears the deck of the ark of intruders before the rain launches the vessel. In fact, Noah is terribly obsessed with what he must do for his 'Creator.' Initially, he believes that he must preserve the wildlife for a new world even though he believes that his own family must perish! For the record, nobody utters the name 'God' anywhere in "Noah," and this crucial omission may be more than traditional Christians may tolerate. In the novelization of the film, the word Creator is substituted for the name God, too. Indeed, Aronofsky takes full advantage of poetic license in his interesting but awkward re-imagination of the Great Flood. Throughout "Noah," the principals entwine the snake skin that the serpent shed when it slithered into Eden, and this birthright is deployed for its magical properties. The character of Methuselah provides Noah with a seed from the Garden of Eden that enables him to build the Ark. Aronofsky changes several things, eliminates certain characters from Noah's family, and allows a treacherous stowaway to slip aboard the Ark. Ultimately, the supernatural creatures that will spoil it for Bible purists. Secular audiences may enjoy "Noah" more than their spiritual counterparts for Aronofsky's radical departure from the story and the new design of the Ark.

Worst movie ever!

[grayjay1 · 1/10 · 29 March 2014]

Even though I had read a number of critical articles about Noah, I went anyway on opening day. I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Even giving it that benefit, it was one of the worst movies I have seen. I was not expecting a completely Biblical account of the Noah story, and knew that additions to the story would have to be added, since the Bible version is quite brief. However, who would have thought that would mean weird talking Rock creatures, which looked like they came from a Transformer movie. And the area where Noah lived was totally barren rock....until he planted the seed Methuzalah gave him, and immediately an entire forest shoots up out of the ground, to supply wood to build the ark. When the "flood" came, instead of it starting to rain, huge columns of water were shooting up from the ground. What's with that?

I was especially looking forward to the animal scenes, since the Humane Society commended the director for not using any real animals in the filming. Well, that was more than obvious! Computer animation has come a long way over the years, but this movie apparently used one of the earliest versions of CG. It looked totally fake, and all occurred in about a minute.

The acting was terrible, including Russell Crowe. And the script was even worse. After a very climactic scene, where he almost killed the twin babies in a state of rage, he explains that "All I saw was love." I almost left at that point!

If one reads all the reader reviews, I think it will become apparent that most of the viewers agree with my comments. At the end of the movie, our audience spontaneously let out an audible groan. I have never heard such negative comments as people were walking up the aisle.

Save your money!

Stunning, but for believers, some clarifications required...

[LydiaNoneofYourBusiness · 10/10 · 30 March 2014]

I found this movie absolutely stunning. Beautiful cinematography, outstanding acting, and astounding special effects.

Of course, there are a few things that fellow believers need to be aware of. The movie, 'Noah', is not told from an ultra-conservative point of view. There are multiple parts that can clash with your own beliefs. When creation is explained in the movie, it is portrayed in the fashion that God, or The Creator as He is referred to throughout the movie, used the Big Bang as His tool for the creation of the universe, and evolution for His creation of animals and of Man. Although I do not personally believe that is how He created everything, the movie tells creation beautifully and with God as the Creator, therefore I do not find it offensive.

One piece of information that will be helpful when seeing this movie is the background and origin of the Watchers. The Watchers are originally mentioned in the Book of Enoch, an ancient non-canonical book of the Jewish religion. The Watchers are, as stated in the movie, fallen angels, but after that, the production team took their creative license. Since it is in neither the Jewish Tanakh nor the Christian Bible, most viewers will think that the producers simply made up the Watchers.

Also, there are many gruesome and gut-wrenching scenes, for this movie reveals just how corrupt Mankind had become. There is no happy parade of animals arriving two-by-two, and Noah is not a happy old man with a long flowing beard In this film, Noah tries to follow exactly what the Creator commanded of him, taking himself past his breaking point. In this film, Mankind is scrambling for survival, taking what it wants and not caring for anyone else. In this film, the story of Noah is portrayed realistically.

I implore you to go see this movie, but you must watch it with an open mind.

Don't think about biblical Noah too much.

[frank-63-838463 · 7/10 · 29 July 2014]

Darren Aronofsky directed and wrote a story he wanted to tell. A drama about the biblical Noah created with free creative license to tell the story in a way that he felt would be compelling and entertaining. This is not the strict, or loose retelling of the traditional biblical Noah's Ark, nor is it a total fantasy, it takes elements from the traditional story and uses them to create a watchable drama. If the flood story ever really had any truth to it, who knows for certain what that truth was, unless of course you take whatever version of the bible you read literally word for word. From the perspective of not knowing what happened for certain, Aronofsky creates a convincing story of creation, man's wickedness, Noah's piety, and the flood. It's a fantasy drama that makes for a very good movie. Unfortunately , this movie will upset devout Judeo/Christian/Muslims, because the story uses so much creative license and strays so far from the biblical accounts. It even strays far from older Babylonian flood myths. This movie will also upset atheists, because although it is a myth/fantasy/drama, it also has a real sense of spirituality to it that will get under the skin of most devout atheists. Additionally this movie will also irk any science fiction fans as it is much close to fantasy than any attempt at scientific explanation. Who's left to enjoy the film? Just folks like me that are not very religious, or atheist, who enjoy a good story with some fantastic elements and a touch of humanity.

Flushed away

[jb07-660-944395 · 1/10 · 5 April 2015]

Ten minutes. That's how long I could stand watching it for. The opening scenes with a fake looking snake head appearing (maybe it stuck out in 3D?) looked extremely cheap, nasty and unreal. Then it started off like the old Bible epics of past with text telling us about the beginning. But even though it supposedly is a Bible epic (let me declare my agnosticism now), with a Biblical title and a Biblical text, it immediately deviates into fantasy, talking about a race of evil Angels and industrial cities? This makes Jacksons rabid rewriting of the Hobbit pale into insignificance. We are then introduced to Russell Crowes character teaching the children to respect the life of plants as he then becomes a martial artist and deftly disposes of four hunters. It was about then I checked the time remaining, and being just under 3 hours, I could take no more. This is truly an epic, an epic fail.