My personal movie review: Darren Aronofsky's NOAH

by Terry 49 Replies latest jw friends

  • Bella15

    Sounds he took stuff from the Book from the Cave of Treasures (funny I just mentioned it somewhere else) and The Book of Enoch.

  • sd-7

    A very well-written review. I was skeptical of seeing Noah, but mildly curious as well. I guess I never finished the Book of Enoch or any of the other 'extra scriptures' or what have you. Didn't know there were more stories about Noah. But then, I didn't really care to know.

    I guess if there's a good underlying lesson, maybe I'll throw it on my Netflix queue for future reference. Thanks for the review.


  • Terry

    You are most welcome!

  • OnTheWayOut

    Against my better judgement, I went and saw the movie.

    It was okay. I tell you what- I saw what I wanted to see by reading between the lines. "The Creator" was a real son-of-a-bitch for basically abandoning mankind and the land, allowing them to really suffer at the hands of the sons of Cain. If there were any good people left, they would have been killed. People were just doing what they had to do after "the Creator" put them in a horrible condition. Further, "the Creator" was a real SOB for what he did to angels that followed their "God-given" feelings and concern for mankind by turning them into those watchers. "The Creator" was going to get rid of mankind and was a real SOB for putting Noah and his family through that possibility. I agreed with the son of Cain on that one. Noah feeling bad about letting down "the Creator" was right in line with the idea behind this movie.

    Anyway, I feel "the Creator" (were He real) was originally portrayed as an SOB in Genesis- "Obey or the creator will mess you up." I liked this version that attempts to give reasons for everything.

  • Terry

    Films about scripture, as a rule, do not concern themselves with reasons. I too like the reasoning process and the concern for

    human sanity depicted in this movie.

    When it comes to dealing with this Creator--whether or not you are a worshipper--it is difficult to hold on to sanity or decency.

    The Creator of this film is beyond human comprehension, beyond reach in every way and I thought bore a resemblence to the

    same God believers deal with today: a force to be reckoned with by supplying your own interpretations and reasons.

    Noah (in this film) was driven by an integrity which made him want to live by the best of what he believed was valuable about life.

    But, Noah's confrontation with visions of a coming holocaust were not explicable in any sane sense of reasonable.

    He became what many fine, dedicated believers become: fanatically driven and alienated from those around him.

    The ugly side of total commitment and belief was really explored in this film as a side by side comparison: God demands and man either goes his own way or transforms into an asshole trying to keep up.

  • TheWonderofYou

    The Witnesses should finance such film productions to show them as dramas on their conventions. People would like to go to the conventions as much as to the cinemas and they would understand (hopefully and finally) that the whole bible is a dramatic tale, written words are a kind of art too. They would understand what they pay for. Of course with live orchestral music it would be in any case more impressive. What a dramatic epic event on a convention this would be.

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    I didn't like it.

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Personally, I don't think it's ever wise to do a movie based on a book and deviate from the story in the book - especially a book as well known as the bible. You're setting yourself up for failure. Why? Because chances are that a sizable portion of the people going to see the movie will be those who read and enjoyed the book and are going to see the movie with certain expectations based on the book. When those expectations aren't met - even if the movie is good on its own merits outside of its lack of conformity to the book - the audience comes away feeling somewhat dissappointed and cheated - like they're being lied to. It's human psychology 101. It amazes me that movie producers just don't seem to get that.

  • Terry

    POINT: Personally, I don't think it's ever wise to do a movie based on a book and deviate from the story in the book - especially a book as well known as the bible. You're setting yourself up for failure.


    That's a rather absolute stance. It would certainly leave no room for Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Ben Hur, Bridge on the River Kwai, the Godfather, To Kill a Mockingbird, Grapes of Wrath, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, West Side Story, My Fair Lady, etc.

    Scholars point out the Bible story is based on a previously existing Sumerian story, The Epic of Gilgamesh.

    Almost all art is based on pre-existing material. Would we have anything at all from Shakespeare, for example?

    Isn't the process of Bible translation also an interpretive violence requiring a transmutation of original material?

    As I previously mentioned, the two versions of the story of Noah inside the Bible are totally at odds.

    The reason for this is explained most wonderfully here: "WHO WROTE THE BIBLE" by Richard Elliot Friedman

  • kurtbethel

    For me, the movie was a mixed bag. I didn't come to it with the baggage of needing it to conform with the accepted written version of the story. I see the original accounts as being a jumping off point for reimagining it. The way it was done has a feel of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

    I started out liking Noah, how he showed respect for creation, even a tiny flower. Contrasted with the stark environment, those little flowers were like an oasis. The treatment of the Nephilim was funny to me. The original story has the watchers having spirit chubbies for human women and they mate with them, producing offspring who were the Nephilim. These watchers come to Earth's rescue and become encased in stone as punishment as a sort of stone age transformers. These are not your father's Nephilim, nevertheless I find them a compelling part of this story. I also was intrigued by the conflict between the Cain bloodline and the Seth bloodline. That's a key part of the story that gets touched on in Genesis, but not as fully explored as here.

    Noah gets very dark in this film. I was realizing as I saw his treatment of Ham's sweetie and contemplating dispatching his grandchild if it's a girl so as to stamp out the human race, this guy has gone psychotic. And I really didn't blame him, given what he had been through. He turned on his whole family. I was thinking, if I were Ham, I would kill dear old dad, throw him overboard, and tell everyone that Tubal Cain was my dad, and the world would be a better place. I also realized that Yhwh was pretty psychotic too, here and in many stories yet to come, so that Noah was his logical choice for this mission.

    I must have missed something in not having a clear explanation for why Noah got drunk after all this. I can't blame him. Then when Ham finds him, the Genesis account is vague about the nature of that transgression, and the movie is too. That part on up to the ending is something I feel could have been done better.

    I would summarize that the hype for this flick is overrated, but the critics from the Bible thumping section are overplaying their hand too. It's an okay movie that has some engaging parts to it, but falls short of being great.

Share this