Saw 'Noah'

[bevo barry]

My advice is to avoid this film like a biblical plague; it's the worst movie I've seen in a long time. Though I've liked several of Aronofsky's previous films (Black Swan, for example) I'm not sure what he was thinking here. Now, I know he had to take quite a bit of artistic license with the relatively short story of Noah in the Bible to make a feature-length film, and I know he was making this movie not for the Christian church-goers out there or the religious right but rather for the mainstream audience, but in my opinion there was too much butchering of biblical theology; the worst was near the end but I won't mention it so as not to post a spoiler. What I'm about to post are not spoilers but a couple things that I thought were laughable: first, there are some scenes where Ray Winstone and his cohorts, the bad guys, are forging swords and other weapons and…no kidding…they are wearing welders' helmets. Second, this film also features the first home pregnancy test.

There were times when both Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly showed their acting chops, but I thought Winstone (a great actor) did not impress like he usually does. I did like the scene where the ark for starts to float as the deluge begins and when it hits land for the first time weeks or months later.

To borrow from the late Mr.'s Siskel and Ebert, 2 thumbs down, way down.

 

[l00p]

So you are saying you've seen Saw but you won't saw'd it again.

 

[bevo barry]

For some reason when I started this thread last night the "Noah" part of the thread title was left out and the title just read "Saw," even though I went back and did an edit. Finally today "Noah" appeared in the thread title. But speaking of Saw, I've never watched it. Got a DVD of it around here somewhere, boxed away. For sure, I will never sit through Noah again.

 

[jcdenton]

What I find interesting about the "Biblical inaccuracies" in the film is that for the most part, they actually do the Bible a favor by changing details to make the story more believable (or should I say less unbelievable), not to mention less obscene:

"At one point Noah tells his children the story of creation and broadly stays true to Genesis, though he conflates the second and fourth days: The Bible tells us that the greater and lesser lights (commonly accepted to be the sun and moon) were created on the fourth day, not the second."

Note: According to Genesis 1, the sun, moon, and stars are created on Day 4, after the Earth (Day 1), after light (Day 1), and after plants (Day 3). So basically, the movie moves the creation of the sun/moon/stars before plants (but still after light/dark).

"Noah’s father... (is) killed by Tubal-Cain when Noah is just a teen. According to the Bible, Noah was no teen when his father died; he was 595."

"After the flood, we see Noah separated from his family and, in despair, getting hammered. In the Bible, Noah gets hammered, too, though it’s not clear it’s in despair. The Bible also leaves some ambiguity as to what happens while Noah is passed out naked. We find out that “Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.” What exactly the younger son (presumably Ham) did is unclear—in the Bible, seeing someone’s nakedness is often translated to mean having sex with them, and there are some who interpret this to mean that Ham sodomised his father—but Noah curses Ham’s descendants because of it, saying they will be servants to Shem and Japheth’s descendants."

The Link
.

 

[The Eyes of Texas]

The Bible had all three sons married and their wives with them on the ark. It seemed to me that the movie changed that solely for the purpose of creating a conflict.

I'm glad you posted the detail about "seeing someone's nakedness" being a euphemism for having sex. I didn't know that and always thought Noahs reaction was way out of line until now. ...

 

[FAST FRED]

We just got back from seeing "Noah."

It didn't even begin to float my boat.

My dear wife liked it less than I did.

I can't and won't recommend it to any moviegoer for any reason excepting cinematic curiousity.

JMO.

 

[Crockett]

On the positive side: The story of Noah was retold with an amazing amount of imagination filling in the gaps. The illumination of the story of Adam and Eve was masterfully done -- three minutes of entertaining and instructive movie production. Spoiler alert: I remember adding up numbers as I read Genesis and concluding it probable that Methuselah died in the flood. I felt good to see that played out on the screen.

On the negative side -- pretty much everything else.

If you wanted entertaining movie versions of Biblical drama, I'd recommend checking the public library for movies featuring Victor Mature.

 

[l00p]

I would like to see a version of it where people start getting mauled by the animals and especially the Dinosaurs that accompanied them on that boat. It'd be awesome.

 

[FAST FRED]

"Snakes, etc. on an Ark."

 

[Third Coast]

and I thought this was about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Hadministration.

 

[Golden Steer]

You even left out the worst parts, like the rock creatures, Ray Winstone’s troops having suits of armor and a cannon, plus Noah running around the Ark trying to kill his family, like a cheap “The Shinning” rip off.

Here’s Noah!

The heart of this movie is the idea that man and technology is evil, and we should live close to nature, which seems rather ironic coming from a movie made with CGI effects, and from directors and actors who are filthy rich and live in 15,000 square foot mansions.

 

[Statalyzer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Burnt Orange Bevo]

'Noah' is an abomination as far the Biblical account in Genesis is concerned. If you can completely dissociate yourself from the Biblical (in)fidelity aspects, the movie might be entertaining to some.

 

[jcdenton]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Statalyzer]

In reply to:

---

---