Noah (2014) Reviews

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

  bob the moo2014-07-28

  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.

• Some Cool Visuals But Lacking in Depth

  PanamaVeggie2014-08-11

  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.

• No, no, Noah

  genyus-368-9307652014-04-15

  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.

• They should have called it something else

  john-denny2014-04-13

  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

  TheLittleSongbird2014-07-31

  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