scroll down on the right-hand side and "FOLLOW" us for the optimum experience!

Friday, April 4, 2014



                 ¢ modified 4-8-2014


"I'm not alone"

There is enormous controversy surrounding this film.  By now you are probably tired of hearing or talking about it so I’ll try to be brief with my opening… This is definitely a film inspired by the account of Noah and his family in the Bible.  The only accuracies in the film are the water, animals, ark, and the names… Oh and the rainbow.  Everything else is an add influenced by the imagination of director/screenwriter Darren Aronofsky.  Having said that, this makes it hard to grade and decipher whether or not this production is “worth watching”.

    On one hand I’ve never witness a Hollywood production of an event inspired by Bible that is 100 percent accurate.  However, I’ve enjoyed The 10 Commandments and Ben-Hur with Charlton Heston, The Passion, The Son of God, I’ll even add the movie 300. There are scripture based ideas all through Star Wars.  I have nothing against any of these films. What NOAH does that is different from the rest of these is take the facts, characters and settings from the original source material and changes them to support Darren Aronofsky’s veracity of environmentalism .  It feels deceitful to those that know the real story regarding this event.   It’s almost as if Darren purposely tried to tap into the Christian-bases market because of it’s large fan base.  It already sets a very dangerous precedent for other secular producers/directors to cinema-plagiarize the Bible and insert their own propaganda for profit gain or some gnostic agenda.  The film already earned way more it’s opening week than they were expecting.  I credit that to the curiosity of moviegoers Christian and non-Christian.  I expect the numbers to dwindle down this week, especially with Captain America ready to bust the box-office wide open this upcoming weekend.

    For the sake of not spoiling it for those whom haven’t viewed it yet I’ll just mention the nephilim, which are recast as the "fallen angels" in this picture.  In Darren’s world they are stoned giants seeking some sort of atonement with “the creator” These characters are very imaginative and ultimately, for me, what distinguishes this picture from any other biblical based movie ever made.  I would of probably gave Darren’s lofty “version” of these giants a pass only if the rest of his story wasn’t so whimsical and off base from the source material.  

   Aside from all that I just mentioned the production and execution of this film is well done. Anthony Hopkins provided his usual dominance as a scene stealer as well as some comic relief, being the seasoned vet that he is.  The rest of the supporting cast was pretty good to real good. The CGI was done very well and the pace of the film was near perfect for this type of story... It’s just a shame of what NOAH could have been.
    The quality of NOAH makes this film worth watching. Conversely, the blatant disregard for accurately telling the story of Noah from the Old Testament makes this movie NOT worth watching… So be warned, at least from this reviewer.

    letter grade: C

follow-up(4/8/2014)- After learning more and interpreting more things about this movie that I did not like, particularly the old relic that was passed down from Noah's father to him and ultimately Noah's son.  In this movie it was some form of enlightenment/anointment.  Once Aronofsky’s film defines what that old relic is, it becomes blatantly obvious that his film is based on a series gnostic beliefs.    I modified the "WORTH" above to refund because of the deceitful way this movie was marketed.  

Post a Comment