Noah (2014)

Noah (2014)
  • Time: 138 min
  • Genre: Action | Adventure | Drama
  • Director: Darren Aronofsky
  • Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins


Subject to divine visions foretelling the end of the world, Noah attempts to tell his people to cease their mistreatment of the Earth in order to be saved. No one listens to his warnings, and Noah and his family are cast out to fend for themselves in the wilderness. Noah approaches a race of giant six-armed angels known as the “Watchers” to rally them to his cause.


  • (Rating: 3 / 5) This may be the most controversial review of this page, so we need to clarify some things to avoid misunderstandings: we believe in God ( Why not? we need to believe in something) , And we have respect for religion. We are not fans of religion and are not tied to the extreme principles of the same, is a nominal relationship, enough to keep the notions of faith and respect

    But even with our respect for the faith, “Noah” is an emotionally incomplete film. There is a great casting, but with the end result one can see that this is a ploy to attract any public, as well smoothing with the stars the rough connotations of material. Yet there are problems with the casting: Russell Crowe is a very good actor, but has always liked this kind of theater projects, so when one goes to see a film with him, know that you will see at least one heavy film (eg, “Les Misérables”). On the other hand, Anthony Hopkins has a rather roguish face that conveys playfulness, one sees Hopkins as a rogue and friendly old man with a beard, when his character Methuselah had been better with a man who inspires a paternal image, eg Michael Gambon or Ian McKellen. And finally Emma Watson, whose performance is really mediocre, generally she is not bad actress, but here is facing a dramatic range that can not cope

    (Warning: from now the review contains heavy spoilers, although some are not technically spoilers if you know the epic of Noah) But these casting problems are outweighed by worse problems. Darren Aronofsky is a great director who made great movies, but can not deal with his script and appeals to easy and sloppy tricks. The film is not didactic: If you did not read the Bible, you can barely understand “Noah”. The film begins with a world destroyed and you do not know why (actually is nothing special: it is the artistic vision of the world in decline by Aronofsky, before the flood). The “Noah” directorial logistics is almost episodic and lacks narrative bridges in the first hour, everything is a succession of events in the movie where there is no coherent link to move from one event to another. Thus, we see special effects forming forests or water jets or large herds of animals without knowing how or when, we see scenes that should have been seen sooner rather than later (eg scenes of Tubal- cain massacres , or whole story of the creation of the universe ). Also the edition of the protagonists is mixed, with many characters coming and going to places that only know when they left. Because of the shallowness, the role of the villain is not well defined and their threat is more apparent than real

    But speaking of villains, is where “Noah” shows its limitations. The film takes enough licenses and expanding moments in the life of Noah that do not appear in the Bible, in order to form a psychological picture of the protagonist. Not very different from “Troy” movie where the Iliad got a Freudian value. There are stone beings as a script resource to provide some battles in a story that lacks action. The stone beings are a resource to replace what would humans battling in “The Lord of the Rings”, it happens that Noah is not a warrior who possesses an army to defend him, so give real soldiers to defend Noah would have been an embarrassment and thats why the script chose fantastic beings.

    The problem with the psychological approach is that instead of hiding the Christian connotations , put them out even more clearly. One should not criticize holy bible, but it is true that the world has changed and our thinking is more modern therefore many ideas of the film are overwhelmingly sad. View as a superior being dedicated to massacre an entire world is unacceptable, especially since the villains are not defined (perhaps due to time), and when the film gives them an exposure time, the dialogues are unfortunately too feasible. One can not hate the villains simply because their only sin is to try to survive. There are some scenes (arriving late in the film) shows where Tubal-Cain and his followers committed gross acts, but they are so short and little explanatory that are not helpful to demonize Tubal

    In contrast , the character of Noah is just a shame. One expected, according to the psychological approach, that Noah will be a guy fighting hard on his divalency between obeying God or not, but in reality things are far from this theory. However, Noah is an individual willing to defend the principles of his creator and only in the end yhe gets a glimpse of mercy, and this is not so much hint of generosity but of cowardice. The rigidity and lack of modernization of the Bible generated the most embarrassing moments of “Noah”: Na’el death, which is a cruel detail. It is obvious that Noah could not save her because she was heavily jammed, but also by the context you know that her death was an act of God with the complicity of Noah, since she could not belong to Arca. It’s so unfair and cruel that hurts the film fatally, Na’el (fictional character) was a good girl and only her death leaves deep emotional wounds to Ham. It is a failure of Darren Aronofsky, who should have polished these religious fanfare and instead he failed. Also the death of Methuselah is unfair in lesser extent, as we see an individual who resigns himself to death not for pleasure but because he must obey God. When the hour of battle comes, are Ok but the character is so selfish with he cause that barely we have some pleasure for him, plus the battles are pure protocol for not to bore the viewer and therefore are not focused (while we are in battle, we are also in the issues of Noah)

    After the flood, Noah goes to secondary role in his own film, so now things get more interesting, as his family must deal with the harsh rules of the protagonist. Noah is still obnoxious, but we do not need to get on his side because he is in the background, which is slightly better detail. Still, the occasional arguments of Tubal-cain still are too feasible and it’s hard not to agree. The last part, Genesis, leave loose ends: one does not know if Noah really thinks did well or not does not kill the babies, and the heading of Ham can be understood, by all that has happened, like a spiritual act to overcome the Na’el death

    As entertainment, “Noah” is fine without being outstanding, and only Jennifer Connelly offers a very good and heartfelt dramatic performance. But as a Christian metaphor does not work, since it raises more questions than relief. The fierce egoism of Noah, the wrongful death of Na’el and Methuselah, the poor definition of the villains, the inertia of the last segment of Genesis, lack of modernization of the Bible, all this combined with a sloppy direction. No doubt there are many who do not believe in religion, but it is still something hopeful and beautiful slightly believe in an afterlife; but “Noah” is very cold to give us hope

  • The film has a good cast, is well directed and nice after effects. However, the story itself is historically inaccurate. According to some religions and faith, Noah’s character is misrepresented. Three words to represent the story: Blasphemy sacrilegious desecration. Noah is shown to be confused. He only cares (according to this film) about saving animals and birds. Monstrous creatures (Watchers) help him build his arc. He is shown to care only about saving non-human creatures. In truth, this is not what happened. Noah had tried his best to bring his people to their senses. Anyone who followed him under the guiding light of God, and obeyed, was allowed on the arc and saved. Further more, Noah’s wife and children here, are shown to be the innocent victims of his cruelty. In reality, his wife and son were evil and disobedient, not the innocent victims portrayed here in this film. Hence, they faced God’s wrath with the others.At best, this story satisfies the delusional fictional mind of an Atheist.

  • ‘Noah’ is definitely one of the strangest movies that came out this year. Not only is it controversial (the movie is banned in several countries and it spawned countless internet arguments between Christians and atheists), but it also feels like a weird step in the, otherwise very successful, career of Darren Aronofsky. Apparently, Aronofsky, in spite of being an atheist, has had a fascination with the biblical character of Noah since childhood and really wanted to do this movie. Ironically, his dream project turned out to be his weakest movie yet, and overall a very uneven experience.

    When Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, they had three sons – Cain, Abel and Seth. One day Cain slew his brother Abel and fled from his parents and God (who is referred only as The Creator) to some land where he started having children and being the father of people. However, unlike the people who were born in the line of Seth, people who were born in the line of Cain were mostly evil and corrupt. Noah (Russell Crowe) is one of the descendants of Seth and he starts having visions of a great flood that will purify the Earth. He soon realizes he is receiving messaged from the Creator that tell him to construct a giant ark in which he’ll put two of every animal species in the world and sail until the flood withdraws, so he could start the human civilization anew.

    ‘Noah’s’ story has many aspects to it; aspects that seem quite disconnected from each other and should be analyzed separately. First, there is the biblical aspect of the story, which was done alright – it was nice to see this biblical tale on a big budget, grand scale, accompanied by an A-list cast (of which Jennifer Connelly stands out the most as Noah’s wife Naameh, and, absurdly, Russell Crowe stands out the least as the titular character – throughout the whole movie he had the same facial expression) and a clearly talented director (the movie is absolutely beautiful, with wonderful shots and interesting visuals).

    Then there is the ‘realistic’ aspect of the story, which was the most interesting one. The character of Noah is portrayed as a troubled figure, who is disturbed by the choices he has to make. His family is no different – all of the members have their own separate problems they have to deal with. This realistic/dramatic/human aspect somewhat differs from the biblical tale, but was nonetheless the most fascinating thing about the movie. This aspect was pleasantly utilized through the movie’s more or less talented cast – the exceptions were Russell Crowe, whom I mentioned before, and Douglas Booth, who was quite forgettable as Noah’s son Shem.

    And the last aspect of ‘Noah’ that should be commented was its ‘fantasy’ aspect, which was horrible and almost destroyed the whole movie. Inputting completely made up elements in the movie, like stone giants (yes, stone giants) and magic stones not only underwhelms the movie’s ‘dramatic’ aspect, but also wrecks its source material. Add to that the ridiculous comic-book style rivalry between Noah and the movie’s villain Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) and the occasionally clingy CGI, and ‘Noah’ doesn’t rise much above the flood of generic action, big budget movies.

    Rating: 6/10

    Read more reviews at

  • “We broke the world – we did this. Man did this. Everything that was beautiful, everything that was good, we shattered. Now, it begins again.”

    I really wonder what’s so terribly bad about the movie “Noah”. Granted, it smells a bit like commercializing the book of all books (And I think this still is the most ingenious elaborated marketing plan ever devised in human history. This marketing plan made sure a book was written that will dominate the list of bestsellers in perpetuity. Probably until the end of the world …) in compliance with all film adaptations of other literature (some great, some bad). After “The Lord of the Rings”, “Harry Potter”, “The Hunger Games”, “Divergent” and other similar books susceptible to commercialization, it seems like Hollywood has found a Biblical gap in the market. End of this year Christian Bale will be wandering through the bone-dry desert like Moses (also with a trimmed beard) in “Exodus: Gods and Kings”. Darren Aronofsky’s religious story “Noah” is of a moister content, with Russell Crowe hammering together a huge boat, so he can defy the salt water (God sprinkled the earth’s surface liberally) together with his offspring and all species living on earth, except for the water creatures, because they feel comfortable in this huge bathtub. But isn’t it so that it should be freshwater instead of saltwater with all that rain ? And aren’t there two types of aquatic animals ? Those who survive in saltwater and the others ? How was this crucial problem tackled ?

    Anyway, despite the practical issues, this was a highly entertaining spectacle with an abundance of special effects and water (They used about 83,000 liters water in this film. A quantity that would make the average Ethiopian farmer really jealous … ). You could expect the Christian community not being happy about the making of this film. Isn’t it sacrilegious to turn this pious story into a mega spectacle and create it like contemporary fantasy films? (Sarcastic tone) I suggest they redesign the interior and decoration of churches, so that it would be a reflection of this rather epic-looking film. There’s a high probability that one could reach a new fan base and the population of the group of churchgoers could grow again. I have no idea if this version of “Noah” follows the original story faithfully. The only thing I knew about it, was that an ark full of animals,which drifted on an immense ocean, played a major role. I don’t know if the family troubles as presented here, correspond to the biblical story. It would be just a simple,short film if Aronofsky remained faithfull to the biblical version, because that story about the adventures of Noah is not that big of a deal.

    And that’s probably the Christian audience’s key problem. The whole story is firmly filled up with profound special effects and great battles. A bold yet extremely successful choice was the introduction of “The Watchers”. A collection of fallen angels who mutated into rocky beings. The comparison with “The Lord of the Rings” is made quickly . In particular, the movement of The Watchers is very similar to the way “The Ents” moved. Difficult and slow but at the same time, they can strike in a devastating way. The moment these “moving masses of rock” start to protect the Noah family against the onrushing crowd, with a fair part of the crowd being violently crushed and spinning through the air after a massive draw with their blocky fists, you could easily compare it with the attack on Minas Tirith (not the same size but with the same amount of adrenaline). Also the Ark is visually excellent developed. An apparently gigantic freighter with an entire zoo on board. Beautiful images and realistic created animals. Even the devastating flood was successful shown and was less fake as the one in “Evan Almighty”.

    Maybe it was the acting? Honestly I can’t say anything wrong about that either. Ok, Russell Crowe doesn’t really look like a devout man and the way he declares biblical phrases, seemed like a market vendor who tries to sell fake products convincingly. And yet he did it properly and the matter of conscience he was struggling with in the end, was sublimely interpreted. Only the emerging fanaticism started to bother me. But ultimately this is a tedious facet that’s part of a religion. Although Jennifer Connelly, Naameh the wife of Noah, was limited seen in the picture and didn’t play such a big part in the whole set-up, she was still the driving force that propelled Noah in the right direction. Anthony Hopkins, the helpful grandfather Methuselah who yearns for berries impressed me. And Ray Winstone as the warlike king Tubal-Cain, represented evil. The rest of the cast was necessary, but not particularly memorable.

    “Noah” turned out to be an average disaster movie with a serious family conflict which could eventually become a family drama. Maybe it wasn’t quite literally as written in the Bible, but in the end it was not sacrilege. And there is certainly no profanity. Maybe Christian representatives could be a little less narrow-minded and give this interpretation some credit. Eventually the sequence Aronofsky used for the creation of the Earth is also just a guess. No living soul can conclusively prove that this is the ultimate truth. Indeed, it’s not a film where a funny giraffe and roguish elephant cosily sit alongside each other and look over the railing to the rising water. It’s rather a gloomy and depressing picture about humanity who lives in sin being swept of the earth by “The Creator”, because he’s sick and tired of it, so He can start over with a clean slate. But with whom? That’s another theological riddle, I suppose.

    Finally, some elements that seemed disturbing and a bit implausible. That the Ark was immense, I can imagine. But that it’s of such a size that a stowaway hasn’t been discovered after a year, seems a bit exaggerated. Knowing that the stowaway isn’t vegetarian, wouldn’t that be detrimental to the resting flock ? The pregnancy test made me frown. And the final denouement is entirely hallucinatory. Eventually Noah didn’t need to worry about anything in the end, because the offspring was the solution on their own. And otherwise I need to think twice next time, before I use the word “inbred”.

    All in all, it’s an enjoyable film (despite me not being that religious) with a few little miss, but still a stunning visual presentation with beautiful, serene interpretations. For those who started tearing their hair and protesting against it (even before there was any finished material): isn’t it written in the Bible “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14) ? I suggest you forgive Aronofsky’s artistic freedom and approach this interpretation with a more open mind. That would be nice example of “loving one’s neighbour”. Amen !

  • If I knew I was going into the theater to watch a bunch of huge, robotic rock caricatures roam the Earth, I’d probably avoid buying a ticket. But I stuck around to experience some good old fashioned fire and brimstone. So without further adieu, I give you the latest biblical release to filter into multiplexes all across the country this March. Ah, let there be Noah!

    Darren Aronofsky directs and whether or not you believe in his vision being complete hooey, is hearsay. Noah’s visuals, said director, and the actors offer to make you think otherwise. Now granted, all of the factors just mentioned, are combined to sell you the audience, every scene in its 2 hour plus running time. Why? To make you believe that this is actually how it went down.

    Along with subjugating an interesting slant on the Old Testament, Noah also has the luxury of having one of the world’s finest movie moguls playing the title character. As God’s handily chosen one, Russell Crowe delivers an assured, brilliant performance. He’s the go-to thespian for anything biblical or for a better word, historical. His ultimate weapon is his voice. Mr. Crowe undoubtedly has to have one of the greatest acting voices in the history of cinema. I mean I would literally pay this guy to just sit down and read a menu, or a phone book, or heck, even the ingredients on a can of soup. As expected, he is perfectly cast which is another way of saying that there’s no other actor who could inhabit this role (expect for maybe the late, great Charlton Heston). And thankfully, he’s backed up by a surrounding group of supporting players that almost never hit a false note.

    Now as a kid, I remember the story of Noah. It’s essentially about a man who is told by God to build a huge contraption to hold all animals in two’s. He must do this because a flood is coming that intends to end the world as we know it. In this 2014 version, there were a lot of things I didn’t see coming. I didn’t know that a conflict would arise between good and evil. That role belongs to Ray Winstone who plays Tubal-cain. He’s essentially the villain and well, as a youngster, I never knew that villains existed in Noah’s plight. Winstone does a solid job as well as the rest of the cast including Jennifer Connelly and Emma Watson. Connelly, matching Crowe scene for scene, also gives a powerhouse performance as his wife. She has a moment of Oscar glory that might have come too soon in the year. It arrives toward the film’s last quarter and maybe voters will remember it come December. Then there’s Sir Anthony Hopkins playing a weird, underutilized character as Noah’s grandfather. His screen time feels like a couple of cameos. Dare I say that his role came off as comedic rather than serious (he sure had an appetite for some wild berries).

    Performances aside, if there was one guy who had to take on the reins of bringing the concept of Noah to life, I’m glad it’s Aronofsky. He’s a visionary filmmaker who first caught my eye with 2000’s Requiem for a Dream. He channels a little residue from that film into this one by way of certain cuts and images. His vision for Noah is salty and psychedelic, dark and dreary, and for the most part, modernized. His visuals are sumptuous while his storytelling ability (the film’s only weak point) has seen better days. And as bold a director as he is, he still finds time to include an educational, visual feast that feels a little out of place. At I guess 2-3 minutes, it involves Crowe narrating the first chapter of Genesis a la the planetarium scene from 2000’s Mission to Mars (I didn’t see that coming).

    Basically Aronofsky’s Noah isn’t perfect because it establishes characters and situations without a lot of buildup. Things tend to drag a bit especially in the first hour. Added to that, Noah throughout has a fumbled structure with small portions of incoherency. Finally, I felt at times like I was watching Crowe in Gladiator mode (how did Noah learn to fight so well) or taking in scenes filtered right out of 2007’s Transformers. Oh yeah and there were times where I thought I was trapped in the world of Lord of the Rings (it’s a scene where evil soldiers are trying to get into the ark which is barricaded by the rock creatures mentioned in the first paragraph). Anyway in spite of all this, Noah gets by when the proceedings come down like a sledgehammer in the third and final act. In fact, Noah excels in this act the most when all the animals and humans are already tucked away safely in the ark. The film then gets some legs as it prepares you for a supremely dark detour that you are about to take as an audience member.

    Bottom line: Aronofsky’s direction although skewed, is brilliant and unique. I’m proud of his effort even though it’s a little kooky in a way that might dissuade your average churchgoing type. Yes, this March release has flaws but it succeeds by not playing it safe. It’s one of those movies where if you think you know where things are headed, you might just be wrong in your assessment. To end this review, I’ll leave you with this interesting factoid: According to Aronofsky’s harrowing vision, there is one scene taking place near the film’s conclusion, who’s outcome cements itself to be the reason why all of us humans still exist. Well all I have to say is thank God for that (no pun intended)!

    Check out other reviews on my blog:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *