Posted on 04/04/2014 6:18:29 PM PDT by lee martell
I saw Noah, or shall I say, endured most of it before leaving prior to the actual ending. I was interested in how this story would be approached. It was an ambitious effort. The movie was high on visual impact, and low on cohesiveness or rationality. At various moments throughout the film, I felt as though I was watching two or three different movies all entwined. The director tried to say so very much the results were tedious a fragmented. Taken in portions, encapsulating certain scenes, the movie shows great promise and forethought. There are many beautiful scenes displaying the size of this new green earth, long before it became overcrowded with people, buildings and infrastructure. The camera seems to be on an airborne flight, as it swoops down into the wide canyons and over the rugged mountians, green with spring growth, the jagged tops white with residual snowcaps that provide needed water. I was struck that the lead character had what used to be called a crewcut. I did not realize that was what adult men wore back then. Same as with trousers and sleeved jackets. I don't know how authentic these clothes would be.
I wanted to like this film, but there were just so many special effects heavily ladled onto so many different scenes like servings of Shrimp Gumbo that their poignancy was often lost or diluted in the big mix of things. I was stunned to see the 'Rock Giants'. Nowhere was I told to expect these beings that resembled giant Tarantula spiders with a loping, crippled gait. The Rock Giants appeared to be made of Lava Rock with eyes that glowed. It was all so After a while, I was able to suspend my disbelief, and accept them, as one would accept strange beings when viewing a Star Trek film. Actually, the director was very creative, having invented his own race of beings with structure and function. I suppose he played up the fact that many see Noah and other Biblical stories as just that, stories and allegories full of archetypes. Not to be taken literally. There were many good actors, who gave a fine performance in spite of skimpy characters who we never got to know that well. Russell Crowe was good in his role. I must add that with the way this Noah was portrayed, as an extreme fundementalist, capable of planning and plotting to kill any 'extra people', including some family members, I was almost rooting for him to slip overboard during one of the 'invasion' attempts by a nearby army. The leader of this nearby army, actor Ray Winstone, was great in his role as Tubal-cain the villanous leader of a warring tribe. Logan Lerman was good in his role as Ham, the rebellious son, who plays a Judas role, in helping Tubal-cain almost kill his father.
There were many parts on the innward drama, where Noah seems to see life as an Existentialist, as with Jean Paul Sarte. The Existentialists focused on seeing life as a neverending struggle with little to no actual meaning other than as an exercise in personal survival. I say this, because Noah would often cry out for spiritual guidance and affirmation, only to receive images and impressions that were left for him to interpret. To make such a conclusion as Noah did, that an Ark was necessary, required a very strong unshakable faith in his mission. One thing I liked about the movie, that was made clear, was that it took Noah many, many years to construct the Ark. That's something I had never given a thought to, the logistics that it would take a huge amount of time and materials to build this.
There were many counter plots and sub plots dished up throughout the film. If they were not at war, all else in the movie resembled a soap opera, with the requisite pregnancy stories, difficult childbirth and attempted murders. There was even a low tech pregnancy test performed in the kitchen. This film may have worked better if split into a three part drama. Interesting effort. I am glad today's directors are at least considering the Bible presented in a somewhat respectful way. So that part I do appreciate.
How do you think it ended?
Speculate...
;)
You have my sympathy for spending your money so foolishly.
The book was better.
My take:
fortunately the director will not have the chance to produce a sequel!
Apparently fundamentalists think thou shalt kill and demons are good guys, according to this heretical movie
It was a good show.
>>fortunately the director will not have the chance to produce a sequel!<<
Frankly, no one ever will cover Noah better than Bill Cosby did.
“Voohba voohba voohba NOAH!”
“It was a good show.”
What makes you think a movie is different than the Bible when it comes to God’s Word?
God gives warnings to those who dare change the His Word:
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)
Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. (Deuteronomy 12:32)
I’m not stupid enough to think that this movie is Biblical. I can go see a show and not walk out thinking, “Oh, so this is the way it was, I’d better believe everything in it.” It was just an entertaining film, not something I’m basing my salvation on. I was impressed, however, that Tubal-Cain made an appearance.
I refuse to dig through the garbage can (hollywood) in search of good pieces of meat (truth/meaning) when a feast is so close to hand (Living Word of God).
well said
my guess about the director’s intentions would be that he knew he’d make a chunk of change and be able to blaspheme God at the same time.
a win win for such people
When people laugh at entertainment designed to diss God, the battle is over.
By the way, the producer is an atheist.
http://afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147544765
Three reasons you should not see the movie ‘Noah’
April 2, 2014
Leading Christians who are faithful to God’s biblical account of the story of the flood are giving grave warnings regarding Hollywood’s worldly offering of “Noah.”
Ken Ham writes an eye-opening forewarning that “there is barely a hint of biblical fidelity in this film. It is an unbiblical, pagan film from its start.” You can read his entire opinion piece in Time magazine here.
AFA strongly urges Christians to reject Hollywood’s “Noah” and seek truth instead of fiction for these reasons:
• The Hollywood version is heretical doctrine. Even its producer, avowed atheist Darren Aronofsky, admits his movie is “the least biblical biblical film ever made.”
• Christians and non-Christians will be deceived. It distorts the godly character of Noah. (Noah gets the idea to build the ark from a magic potion, rather than from God.)
• “Noah” was designed to be entertainment, rather than an inspirational film. In short, it’s just plain Hollywood.
Be a truthseeker, be a truth-sharer
Evangelist Ray Comfort has produced a brand-new powerful 30-minute film about the biblical Noah and the last days prophecies.
I just received 50 of them in the mail to distribute at our church and to friends.
Thanks for the graphic. That illustrates the true impact of ObamaCare to millions of Americans at this time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.