Did you see the movie Noah? I for one found it a let down. I mean, oh brother, get a load of those bizarro 'watchers'! And I'm still confused about the exact nature of Ham's unforgivable indiscretion after the ark grounded on Ararat. As for the acting, well, Russell Crowe has been more convincing.But I didn't expect a leading political commentator to take aim at the not-so Epic. Chris Trotter is a chap of considerable insight who usually concerns himself with what is happening on the left of New Zealand politics. But this week he's moved his beady focus to Noah instead. I was prepared to be let down. Political pundits of whatever stripe should, as a rule of thumb, steer well clear of religious posturing. Invariably they end up saying really dumb things.
But, hallelujah, Trotter indeed proves to know something about his subject. His focus is on why the Bible-belt Right failed to endorse the movie.
As it is, the screenplay of Noah is neither fish nor fowl. It’s certainly not a biblical epic in the tradition of The Ten Commandments or The Greatest Story Ever Told, but neither is it a work of science fiction like Stargate. Instead, Noah is that rarest of things in this irreligious age, a heretical work.
Sensing that the biblical version of the Great Flood is but a fragment of a much older and more finely textured myth, Aronofsky and Handel have attempted to construct from its ill-fitting remnants a story about human power, human guilt, and human redemption. That they failed, producing a film so filled with gross failures of logic, motivation, and theology that not even the participation of Russell Crowe, Emma Watson and Sir Anthony Hopkins could save it, is not to be wondered at. Myths are the work of many literary hands, constructed over centuries. It’s takes a scholar of J.R.R. Tolkien’s stature to make a believable myth from the contents of a single mind.I vote it the best review of Noah I've seen yet! You can read it in full over at The Daily Blog.
Stargate was better. In fact, many science fiction movies are better -- and it was a science fiction movie: A rather laughable one at that. What a mess.
ReplyDeleteI kept waiting to learn more about those flashy lighty super power sources from the... oh, my memory's bad on this one -- where were they from? The Nephilim? Really? Anyway, did those power sources destroy the environment or was it just bad people -- the eco terrorists? Methuselah? Magic potion for dreams for Noah from the last flower in creation? Oh, boy. And weren't there eight humans aboard the ark? I think I counted six. Humanity was kinda short on the gene pool and the bad guy king got aboard.
The big question is why did Paramount pay $160 million to make the movie? Sure, it was a commercial success, but they could have saved a lot of money just by filming the whole thing in a junk yard and limit the special effects.
With how preposterous the whole thing was, I should have my sides hurting from laughing at the unintended humor, but as Sulu said on the Enterprise, "He sure talks gloomy", Russell Crowe should have taken some uppers and phoned in his performance -- wait! Maybe he did!
Well for sure, God didn't make it real clear in the movie why he wanted man destroyed or that humanity should even survive. Was the ark just for animals and humans were to die out. It's nice that Crowe had an epiphany before the final end of the video because none of us nearly existed. It's too bad Dr. Phil wasn't around to counsel Noah. In fact, it's clear that comprehensive family counselling was needed by mental health professionals, who, unfortunately weren't born yet.
The whole thing's an insult, even if and maybe especially if you are an atheist. Oh, I don't know. I think everybody but Paramount lost with this turkey.
The best thing I can say about it is that I saw it in 3D. Not even the music was that compelling.
I highly recommend it for depressives that get off on gloomy hopelessness.
Anyone want to review The Swan. I probably don't want to see that movie either.