‘Noah’ Review

Published 1 year ago by , Updated October 7th, 2014 at 1:40 am,

Noah Movie Russell Crowe 2014 Noah Review

Viewers that are willing to give Noah a chance might find that, despite differences of opinion and belief, there’s plenty of universal value in Aronofsky’s gripping tale of good overcoming evil.

In Noah, Darren Aronofsky’s re-imagining of the biblical flood narrative, the titular patriarch loses his father, Lamech, at a young age – as “Men” (born from the lineage of Cain) attempt to purge the remaining descendants of Adam and Eve’s youngest child, Seth, from the Earth. Hidden from the Men at the time of Lamech’s slaying, Noah (Russell Crowe) grows into a kind-hearted father and husband who lives off the land – in balance with animals and plant life.

The unchecked pillaging of Earth by Man begins to spread to the isolated hillside that Noah and his family call home. Tired of Man’s rape, murder, and butchery, “The Creator” speaks to Noah in a series of visions – instructing him to protect the innocents of creation (specifically, the animals) from a forthcoming cataclysmic event designed to wipe the failure of Man from the planet. Horrified by the darkness he sees in others, Noah sets out with his family to build an ark and fulfill The Creator’s request. Yet, despite honorable intentions, the mission creates unforeseen conflict within Noah’s house, forcing him to confront his own wickedness, and question whether any man (himself and his sons included) deserves to inherit The Creator’s new world.

Noah Movie 2014 Russell Crowe Noah Review

Russell Crowe in ‘Noah’

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding Aronofsky’s Noah – since the film is a significant re-imagining of an iconic story from Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religious texts. Still, the director does not present his depiction as either “true” or a “more accurate” version of events; instead, he exercises the Noah narrative as an allegorical opportunity to explore the differences between ideologies of faith and human self-determination. Moviegoers who believe that reimagining religious scripture (even for the purpose of modern symbolism) undermines the message of the source text will find countless feather ruffling alterations. As a result, the changes are bound to make Noah a hard watch for viewers that would have preferred a more traditional adaptation – especially viewers who are already criticizing the movie simply because “it didn’t happen this way in the Bible.

Sadly, all of the controversy has distracted from the quality of the actual film – which presents an impactful experience for both religious and secular viewers, alike. In fact, many of the contentious changes actually make Noah a more engaging choice for moviegoers who are open to Aronofsky’s artistic vision and subject matter. The movie is neither Christian propaganda nor a threat to the bible, it’s a relatable tale of human nature and the mysteries of creation – one that actually reaffirms key themes from the original story and thought-provoking moments in the journey of a peaceful man whose life is torn apart in an attempt to do the “right” thing.

Noah Movie Russell Crowe Ray Winstone Noah Review

Ray Winstone as Tubal-cain in ‘Noah’

To that end, Russell Crowe gives an engrossing performance – presenting a rich iteration of Noah: a lover, a warrior, and a bully, all in one. Aronofsky’s character isn’t just a man of honor and faith, when necessary, he’s a man of violence. The film portrays Noah as a dedicated believer willing to defend The Creator’s plan at all costs – even to the detriment of his own loved ones. The director takes Noah’s journey to its logical (albeit heart-wrenching) conclusion, even exploring the consequences of watching as humanity is destroyed, and asking: “What effect would that responsibility have on a person?”

The supporting cast is equally strong – with Ray Winstone in the role of antagonist King Tubal-cain. Winstone’s portrayal is far more complex than a standard stock villain – offering a smart juxtaposition against Russell’s Noah and outlining the major philosophical differences between Men and the few descendants of Seth who clung to faith in The Creator. Through Tubal-cain, the actor manages to balance both the wickedness of humanity with enough charisma to make his beliefs relatable – even if they are, ultimately, barbaric.

Noah Movie Emma Watson Ila Noah Review

Emma Watson as Ila in ‘Noah’

Along with solid efforts from Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth, and Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson is another key standout as orphan-turned-member of Noah’s family, Ila. In addition to providing a significant amount of exposition that could have been eye-rolling in the hands of a less capable actress, Watson is responsible for one of the toughest scenes in the film – selling a major turning point with a downright dynamic performance.

To sell the scale of Noah’s task, and the subsequent flooding of the Earth, Aronofsky employed a notable amount of CGI. Fortunately, quality visual representations of the Ark, animals, and The Watchers (creatures that have been hidden from the trailers but play a major role in the film) aid in a reimagining that is both immersive and grounded. Supernatural elements, such as the aforementioned Watchers, are utilized both to enhance the emotional impact of the story while also solving challenges that might otherwise have distracted casual viewers asking a host of logistical questions. Not to mention The Watchers, which actually enjoy an intriguing and extremely relevant backstory, also allow for several of the movie’s most epic moments.

Noah Movie 2014 Ark Animals Noah Review

The Ark in ‘Noah’

Select details might be different but Noah honors the scriptural source material with an inspiring tale of love and dedication in the face of unchecked darkness. Understandably, certain viewers will be frustrated (and even offended) that Aronofsky didn’t choose to develop a “faithful” retelling of the religious text; yet, for those with an open mind, Noah supplies an immersive and thought-provoking movie experience. Given the movie’s premise, it will be easy for moviegoers at extreme ends of the spectrum to dismiss the film outright – but viewers that are willing to give Noah a chance might find that, despite differences of opinion and belief, there’s plenty of universal value in Aronofsky’s gripping tale of good overcoming evil.

If you’re still on the fence about Noah, check out the trailer below:


[poll id="779"]


Noah runs 138 minutes and is Rated PG-13 for violence, disturbing images and brief suggestive content. Now playing in theaters.

Let us know what you thought of the film in the comment section below.

For an in-depth discussion of the film by the Screen Rant editors check out our Noah episode of the SR Underground podcast.

Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for future reviews, as well as movie, TV, and gaming news.

Our Rating:

4 out of 5

Follow Ben Kendrick on Twitter @benkendrick
TAGS: Noah
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Nice Review Ben. Im going there Tonight and among my Friends, It seems like im the Only One who is interested in that Movie. Now I can go with High Hope lol… and maybe convince One of them to come with me. :)

    • I am glad this movie stars at least two Jewish actors (Jennifer Connelly, whose mother is Jewish, and Logan Lerman, who is 100% Jewish). As opposed to the upcoming Exodus, which has no Jews in it at all.

      • The problem with having Jews for the sake of having of Jews is that most Jews in America are Europeans and not from Palestine/Israel.

        So what you have is white Europeans playing Jewish abrahamic characters that look nothing like the Jews looked thousands of years ago.

        If you wanted to get a true look of a Jewish person from the bible you would have to get middle eastern, North African, or african looking people.

        So a Palestinian whose family never left Israel/Palestine would have a closer look.

        Basically Lenny kravitz who is Jewish by the way would look more like our Jewish ancestors then we do.

        • No, Lenny Kravitz definitely does not look “more” like our Jewish ancestors than we do.

          And Kravitz is NOT Jewish. He has been a devout Christian, by choice, since he was 13.

          • So you think our ancestors looked like us who are white Europeans?
            Come on man. There were no white skinned people in that region thousands of years ago.

            And after obviously living in Europe for so long has made us lighter skinned.

            And Lenny kravitz is Jewish born and raised and definitely devoutly Jewish who goes to synagogue on a regular basis.

            Anyway I didn’t want to get into a debate about our ancestors I just wanted to say I wish Hollywood was more accurate when portraying us.

            Emma Watson? She’s French. Russell Crowe ? Australian. And both pretty white if you ask me.

            • Uh, blue eyes originated in the area that is now south Bulgaria. South Bulgaria borders Turkey, which is where the Noah’s ark story is said to have taken place.

              Kravitz was raised interfaith but became an outright Christian at the age of 13, by personal choice. He has been a practicing Christian since, not Jewish.

              Emma Watson isn’t French, she was just born there.

    • BIG waste of time and money.
      If you want to read the true story, read the Bible. Genesis Chapter 6-8. Noah’s sons were adults when they entered the ark and they were ALL MARRIED. God’s plan was to continue life. The issue was men’s hearts had grown corrupt/wicked/perverse/violent, far beyond imagination. They had the chance to repent. For over 100 years, Noah warned them of coming judgment. Because God is patient and not willing that any should perish. They refused. For 100 years, they refused to give up their wickedness, so God said, “No more.”
      Each day we experience God’s mercy. We hate, which Jesus said is equivalent to murder. We lust, which Jesus said is equal to the very act of adultery. We lie, steal and cheat. So, what does that make us? Liars, thieves and adulterers.
      Should a holy God allow us into his holy heaven? Should a just God overlook our sins and guilt? Then he would no longer be just.
      God provided a bridge. Jesus. God’s son. He is the sinless one who was fully God and fully man. He took the punishment for our sins. He paid our debt. He tasted of death and God’s wrath for each of us. And Hollywood implies God is not loving. No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends. GOD laid down his life for his ENEMIES. For those who nailed him to the cross, spit in his face, and cursed him.
      And there’s room for us, at the cross. If we will but confess that we have sinned, and put our faith in Jesus Christ. Ask God today to forgive you. Not because of any good deeds you may have done, which are tainted with our humanness. But, ask God to forgive you because Jesus paid the price. Jesus carried your sin and guilt. God will hear and forgive you. Right now.

      • It always amuses me people like you think others care for your preaching in the comment sections of the Net, writing huge walls of text of theological exposition…

        • And although short, your response isn’t preachy in its own way? Funny how we tend to label something as “preachy” when we don’t agree with it and would prefer not to hear it…

          • I meant LITERAL preaching. There is a certain type of christian who seems to think he/she contributes to a discussion by either copy-pasting large segments of the scripture or writing huge walls of text laying out their worldview that NOONE bothers to read.

            • Oh…only Christians do that? Really? People of all faiths, and no faith at all, do that.

            • What Jeff said, that’s pretty much a universal thing.

      • Stefan_san- Best and most accurate response.

      • Please- take your own advice – BIG waste of time – Your Preaching. Prime example of what is wrong with most Religions (and their followers) – MY WAY or THE HIGHWAY.
        Closed minds. This is one of the Prime reasons why Humankind takes SO much time to to progress.
        Not being one to dare to think I would know the Creators mind ,I would still have to believe that any Entity who could create the Universe would surely Not want it Stifled with tiny Petty Tribal differences.

        • +1,
          the preaching reminds me of someone from the movie ‘The Mist’

      • May be you were the inspiration for scripting Marcia Gay Harden’s character in the movie ‘The Mist’.

  2. thinkin about seeing this.

    • Save your money

  3. I am looking forward to seeing this movie simply for the fact that I expect to be entertained by a well developed film and story. I do not understand the controversy about it. I am a Christian but do not expect this movie to be a theological exposition. It’s art and the artist interprets what he wishes. I grew up watching Charlton Heston play Moses in the Ten Commandments and although that movie take a lot of artistic license, I never saw anyone complain about it. And just like Noah- The Ten Commandments was a commentary on the social ideas of the 1950′s- anti-communism. Christians get upset about movies like this the same way comic book fans go nuts if a director takes artistic license from the source materiel of their beloved comic book- E.G. Electro in ASM2

    • Well said.

    • …the Bible isn’t a comic book…

      • No, you’re right, comic books are more realistic.

    • I guess it has to do with part of the christians in the USA feeling increasingly “threatened” by mostly imaginary bogeymen like evil liberals, gays and scientists. And being overly defensive about it.

      • Does this really have to go this way? This is a movie site! Lets keep it to movies! :)

        • sorry

  4. Rock monsters. This movie has rock monsters. There’s “not accurate” and then there’s adding rock monsters. It’s also oddly tone deaf in that way too. There’s scenes of real serious, baby killing drama; and then there’s rock monsters. I’m obsessed with the rock monsters. Rock monsters!

    • Gorignak. a character that worked in a comedy turns up in this and is described thus “aid in a reimagining that is both immersive and grounded”.

      Very very silly stuff.

    • Little spoiler(s) there?

    • But is there a rock lobster? Two, rather? Deus ex locusta!

  5. Excellent review. I wasn’t interested in seeing the movie, but I feel hopeful. Not an Aronofsky detractor, it’s just that the trailers didn’t pull me in. I wonder, why not a 5 out of 5? Your review was very positive.

    • As a movie experience, it’s “Excellent.” There are little things I could probably have nitpicked but figured my time was better spent discussing the larger execution of the film – especially given all the controversy. Just because there isn’t anything major to criticize (in terms of performances, etc) doesn’t mean that I’d go 5/5 and call it a “Classic” though.

      • Makes sense. Thanks for the response!

  6. Wow, I didn’t expect this high a rating.

  7. One of the worst films I have ever ever seen. Largely due to the fact it could not decide what it wanted to be. In parts it was played straight, on others completely fantastical. One minute it looked like a hollywood blockbuster, the next like a poorly done 80′s music video.

    I hear about the christians that have taken offence but have not actually come across any. I think most expect there to be a liberal amount of artistic licence and that is ok as long as the film is decent. This is just mega crap.

    Boring, disjointed and silly both in style and story elements.

    I hear the point re the ten commandments but I disagree. I would liken this more to a mix of independence day and the ten commandments if you could mix the two genres. In fact done well i’m sure that could be cool but this just was not.

    Much of the complaints re this film are based on the fact it is just awful.

    The only redeeming thing about it being Emma Watson.

    Penned by John Logan who gave us both Star Trek Nemesis and Skyfall. Two extremes right there. Unfortunately it seems Logan can still deliver an incoherent dud.

    I just hope those working on the next Bond can pick that up and are willing to have professionals go over any script before green lighting it.

    • I thought Emma Watson did an awesome job in this movie. Her character really held the emotional power in the movie.

  8. Any time you mix religious stories with “hollywood artistic interpretation”, you probably will have a mess on your hands. Despite the fact that this version of the movie Noah strays away from the Biblical text, and loosely utilizes the apocryphal books (like the book of Enoch), it wasn’t a completely bad movie. I believe that the movie will gain whatever success due to the perceived controversy and not because of the actual movie’s content. In other words, you’ll probably be tempted to see it just to see what all the fuss is about. My recommendation would be this: If you wish to see a depiction of the traditional story of Noah, do not bother with this movie. You will be disappointed. If you don’t mind watching an alternative version of a “generic flood story” (that hijacks the name Noah for the sake of notoriety), then feel free to watch this as a matinee or wait for the rental. IMAX is not necessary.

    • Respectfully I disagree. I think you can have artistic licence with religious story telling.

      I think the idea that the religious are upset is speculation. No doubt there will always be some but in any great number I would like to see some evidence. Even this quote that appears in the review “it didn’t happen this way in the Bible.” is not actually attributed to anyone. Meaning it was pulled out of the air.

      Easy to attack imaginary opponents.

      I respect anyones right to like the movie of course but don’t assume a motive for those who did not beyond the reasons given.

      • Respectfully, I disagree that my use of “it didn’t happen this way in the Bible” was an attack on imaginary “opponents.”

        First off, I don’t view people who might feel that way as “opponents” – just people who might be frustrated by what is presented in the film.

        Second, it wasn’t intended as a direct quote, but that was a strong sentiment coming out of certain demographics after seeing the film during test screenings. http://screenrant.com/darren-aronofsky-noah-movie-controversy-discussion/

        If you didn’t like the film and disagree with my take on it, that’s fine but I was very careful to try to be respectful of all sides of the conversation.

  9. rock monsters and “the Creator” are why I’ll pass on paying to watch. When it’s on TNT I’ll catch it.

  10. Can I bring the family to this? Looks okay and like the Titanic, I know the ending (although it doesn’t sink does it?).

    Noah doesn’t sing right?

    • Well I saw the movie tonight with my husband and 7 and 10 year old which got scared 45min into it and husband had to leave with them. I stayed. I thought it was ok however very disappointed in the fact it was way off biblically. Noah became mean. Not wanting to spoil for others but just left feeling disappointed it came across different.

    • Noah sings. Bring the family? I wouldn’t. Too much violence. And a number of the previews are race-y.

    • You know I was just making a Les Miserables joke but Noah actually sings… is that a clause is Russell Crowe’s contract now.

      Just got back from the theater and it was much darker than expected. The first half is like Lord of the Rings but the rest was so depressing at least 5 people walked out. People say Lone Ranger was bad but no one walked out of that one.

      Not a family movie, the kids kept asking when it was going to end, even I felt like it was dragging on.

      Had I known more about the 2nd half, would not have watched it.

  11. I’m looking forward to seeing this movie.

  12. Believe Me this movie will turn out right

    • What?

  13. I’m not so naive to think that this movie wouldn’t attract some sort of controversy but it still bumbs me out all the same.
    Given the conversation over the film I guess I should say I really have no stake in either side. I just want to see a good movie plain and simple. I’ve been a fan of Aronofsky and am anxious to see his first entry into big-budget movie making and now that I see a excellent review here and good-great reviews from other places I trust I’ll see it this weekend and hope I feel the same.

    Sadly though, with the controversy surrounding it and a marketing campaign that rivals John Carter in how awful it was I can see a so-so box office weekend and then the movie will fade from the conversation.
    Why does that matter?
    Because I think it will be harder for a studio to trust Aronofsky with a budget like this again and for us film nerds that’s just sad. :(

  14. I am a Christian and believe in God. But the way I look at it, everyone always gets worked up over the “facts” of the Bible. Not to say that it didn’t happen. But things could have been interpreted differently over the thousands of years.

    In my view, it’s not the facts that matter, but the overall message/lesson that it tells. Which from Ben’s review, the message of this movie is done well.

    • “But things could have been interpreted differently over the thousands of years.”

      Every cult on earth teaches that.

      Have you read Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell? I’d recommend it.

      There are thousands of ancient manuscripts which prove what we have today is what was written thousands of years ago. The Dead Sea Scrolls alone contain the oldest copy of Isaiah. That book alone is filled with prophecies about the messiah, which Jesus fulfilled.

    • Not to mention lost in translation too. Honestly, I just wish people would take it for what it is. The director never says this is an biography. It’s like all those people freaking out because the “Son of God” actor is good looking. Like, really?

  15. hmmm what to say about Noah, I enjoyed the movie, but see religious groups losing it. It was over acted in a lot of places, Jennifer Connelly mainly, visually it was it was great, story, well if you have been to Sunday school you know the story although a lot of creative license was taken. It does not stack up to the biblical epic of The Ten Commandments nor does it try to, and because I was asked to rate it out of 10 and not out of 5 by a friend I will give it a strong 6 out of 10. I am not sorry I went to see it, but wont go out of my way to see it again or buy it in the future.

  16. It was terrible… religious or not, it was really bad. The Rock monsters were stupid and fallen angels? Like so they are demons…but they helped us?? no no,… they producers were even thinking the rock monsters were stupid so they edited them out of all the trailers.

  17. Eyes rolling here…so the film isn’t “Christian propaganda”? Real subtle. You correctly point out that the story of Noah is believed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but hey, at least, in your eyes, the movie is not “Christian propaganda”.

    Funny, because from what I hear, the plot seems more like it comes from Greenpeace propaganda.

    • Also…”yet, for those with an open mind, Noah supplies an immersive and thought-provoking movie experience”.

      Ah, the most open-minded people I know are religious people, since much of what they believe is based on faith and revelation. It’s unfortunate that you apparently consider people to be “close-minded” if they would prefer a movie consistent and in-keeping with the story of Noah.

      • Agree 100%. I always find it amusing that people of faith are talked down to by those who don’t. It’s always assumed that we have closed minds or are intellectually inferior for believing. It’s a lot like liberals who claim to have the high road when it comes to tolerance and acceptance, yet they’ll try and destroy you when what you believe isn’t in line with what they do. (Chick filet anyone)?

        • That is one of the greatest hypocrisies of many on the far left. They claim to be all-inclusive and open-minded, but the reality is…only if you agree with them. If not, then they belittle, demonize, and stereotype you, making a caricature out of you, and thus, you are no longer a “real” person, worthy of dignity, love, respect, and understanding. It is sad but true, and the ever-growing Christian bashing is just one example of it.

          • Thank you, Jeff. For too long we Christians have been unfairly attacked by the left. You’re absolutely right about liberals trying to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

            • Hold on now. Being very religious, and having strong faith, with political views probably lean more right-wing, my personality and social cues are faaar left; I’m not saying I disagree with you guys, (so as not to fill any stereotypical mold)
              I believe that it’s a ‘human’ thing to attack the beliefs of others. Or better yet a ‘weaker minded’ thing. Because the strongest mindset is the one that is fully content with it’s own belief and it’s own view of what is ‘right.’ We need to be happy with ourselves and not care so much about how others feel.

              • Then again, it is Christian to try to teach others about your beliefs and convince them it’s the truth? Can’t be mad at someone else’s passion.

                • To try to teach others about your beliefs and convince them that they are true is a human thing, not just a Christian thing. People from all faiths, and from no faith at all, have been doing that since the beginning of time.

      • Open minded means accepting other beliefs, Jeff. Therefore, I highly doubt religious people are the most open minded you know.

        I mean I can post a myriad of facts to show how ridiculous your statement is but you already knew that didn’t you?

        • Yes, they are, by far, the most open minded people I know, and I am a better person for knowing them. Sure, you could cite the comments of a few, and attempt to apply those to the majority, but you would just be providing another example, as you have already done in your response, of the ever-growing tendency to belittle, demonize, ridicule, and stereotype all religious people.

        • …and by the way, you define an open-minded person as one who “accepts” another person’s beliefs. Not true. An open-minded person is one who is receptive to hearing ideas and opinions, but they do not have to accept them as being true.

          Now, something tells me that you are not very receptive toward hearing religious people express their opinions, with the stereotypical image of them that you portray.

          • Apparently state my side anymore.

            • Actually, Jeff, you’re just flat out wrong. The very definition of religion is adhering to a certain set of beliefs.


              You can’t adhere to a certain set of beliefs AND be open minded, it’s an oxy moron. Unless you pick choose which part of religions you like, which is another story al together, Jeff.

              Some religions believe that women shouldn’t have rights, that black people are less than human and that gay people are sinners. Well, that’s not “open minded” not in the least.

              I was point out that your statement was factually wrong by definition. I don’t feel like arguing the validity of religions with you.

              • …and again, I assert that your definition of open-minded is incorrect. Open-minded only means that we be open to hearing the beliefs, ideas, and opinions of others, not “accepting” them as being true.

                By the definition that you present, you yourself are not open-minded, because it is clear that you don’t “accept” my beliefs as true.

                • Nice side step, Jeff.

                  You’re still discussing things from my first comment and addressed nothing that I said in my reply. Funny.

                  In my first comment I meant to say accept that their are other beliefs not accept that they are true. So can let go of that one little shred of an argument you have.

                  Ignoring my points in my second post don’t make them any less true.

                  • *there not their.

                  • Oh, MovieB, it is clear that neither one of us is convincing the other. I’ve listened, but I don’t “accept” your argument, and I know you have listened to me, but you don’t “accept” mine, so either we are both close-minded, or perhaps, we just sincerely believe what we believe.

                    Back to the movies.

            • *I can’t* state my side anymore. Pretty lame blocking my comments Screenrant.


              • Let’s agree to disagree … :)

  18. It was an epic. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Logan Lerman’s performance was a breakthrough performance. He did so much with just his eyes, facial expressions and body language. Russell Crowe takes the character to a dark place that raises wonderful theological questions.

    • @major fury – An epic? Did you walk into a different theater? What theological questions did Crowe’s performance raise exactly, because as a long time Christian, I can assure you there were no theological discussions going on in this movie.


      • Paul, I am a Christian as well and I have a masters of divinity and am currently working on my doctorate in justice and Peacebuilding. I saw that because my studies influence the way I interact with movies such as this. The theological questions it raised, for me, is what is just and unjust and the repercussions of injustice. Was God morally just in flooding the earth? Was Noah correct in his interpretation that creation would be better off without humanity? Wonderful questions for me.

        It’s an Aronofsky movie and your response is inline with about 22% of people on this site so it really does depend on the person (my Baptist side here). I am in agreement with Ben’s review and thought Russell Crowe took the character to a dark place, one that anyone would go through after witnessing the death of humanity, many who were children.

        • @major fury – “Was God morally just…” – Um…what? He’s God. He doesn’t have to be morally just or explain Himself to anyone for anything. How do you have a Masters in Divinity and then ask a question like that? I’m not trying to flame bait you but seriously, I don’t understand why you would think that’s a solid theological question Noah brings up.


          • I caught that, too. So can the clay critique the potter/sculptor? No, although in our arrogance and ignorance, we often do.

          • Paul, you’ve answered my question with, what from I can gather via tone, an answer that suggests God is beyond question. In the story of Noah, which is a biblical midrash, the question is raised if God is morally just in flooding the earth. From the midrash perspective God is justified in killing off humanity and all living creatures except for those on the ark. To counter such answer is to ask what kind of god would kill innocent children, which God does by flooding the earth. It’s a honest question regarding theodicy.

            If one is only faithful by not questioning God or God’s decision then that’s not faithfulness. I believe God is big enough to handle my questions and in the end I remember what was said to Job, “Where were you when I created the world…”

            • @major fury – Fair enough. I just happen to believe He’s big enough to not question him…if that makes sense? I’m not some rebellious teenager questioning authority in a punk rock kind of way. That’s not to say I haven’t questioned God’s decisions in my life. I lost my best friend to a careless driver 3 years ago – it’s something I still struggle with as a Christian.


          • “I don’t understand why you would think that’s a solid theological question Noah brings up.”

            You’re not someone who is much in the business of thinking for yourself, are you?

            • @nottoberudebut – Let me guess – you think for yourself which is why you believe the same thing as millions of other atheists?

              Don’t insult me again please. I’m all for discussion (even heated) but insults (even backhanded ones) will end a conversation fast. Be better than that.


    • I think major fury meant “epic fail”.

      The morning after, I’m disliking the movie even more. It has nothing to do with religious undertones or lack thereof, it was just bad.

      I agree with what Chris Fawkes posted above, it couldn’t make up its mind what kind of movie it wanted to be. I can appreciate the struggle that Noah had having to make the decisions he did, but the 2nd half was heavy handed and forced.

      I think it would have played better if he had the same kind of regret that Liam Neeson’s Schindler did. Heck, the movie would have been better if it had the same kind of tone as Schindler’s List.

  19. Way back before there was a written “offical” version of Noah. The story was told by story tellers. Each story teller told his version of it. Leaving out things and adding things to try and make his version as exciting and inspiring as possible. No one objected. After all it wasn’t like an eye witness was going to jump up and say “That’s not how it happened!” So I think we can give the director a little leeway in his telling of the tale. As long as there’s an Ark, Noah and a flood the rest is up to artistic license.

  20. I, for one, was really disappointed in this film. It’s one thing to stray away from the source material, but this version went too far in too many ways. For the characters of Noah and his family to be so extremely different from the original version was just so hard to swallow. I am an action film fan, but even with the end of human kind in the balance, I won’t recommend this film to friends and family.

    • I agree. Thumbs down on this movie for misrepresenting God and the account of the flood.

  21. Four out of five stars for a movie that doesn’t even remotely resemble the scriptures it was hijacked from in order to serve as a vehicle for Hollywood hedonists & their environmentalist “go green” propaganda BS?!??
    Congratulations Screen Rant. Your Hollywood sycophancy has completely cost you any credibility you might like to imagine you have.

    • FOX NEWS!!!!



      • Perhaps rather than belittle it, you should watch it. You might learn some things that aren’t reported on the “mainstream” networks, and certainly not on MSNBC.

      • Meanwhile…

        James Earl Jones: This, is CNN.

        Wolf: The search for Malaysian Flight 370 continues, tonight, we delve into out investigation of the investigation of last night’s investigation.

    • @Chad – Ben reviewed the movie based on how HE felt about viewing it…not how OTHERS would view it. I happen to not agree with his opinion on the movie (we discussed it last night in fact) and I was even championing other Christians to go see it BEFORE I had watched it (something I’ve changed my mind on after seeing the film.)

      Not every person on this site is going to feel the same way about every film (just ask me what I thought about Sharknado :D) and you’re not to going to agree with every person who reviews a film on this site. I don’t think the judgmental attitude is warranted.


      • Paul, during your discussion with Ben, I hope you expressed concern with his use of the term “Christian propaganda”. Frankly, I found it entirely inappropriate, as the story of Noah is not just a Christian story, and those who believe in it do not consider it “propaganda”. Substitute a race for the word Christian, and most would probably think the phrase offensive. I’m not suggesting that he be censored…just think a little more before penning something.

        • @Jeff – Not only is Ben’s dad is a minister (so he fully understands the subject matter) but he’s one of the most un-offending people I know, so promise you he meant no offense.


          • Good to know, as that was not the impression I got after reading the review. I obviously jumped to a conclusion, and for that, I apologize. Still, though, I find the phrase inappropriate, for the reasons detailed, and I just mean it to be constructive criticism. Otherwise, I always enjoy reading the articles and reviews.

            Keep up the good work. :)

  22. I can say with complete objectivity “NOAH” IS A DISASTER.

    Warning: Warning: DO NOT take anyone to see this movie who has a heart condition, mental condition or is just plain normal. The movie is so “dark” and “nightmarish” it will cause one to shake at the end. This movie is “THE WORST” movie I have EVER seen.

    If “Ar-Enuff-sky” read the biblical account of Noah totaling approximately four paragraphs, he must be completely illiterate or just plain egocentric. Here are a few movie highlights:

    - “Transformer” type characters posing as fallen angels build the ark;
    - Noah is portrayed as a psychotic, homicidal, fundamentalist creep;
    - There is no joy in this movie; just a lot of screaming, blood, and blasphemy;
    - The 3 sons are not married upon entering the ark;
    - Methuselah performs acts of wizardry making a barren woman fertile;
    - Noah schemes to kill twin daughters of Shem;
    - The ark has many entrances and TubalCain makes a hole in the side which remains unrepaired.
    - The animals “storm” the ark for entry as if they declared war; then they are promptly put to sleep by magic incense;
    - there is no communication between God and Noah in this movie; reference to God is “The Creator”;
    - Noah separates from his wife due to an inability to mentally deal with the flood;
    - Ham wanders off by himself without a wife.
    - Japheth is portrayed as approximately 12-13 years old when the ark rests and is unmarried.
    - Shem and his wife/girlfriend attempt to escape from the ark in a rustic designed pontoon until Noah sets it afire.

    This movie is not a telling of the biblical account. This movie is not an interpretation. This movie is a nightmare. Art imitates life – this is NO imitation!

    • Your completely entitled to your opinion. Though Maybe next time before posting said opinion you could at least state that your posting SPOILERS of the movie…

    • Yep totally. Noah was terrible. I mean what the heck with the watchers and it was so gross
      And unreall

  23. I was looking for my review, but I see that I actually posted it in on a review for a trailer of the movie, and not the actual movie. I think, because I saw it yesterday, and not today, I don’t think that the movie review page was properly set up yet.

    Anyway, please bear with me while I cut and paste, because I did see the actual movie, yesterday, not just the trailer. Also, seeing the other posts here, especially Mary’s, I see that “I am not alone” in how I saw it:

    Grumpy old man and his vegan family, with the kind and able assistance of Godzilla and the Smog Monster, ride BattleStar Galactic to a new land.

    I got bored after the middle of the movie and started to fall asleep. I kept waiting for it to get better but it never really did. It just got tedious.

    Afterwords, I ducked into a screening of Divergent, which some might think formulaic, but which I thought had better lines and delivery.

    I didn’t find anything really wrong with Noah. It’s an okay story. I just found it rather tedious and drawn out. Maybe it would have been better as a TV mini-series. Also, the dark colors and music was depressing during the whole movie and never really lightened up. Also, the ending was kind of flat. I thought that the ending seemed to be missing something.

  24. Let the religious rant begins!
    Btw, I haven’t seen it. I’ll just wait for it on cable.

  25. Noah was such a waste of time. Story line was boring and unrealistic. Transformers meets Lord of the rings. I felt like it was too science fiction and Russell crowe’s character was so disappointing. His worst role ever.

  26. Couldn’t agree more. They should have named it something other than Noah. It wasn’t about his story at all.

  27. We have just returned from the opening night of NOAH in Ventura, CA. Russell Crowe is one of our most favorite actors, but not in this movie. For the most part, the acting was poor, the whole set was visually very phony and fake, the writing was off the mark. We knew all the animals were animated, but this was bad. And “the watchers” were a joke. Sorry, but if this is what is bringing people to the movie theaters, then our society is going down the wrong path.

    • Yes…we’ve been going down the wrong path for a long, long time now. The pace just seems to be quickening as of late.

  28. Yep. You’re absolutely right. I walked out. It was so far from reality, so far from the Bible account, and so violent.

    • It’s a story about the near-extinction of man (who was seen as irredeemable by God due to their rape, murder, and debauchery) through a massive flood which destroyed all life not inside the ark, and you think it shouldn’t be violent?

      • Not to mention the high death count in the Bible and extreme violence that would make the book an R rated offering at the very least.

        These crazy people and their ridiculous double standards.

      • It’s a film peeps, not the bible text, enjoy it that way and believe its not for evangelism but entertainment

  29. I’m going to watch Noah because it looks like an interesting movie.