|
Supreme Allah posted:So what actually are they. ................... Angels? ............. Yes, they're angels. The movie specifically says they are angels who came to Earth against the "Creator's" wishes and so he locked them into stone bodies as punishment.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Yes, they're angels. The movie specifically says they are angels who came to Earth against the "Creator's" wishes and so he locked them into stone bodies as punishment. And Biblically, the Watchers were angels who came to Earth and had offspring, Nephilim, or giants, with human women.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I did really like the sequence the Angels hitting the earth as meteors and then becoming snared in molten rock. A think a lot of different parts of this film were great, I just felt like they were pulling in different directions and it got in the way of my enjoyment of the film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Man I thought the whole semi-stop motion looking Watchers were great. Really Harryhausen-ish, with designs that are thematically relevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Man I thought the whole semi-stop motion looking Watchers were great. Really Harryhausen-ish, with designs that are thematically relevant. They were really cool looking for sure, but felt out of place. madeupfred fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Mar 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Well, I have to admit I was rather disappointed that the movie didn't turn out quite as amazingly insane as it was made out to be from those leaks a few months ago (Where's the invasion force taking over the Ark and Noah killing them off slasher movie-style with raptors, dammit?!  ), but what we did get I quite enjoyed nevertheless. The ending seemed a bit underwhelming (the whole arc with Ham in particular felt distinctly unresolved), but other than that, it was definitely nice to see a fresh take on an old myth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
It was kind of weird how the section before the flood could be described as post apocalyptic. Noah and his family wandering around a ruined wasteland with roving bands of killers. Something I found goofy about the movie was how Noah aged but Jennifer Connelly'a Naameh didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
I loved how Ham was told that he was now A Man after murdering his enemy and almost immediately sprouts the beginning of a mustache/beard in the following scene after being perfectly smooth beforehand.muscles like this? posted:It was kind of weird how the section before the flood could be described as post apocalyptic. Noah and his family wandering around a ruined wasteland with roving bands of killers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Re: Ham's arc: Was his kinda semi unresolved arc a nod to the way we really don't know if he saw his dad's junk or slept with his mom or whatever? Biblical history is unclear on this point, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
I feel the same as others in that overall I was kind of bored by it. It was visually stunning; I can't deny that. But it just seemed to plod along. There were things I liked and things I didn't like, but neither to the extreme that they outweighed the other; so it just felt sort of meh. So I haven't picked up a bible since early high school years and I have very little recollection of it's contents besides the well known stuff; but were the watchers a real thing according to bible tales? Not in this form of course, but were there supposedly angels that came to Earth to help man and were somehow punished for it? Or is that completely from Aranofsky's own mind? Also; wow that was the quickest child birth ever! "My water broke! *2 minutes pass* twins!" I mean I know they were pushed for time and all, but of all the crazy biblical poo poo that was going on that was the one part that had me sitting there going "oh...ok, guess we just gotta accept that and move on". I did find the part where both of Noah's sons and Ray Winstone were all trying to kill him at once. It made a few people around my giggle too. That was one part I felt just had a different feel than a lot of other scenes and felt almost unintentionally comical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
thepokey posted:I feel the same as others in that overall I was kind of bored by it. It was visually stunning; I can't deny that. But it just seemed to plod along. There were things I liked and things I didn't like, but neither to the extreme that they outweighed the other; so it just felt sort of meh. The Watchers are fairly biblically (well, apocryphally) accurate. They were angels sent to Earth to watch over man, but they "fell" by having children with men, who were Nephilim, or giants. Some of these Watchers then did give various technologies to mankind. And according to the Book of Enoch, the purpose of the flood was to purge the Earth of the Nephilim, because they were abominations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
I loved this movie; it was gorgeous and Aronofsky isn't gonna make any friends amongst the Bible set: - Suicide bomber Angels, wherein there's even a beat where after the first one blows up, another goes, "The creator is bringing him home." - It has as environmentalist a message as it gets, basically. Noah and his sons see an animal that had been speared by some dudes, Noah brutally murders the guys who killed the animal, and it cuts to Noah giving a pyre to the animal - The bad guys of the movie are basically ~Industrialization and Hubris~ personified. Plus, I don't know scripture very well, but it sounded like a lot of Winstone's lines were straight from the Bible. It also can't be said enough how loving weird your Passion of the Christ moviegoer will find this movie. Good poo poo, Aronofsky
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Spoiler free. Here is my one word review of this movie: Wow. Here is my slightly longer review. I am an atheist who had a religious upbringing. This movie was not even remotely religious propaganda and not aimed to try to make people believers. What it did do is portray one of the oldest stories in our culture in an enthralling and dramatic fashion. I enjoyed this movie immensely. It told a story and it told it incredibly well. I would strongly recommend you see this movie if you are on the fence. The bit if me that was once a believer *loves* how they portrayed Noah. The Torah does not on the whole have prophets who were perfect. They were flawed. They made mistakes. They struggled. I think this may be the most accurate portrayal of any of the Big Hitters from the Torah that I have ever seen. Noah is far, far from perfect but it was brilliant. I can see why this movie is going to truly piss off some believers and why others will love it. Go see this movie. Diogines fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Personally, I thought they played it way too safe with the ending. As soon as they all step off the boat the movie suddenly turns onto the Sunday school version of the story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
There isn't much to say that hasn't been said already, but I agree that it was boring. I don't understand the universal praise it has received. I didn't like the part in the boat that was the standard "women gently caress everything up and the MAN has to deal with it!" plot. I did appreciate the conversation at the end when Hermione validated Noah by interpreting the word of god to mean whatever suited her best, but I'm not sure if religious people will see it that way. My favorite scene was when Noah got Ham as the storm was starting (edit: being purposefully vague with this for any stupid people who haven't seen the movie yet and are still reading spoilers). the truth fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Just got back from the film. I'm not really into Aronofsky or the source material, but I liked this movie a lot. Especially Gandalf Methuselah and space alien Adam and Eve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Sort of a disappointment. Turns out when you take the Old Testament and strip the religiousness from it, you're left with a mediocre fantasy story with a lot of deus ex machina (heh). Fantastic visuals at times, but the other parts of the movie just weren't enough to carry that. I do wonder if this was the censored version of the movie especially considering the bland safe ending. The scene where Noah goes to get wives from the hellish Cain-line camp and the quick shot where people are desperately clinging on to rocks as the flood rises around them were good and made me want a movie adaptation of Stephen Baxter's Flood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Just got home from seeing it, and I honestly can't remember the last time I was so bored during a movie. It wasn't bad, it wasn't good, it was just plodding and uninteresting. There were some nice visuals on occasion and the production was well done (except for the animal CGI which inexplicably looking like some Discovery Channel documentary stuff) but I never once gave a poo poo about any of the characters or what was happening to them. This is a pity. Aronofskys movie are anything but boring (usually). I hope we're not losing him to mediocrity
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Just got home from seeing it, and I honestly can't remember the last time I was so bored during a movie. It wasn't bad, it wasn't good, it was just plodding and uninteresting. There were some nice visuals on occasion and the production was well done (except for the animal CGI which inexplicably looking like some Discovery Channel documentary stuff) but I never once gave a poo poo about any of the characters or what was happening to them. 100% right and God Isn't Dead is hilariously a much edgier and more controversial movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
I saw this because I couldn't think of anything else to see on my birthday. I'm not religious but thought it was well done and fairly compelling. Loved the silhouette scenes. The people clinging to the last mountain had to be one of the more horrifying depictions of what happened to the drowning people during the flood, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Just got back from the movie and I thought it was pretty good. Judging from some people's reactions, they were disappointed that the movie wasn't like how the spoilers said which is what happens when you follow a film's production so closely. I liked the way it depicted the horrors of the flood and the horrors of the camp. I also liked the movie doesn't explicitly say that it's a post apocalyptic world. Noah's sons seemed like assholes but that might be because I don't like their faces. I'm surprised most people aren't commenting on how much repopulating the earth involved inbreeding. I mean if god doesn't want any people to be hosed up then he probably shouldn't be going down that route.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:I'm surprised most people aren't commenting on how much repopulating the earth involved inbreeding. I mean if god doesn't want any people to be hosed up then he probably shouldn't be going down that route. Outside the hardest of science fiction stories, writers tend to disregard the whole 160-or-so numbers needed for a stable population.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Saw this today, and while it was pretty standard (for a Darren Aronofsky film, at least), there were some weird things that I'm still trying to wrap my head around, like giant rock creatures that are actually fallen angels encased in rock straightjackets who help Noah build the ark and gently caress up most of the dudes who try to board it right as the flood's beginning, Noah telling the Genesis story to his kids and when he gets to the part about Cain killing Abel, the montage that plays showing silhouette images of generations fighting each other, from Cain and Abel all the way to present military with a silhouette of a soldier in modern military uniform with an assault rifle in hand, Adam and Eve glowing yellow like supernatural beings, etc. I'm honestly still not sure if I liked it or not yet, but it was definitely interesting. It's probably Darren Aronofsky's most accessible movie to date and not nearly as weird as most of his others, but it was still weird and I wasn't bored during any part of it. I've never seen the Noah's Ark story play out like that and I probably never will again. His was a pretty...uhhh....unique adaptation of it. Improbable Lobster posted:I saw this because I couldn't think of anything else to see on my birthday. I'm not religious but thought it was well done and fairly compelling. Loved the silhouette scenes. The people clinging to the last mountain had to be one of the more horrifying depictions of what happened to the drowning people during the flood, for sure. Yeah that and the girl Ham tried to take aboard the ark with him getting trampled by an army of people trying to get to the ark because Noah said he had to leave her there were pretty drat unsettling. Rageaholic fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
It was also kind of disturbing how everyone acted like it was okay for Ham and Japeth to marry their nieces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:It was also kind of disturbing how everyone acted like it was okay for Ham and Japeth to marry their nieces. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Yeah, Ham walked off and left his family at the end in search of......something, but what exactly? He was on the only known land in existence after God had just loving destroyed the entire earth and I know he wanted a wife but the only options he would have at that point were family members. So either he was going to die alone somewhere having never reproduced or he was going to marry someone he was related to in some way and partake in some inbreeding. And Japeth would have to do the same if he ever wanted kids. That's a hell of a way to start off the new world! This is a world where everyone and everything is explicitly the descendants of one pair. Inbreeding is probably not involved. Ham will probably find a new wife wherever Cain and Seth found theirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Having went in to the movie blind, I gotta say it was absolutely loving bonkers in a good way. I loved the "universe" the world took place in, I really got Atlantis vibes from all the technology of pre-flood Man, with their pipes, hand cannons, and wind-powered mining rigs. The movie seems to take place beside time; it's neither in the past, present, or future, it just exists in its own timeframe. Also, God was never said once in the movie, it was always the "creator", which I thought was interesting. Where were the dinosaurs though, huh? The creation museum clearly says Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:Having went in to the movie blind, I gotta say it was absolutely loving bonkers in a good way. I loved the "universe" the world took place in, I really got Atlantis vibes from all the technology of pre-flood Man, with their pipes, hand cannons, and wind-powered mining rigs. The movie seems to take place beside time; it's neither in the past, present, or future, it just exists in its own timeframe. Also, God was never said once in the movie, it was always the "creator", which I thought was interesting.  I probably would've enjoyed the movie a lot more had Noah brought all kinds of dinosaurs to repopulate the new world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
I saw it tonight, and really enjoyed it, although it was certainly flawed and somewhat uneven. There were people sitting behind us in the theater who were talking about it afterward and seemed to think it was a literal retelling of the biblical story, saying things like "was there really a stowaway on the ark?" It was hilarious, and I imagine it's going to be very common for people to completely misunderstand the film in that way. It's set up pretty early on that this is a fantasy film inspired by a biblical story, but I guess you never can tell with people... My only real issues with it stemmed from Ray Winstone's character. The scene when he rallied his troops to go and take the ark seemed a little overdone and like it was trying a bit too hard to be EPIC, but the scene following that with the Watchers defending the ark while the storm raged was pretty loving awesome, so it balanced out. All of Noah's visions were amazing, as well as the scene after he plants the seed and ten years passes, and the entire "story of creation" sequence. Some absolutely gorgeous and inspiring imagery in this film, as is to be expected from Aronofsky. Really got some The Fountain vibes during the creation sequence as well. Though the ending was fairly "safe", and it easily could have gone much darker (and I kinda wish it had), I was happy with it, and while it certainly isn't my favorite Aronofsky film, I thought it was well worth the ticket cost, and I'll likely be thinking about it for some time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
The movie was a Judaic Midrash interpretation of the Noah story and mythology with a Christian Existentialist ending more than anything. My mother a evangelical Christian was not offended in the least by the film so I doubt many others will be, although she's more open minded than the average fundy. The final act and Noah's Insanity serves as nothing but a additional symbolic piece of storytelling that attempts to display and reflect how difficult it was for Noah to let all of humanity die and reflect and project his inner feelings onto the audience, it also functioned as a foreshadowing to the binding of Isaac. In fact that entire idea draws heavily from midrash interpretations of the binding of Isaac where many have argued Abraham mislead himself into believing God required the sacrifice of Isaac. With all the moaning heard in conservative circles there was very little if any environmentalism going on. Humanity is shown to have plundered the earth for resources but it's not preachy about it in anyway. Hell that having much to do with their punishment isn't even mentioned. There's more mention of their eating of meat. Which actually is completely consistent with midrash interpretation of the history as well. Honestly I kind of feel that Aranofsky made the wrong movie here. Everything here points this to being a more interesting Abraham film than a Noah movie. I think the Abraham story would of fit better with the actors and provided more time for character development, which there is very little of outside of Noah himself in this film. His cerebral take on right and wrong and how Noah handles it definitely would have fit just as well in the Sodom/Gamorrah episode and I know doubt that would ever happen but it would be awesome I would love to see this exact same cast doing the Abraham story instead of the Noah one. Would be really quite interesting, and the story lends itself in a way better to Aranofskys styles. Not to say this film is bad. It's probably the best religious film to be released in quite a while and blends cross religious interpretations into a serviceable story that everyone can take something from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
I absolutely loved this film and the way people are calling it boring and predicatable is exactly how I felt about Black Swan - there wasn't a moment in that film that was surprising that you didn't expect from the trailer. Like someone else in the thread said, I think the legacy of this is going to be more like The Fountain (although it will do better box office) and I think most people who liked that film will like this, and most who hated it won't. I think there is enough that non-religious people will find something to enjoy about the film, but it's quite respectful if you are religious.The stop-motion rock monsters, the silhouette imagery, the montages including especially the "evolution" montage were totally really cool and I'm glad to see things like that in a mainstream Hollywood movie, religious epic or no. edit: For me what I really took away from the film was the strong environmental message. Also I don't need to look it up to tell from this movie that Aronofsky is 100% a vegetarian BOAT SHOWBOAT fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
I'm happy to see the comparisons to The Fountain, as it's hands down my favorite movie. This completely slipped by my radar for some reason, and I'll be seeing it tonight. Love me some Aronofsky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Re: Ham's arc: I thought Ham was by far the best of Noah's kids and his arc made complete sense to me. Also his death is loving brutal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:I thought Ham was by far the best of Noah's kids and his arc made complete sense to me. Also his death is loving brutal. But He doesn't die in the movie?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
The Onion reviews Noah
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
http://grantland.com/features/noah-cesar-chavez-russell-crowe/quote:Aronofsky might be the greatest American director never to direct a great movie. You can always feel him trying, though. He’s going for greatness almost every time, and every time it wipes you out. You can feel him straining to carry the weight he’s put on himself. Sometimes the suspense comes from whether he’s thrown out his back. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
I guess I didn't think much of this, but I will say that the VFX on the Watchers really really impressed me. I loved their stop motion-y movement set, I loved that their mouths weren't articulated when speaking, and I loved their creepy flashlight eyes. Gave me a strong Neverending Story feel. I don't know if it was all CGI but if so I'm really impressed by how tactile and bizarre they looked. I also loved Ray Winstone's performance. He's always great but Aronofsky really gives him space to do something memorable here. Bugblatter posted:I saw this last week and liked it a lot. It's visually dazzling and has one of the most gorgeous visual effects sequences I've seen in years in the last act. It's also pretty drat grimm. That isn't really surprising to those of us who know Aronofsky or can imagine what the story of Noah taken to its logical conclusion would look like, but it will certainly surprise audiences who go in based on the trailers. It's pretty amazing that such normal looking and "inspiring" trailers were crafted from this strange, dark film. Do you know how they got that shot near the end where Noah's climbing multiple ladders and we follow him up and across a platform? That seemed like an unusual shot to my layman's eye. Lt. Shiny-sides posted:I agree. I really wanted to like this movie but it didn't do it for me. It could be that I was expecting a different movie than what I got, but it felt like some amazing scenes followed by tedium for long stretches. The opening was atrocious, a classic example of telling when it should be showing. There was a profile of Aronofsky in the New Yorker a couple weeks ago and it mentions that he put that in at the urging of Fincher. He wasn't thrilled by the idea for the reason you mention but admitted to its utility since the film introduces a lot of extra-biblical stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing it (it is Sunday, after all  ) and overall, I have to say I liked it very much. It's a Biblical spectacle movie in the vein of yesteryear attempts, when Hollywood turned to the bible for juicy inspiration and ways to release movies with more sex and violence than would otherwise be allowable (The Ten Commandments, King of Kings, The Sign of the Cross... Heck, I doubt Ben Hur would've gotten away with half the stuff it did if it didn't remind us periodically that "Hey, Jesus is in this movie!"), and the spectacle certainly delivers: Six armed angels falling to earth and becoming rock monsters, Noah telling the story of creation, the battle in the rain and the subsequent shots... Darren Aronofsky, if nothing else, knows visuals, and he's still got it in terms of creating visceral, haunting images that stay with you. I also admired that he was willing to go as far as he did in examining the God-prophet dynamic and how it would look to other people. And while I concede that a Sunshine-like ending in which Noah murders his family would be an original way to interpret this story, it would have been too much of a break from both the Biblical text and the rest of the story. (Besides, I personally feel that it was enough that Noah was tempted to do it and almost did, but balked; in addition to the allusion to the Binding of Isaac, it was just enough that his family (and the audience) questioned the sanity of Noah and broke their trust in him as an all knowing father figure.But yes, liked it, and looking forward to the fundie reaction (especially since some elements, Tubal-Cain's character in particular, seemed to be anti-fundamentalism...)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Requiem for a Dream doesn't qualify as a "great" movie anymore? Actually I'd say it's my least favourite Aronofsky, but i do think Pi should basically be canon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:http://grantland.com/features/noah-cesar-chavez-russell-crowe/ Requiem for a Dream was to drugs (or addiction, if you want to believe Aronofsky's claim that it's not specifically about drugs even though all of the examples of addiction in the movie are drug use) what Crash was to racism: hamfisted melodrama with the subtlety of a brick to the face. I don't get the love for Requiem for a Dream in a world where Trainspotting exists. About the only thing I think could be argued Requiem did better is visuals, but Trainspotting has some awesome visuals too. The main theme was pretty great, I guess. I do think it's silly to say Aronofsky has never directed a great movie, though. The Wrestler is pretty close to perfect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 20:04
|
|
