Noah

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The only thing I am curious about seeing is the giant rock monsters that help him build the thing... I don't want to ever rent this or anything but I would like to see what they did for that
 
I don't think I'd want to see a exact telling of the Old Testament movie. A lot of people only know the watered down versions. The real take on it would be hard to take at times, I would think.
 
Eh, it's was a decent movie. Didn't know Noah was a warrior that got to bang Jennifer Connelly and had Fallen Angles him him build and defend the Ark. It was a interesting take. I thought Crowe did a good job. Played a Noah with a huge burden on his shoulders well. Sucked when Ham's chick get run over. CGI was good in some areas like the Watchers and terrible in others like the twins. :lol

Nothing I would ever both seeing again. Even if it was one hundred percent faithful to the story book.
 
This movie sounds awful. I just was reading about all of the weird things in the storyline. Fallen angel rock monsters... :lol :slap
 
Fallen angel rock monsters...
I've gotta say, that's the first thing that makes me even consider seeing this movie. Do they look like the guy from NeverEnding Story?

g5c99f4f9.jpg
 
funny, we were speculating if the "giants" made it on the big screen or omitted when celticp was still here. so, they became rock thingies in the movie. nobody complained, well handled action sequence? :lol
 
the graphic novel you mean?
Noah-Fighting-Watcher-Russel-Crowe-Aronofsky-Film-e1359229778664.jpg

They look nothing like this. They are malformed, and just barely resemble anything we would describe as humanoid. The reason for their look and existence, is very well explained in the film. That thing looks normal and symmetrical, the ones in the film look very deformed. It seemed at least to me, that movement for them was kind of difficult. They seemed to move with a limp or awkward gait.
 
This is getting attention because this is the first "re-imagining" of a Bible Tale. Understandably so because of the criticism it would get for "lack of authenticity" and "changing the facts", but you have to look at it this way: MOST OF HISTORY'S TALES HAVE BEEN "RE-IMAGINED" IN FILM, POEMS, NOVELS, ETC.

Case in point is "300" and its pre-sequel "300:Rise of an Empire" which embellishes the FACTS (characters, battles, society, etc.) of the Greco-Persian Wars. I could go on and name others: Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator, Braveheart, Dozens of WW2 movies, As long as you understand you're seeing an embellishment, that's fine. The studio is not marketing this film as the truth and most of the footage shown on TV sells that the movie dives into A LOT of fiction surrounding the Flood Events.

At the end of the day, Controversy creates Cash and I see that supporters of only "true bible movies" are going to drive more movie-goers to see what all the attention is about.

:goodpost: Aronofsky's take has always been just his own take on the characters. He never said otherwise. People are taking it way to serious. Just like Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' was a comedic take on Bible stories as well, Aronofsky's is just a fictional fantasy/sci-fi tale based on the story of Noah which he first produced it as a graphic novel. Thats all. Nothing else.

Yes, just like 300 or Gladiator was based on things from those periods as well. Besides not every person in the world believes the story of Noah or follows the same religions. There are so many different religions in this world. People believe in different things, some follow religions, others don't. Aronofsky grew up Jewish, he said he always was interested in the story of Noah. So he created something of his own just like 300, Gladiator, Braveheart, etc etc....its just a story and I think it was pretty creative and beautifully made. Im glad the comic is now available in English, just ordered it. My French version is tough to read :lol
 
:goodpost: Aronofsky's take has always been just his own take on the characters. He never said otherwise. People are taking it way to serious. Just like Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' was a comedic take on Bible stories as well, Aronofsky's is just a fictional fantasy/sci-fi tale based on the story of Noah which he first produced it as a graphic novel. Thats all. Nothing else.

Yes, just like 300 or Gladiator was based on things from those periods as well. Besides not every person in the world believes the story of Noah or follows the same religions. There are so many different religions in this world. People believe in different things, some follow religions, others don't. Aronofsky grew up Jewish, he said he always was interested in the story of Noah. So he created something of his own just like 300, Gladiator, Braveheart, etc etc....its just a story and I think it was pretty creative and beautifully made. Im glad the comic is now available in English, just ordered it. My French version is tough to read :lol

:goodpost: It's a beautiful film IMO. I felt for Noah, especially the choice he had to make whether to let humanity die off or let it continue.
When Noah had to make the decision to kill his grand daughters was heart wrenching for me. Crowe was magnificent portraying the inner conflict he faced. Feel weird putting this in spoiler tags because we all know the eventual outcome but still it's a big moment in the film.

The comic book is a great companion piece to the film and actually has a lot about it that is different. I like that the animals did not help Noah in the film version attempt to kill his grand daughters as that kind of makes them no longer innocent and also hints that God wanted mankind to die off and Noah then failed in his task given to him. That's the way I read it anyway. The film makes it a more optimistic ending. I wonder if that was Aronofsky's decision or the studios?
 
Back
Top