Plots(1)

The film tells the story of Noah (Russell Crowe), the last of the pre-flood Patriarchs. Considered a madman by many, Noah has visions of an apocalyptic flood that will wash over the earth and wipe out the sinful from existence. Instructed by these visions to build a vessel that will enable Noah, his family and two of every living creature to live through the deluge and begin the planet's repopulation, he begins construction on an ark. However, his project attracts the attention of his nemesis Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) and his followers who threaten Noah's family and the ongoing construction of the vessel. (Paramount Home Entertainment)

(more)

Videos (29)

Trailer 1

Reviews (13)

DaViD´82 

all reviews of this user

English The Tolkeinite inside me is surprised to find where the Hobbits disappeared to when Isengard was flooded. The believer inside me is incensed over disrespect to the Word of our Lord and the unbeliever in me just shakes his head in disbelief over that really current “love Gaia" message... In any case, the movie has its own style and is interesting in the best meaning of the word; however much incongruous and slightly (really) slap-dash. Two thirds is a post apocalyptic vegan version of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers which perilously frequently topples on the brink unintentional ludicrousness, but doesn’t fall over it, thanks mainly to the charisma of Russell Crowe. The last third, however, suddenly becomes a heavy, existential intimate psycho-thriller with classic (although unfaithful to the Book) Old Testament dilemmas. And that is utterly outstanding. It just doesn’t have any connection with the preceding catastrophic epic fantasy. ()

Kaka 

all reviews of this user

English A tangle of something philosophical, wrapped in an attractive, visually polished package. Visually graceful and phenomenal in terms of special effecsts, with hard-hitting contact action (thanks to the great Libatique), and plenty of interesting scenes both aesthetically and emotionally. But overall, a strangely conceived biblical story that alternates between pure epicness (panoramas, music, battles) and gloomy melodrama (the ark, relationships, social issues). It works well separately, but when it comes to intertwining the two, it's not as successful. Additionally, Aronofsky in some scenes gets too psychedelic again and unnecessarily gets carried away by his own fantasy, which incredibly irritates me in all of his films, it gives me a headache. I only felt a message or some kind locally, rather than iconically. ()

Ads

D.Moore 

all reviews of this user

English I liked the comic book (by the same authors as the script) better mainly because the world in which the story takes place is much more interesting - it's actually a classic post-apocalyptic landscape with remnants of various cities, factories, machine wrecks and so on. The film was left with only hints, not even Tower of Babel made it into the film, and I wonder what led Aronofsky and Handel to deviate so far from their own original work in the adaptation. Otherwise, though, Noah isn't downright bad, although for me Darren Aronofsky remains the director of a single outstanding film (yes, The Fountain). Russell Crowe's fanatical position was very convenient. ()

POMO 

all reviews of this user

English Noah is a historical epic without a clear target audience, combining pop elements from family fantasy movies with depressing psychological scenes in which the blade of a knife hovers above a toddler’s head. Ugh. It is visually beautiful with incredibly contradictory content. It’s been a long time since I saw film that I so much don’t want to see again. ()

3DD!3 

all reviews of this user

English The crossover to feature film was a success. Aronofsky relishes in mirroring today’s humanity with the descendants of Cain. Dream sequences and trippy tales from the first chapters of the Bible, maintains the same fascinating effectivity that glues the viewer’s your dry eyes to the screen. Russell is excellent, his acting hasn’t been that good for a long time and he handled the work that his Noah has to perform with flying colors. The purpose of building the Ark is a little bit different here, almost turning the picture into a thriller toward the end and giving it a depressing aura only dispersed by Watson at the end. Lots of people fault Darren for selling out to Hollywood, but I can’t sincerely imagine that anyone else would have filmed a better Noah. Or that it wouldn’t have been so distinctive. I have nothing to fault (maybe Noah’s shaved nut, that was a bit extreme). Too little controversy? Not shocking enough? Too biblical? For God’s sake... You’re saying I don’t I have to do it?! ()

Gallery (274)