Off Topic Messages

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:16 pm

keninlincs wrote:i am looking forward to seeing this and deciding for myself whether i like it



Im looking forward to seeing it too ken !!!

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:23 pm

rocknroller wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:I confess that I have not seen Noah, and am not likely to. However, the more clips I see of it on TV the more (a) I think it looks like a spoof, and (b) I think CGI has turned film so that it starts to look like a computer game.


You should really see a film before openly condemning it.


I have seen the clips I am talking about, and can pass judgement on the elements I discuss above based on that. As a man who judges Steve Allen on one hour of his TV show, I don't think you have room to talk.



Your wrong you can't pass judgement on a 3 hour movie if you have only seen a 3 min trailer :shock: you need to see the movie then if you don't like it then fair enough !!!


Exactly.

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:05 pm

But he didn't say that the movie is a spoof. He is saying that as more clips he sees he "thinks".

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:57 am

Noah is certainly an ambitious movie, but it's very, very flawed and has been conceived with a mind to create a spectacular cautionary tale that brings elements of myth, fantasy and science fiction to the Old Testament. The story of Noah is certainly robust enough for the kind of movie Darren Aronofsky wanted to make, especially when aiming to highlight the ecological message present in the tale of Noah and his ark, and how this remains significant today. Naturally, the territory here is that of broad allegory and the kind of metaphor that's rich throughout the Bible and present across a diversity of cultures in which stories of great floods have endured. Here, Aronofsky has fashioned a screenplay that pays no heed to the Sunday school notions of Noah, but extracts the most potent aspects of his life from scripture whilst creating a world of possibilities and imagination that's bold, audacious and perhaps too ambitious to work. Or at least convince. Especially when Noah inhabits a world that feels just too familiar and akin to that of Middle Earth than something uniquely Aronofsky's. Which is surprising, because he's one of the most visionary directors working today and remains an original who is able to work within genre whilst pushing boundaries at the same time. In Noah, all the ingredients are present for this to be a success; from Aronofsky writing and directing the film with full creative control, to an impressive budget and a splendid cast. In Noah, himself, the movie has a centre that feels like both protagonist and antagonist, which is an unusual and challenging type of role for any actor. Russell Crowe is well cast in the lead, however, and despite the rich and very impressive CGI that's present throughout the movie, the forceful nature of his personality keeps Noah front and centre despite the scale of the visuals. Visuals that create an almost dystopian world that, even in its prediluvian state, feels like the world of Mad Max sans the machinery. Indeed, it's Aronofsky's bleak mise en scene that establishes a tone that's unflinching amidst the wasteland and savagery of man. A savagery that's initially in contrast to Noah, whose humble, ecological existence keeps his family from the vicious sons of Cain who lay waste to flora and fauna without consideration of consequence. It's here that I was on side with Noah, a character with integrity and an imposing physical presence that serves him well. Next to Crowe, Noah's wife, Nameeh, played by Jennifer Connelly, is vital in allowing Noah to retain a semblance of empathy when driven to build the ark and save the innocents. But Connelly, Leo Carrol, Douglas Booth and Logan Lerman, who play Noah's three sons, Japeth, Shem and Ham, respectively, can't find a great deal of room to manoeuvre next to Crowe's towering performance. He dominates every scene, even next to the Watchers, fallen angels whose bodies crashed to earth and fused with molten rock into creations that feel like part stone giant from The Hobbit and part Ent from The Lord of the Rings. Again, we're very much in a territory that's not far removed from what Peter Jackson has already created to brilliant effect, whilst an attack on the ark, which is built by the Watchers, feels straight out of Helm's Deep. The introduction of Ray Winstone's Tubal-Cain almost provides a match for Crowe, with his physicality and assuredness in the material allowing for much chewing of the scenery. Yet it still remains too familiar, but arch, and although inventiveness is abound, it's all too extreme for the material, but not extreme enough to transcend the story and reach a level of violence and knowing excess that may validate Aronofsky's vision. A vision that brings so many ideas to the story that few genuinely work; even the innocents/animals, which are impressively rendered in CGI, are soon little more than a MacGuffin, with their very existence becoming incidental as Noah descends into a state of madness. It's in these scenes that Noah, who is almost akin to being a jihadist met with shades of John Wayne's Ethan Edwards (due to a narrative thread involving his adopted daughter, played by Emily Watson), becomes so obsessed that he pushes both his family and the audience away. We are allowed back in, and again, without the the righteousness and good in Noah being reflected in his wife, this wide character arc would undermine the very essence of the film. Which does translate, and is very clear; but doesn't afford enough wonder and poignancy to match the spectacle, whilst at the same time making sense of a world that subverts and revises the story of Noah, but does nothing new for films of this kind. The flood, itself, is most impressive, however, and the sound mixing really evokes a feeling of crashing waves and the battering of the giant wooden vessel in the deluge.

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:36 am

greystoke wrote:Noah is certainly an ambitious movie, but it's very, very flawed and has been conceived with a mind to create a spectacular cautionary tale that brings elements of myth, fantasy and science fiction to the Old Testament. The story of Noah is certainly robust enough for the kind of movie Darren Aronofsky wanted to make, especially when aiming to highlight the ecological message present in the tale of Noah and his ark, and how this remains significant today. Naturally, the territory here is that of broad allegory and the kind of metaphor that's rich throughout the Bible and present across a diversity of cultures in which stories of great floods have endured. Here, Aronofsky has fashioned a screenplay that pays no heed to the Sunday school notions of Noah, but extracts the most potent aspects of his life from scripture whilst creating a world of possibilities and imagination that's bold, audacious and perhaps too ambitious to work. Or at least convince. Especially when Noah inhabits a world that feels just too familiar and akin to that of Middle Earth than something uniquely Aronofsky's. Which is surprising, because he's one of the most visionary directors working today and remains an original who is able to work within genre whilst pushing boundaries at the same time. In Noah, all the ingredients are present for this to be a success; from Aronofsky writing and directing the film with full creative control, to an impressive budget and a splendid cast. In Noah, himself, the movie has a centre that feels like both protagonist and antagonist, which is an unusual and challenging type of role for any actor. Russell Crowe is well cast in the lead, however, and despite the rich and very impressive CGI that's present throughout the movie, the forceful nature of his personality keeps Noah front and centre despite the scale of the visuals. Visuals that create an almost dystopian world that, even in its prediluvian state, feels like the world of Mad Max sans the machinery. Indeed, it's Aronofsky's bleak mise en scene that establishes a tone that's unflinching amidst the wasteland and savagery of man. A savagery that's initially in contrast to Noah, whose humble, ecological existence keeps his family from the vicious sons of Cain who lay waste to flora and fauna without consideration of consequence. It's here that I was on side with Noah, a character with integrity and an imposing physical presence that serves him well. Next to Crowe, Noah's wife, Nameeh, played by Jennifer Connelly, is vital in allowing Noah to retain a semblance of empathy when driven to build the ark and save the innocents. But Connelly, Leo Carrol, Douglas Booth and Logan Lerman, who play Noah's three sons, Japeth, Shem and Ham, respectively, can't find a great deal of room to manoeuvre next to Crowe's towering performance. He dominates every scene, even next to the Watchers, fallen angels whose bodies crashed to earth and fused with molten rock into creations that feel like part stone giant from The Hobbit and part Ent from The Lord of the Rings. Again, we're very much in a territory that's not far removed from what Peter Jackson has already created to brilliant effect, whilst an attack on the ark, which is built by the Watchers, feels straight out of Helm's Deep. The introduction of Ray Winstone's Tubal-Cain almost provides a match for Crowe, with his physicality and assuredness in the material allowing for much chewing of the scenery. Yet it still remains too familiar, but arch, and although inventiveness is abound, it's all too extreme for the material, but not extreme enough to transcend the story and reach a level of violence and knowing excess that may validate Aronofsky's vision. A vision that brings so many ideas to the story that few genuinely work; even the innocents/animals, which are impressively rendered in CGI, are soon little more than a MacGuffin, with their very existence becoming incidental as Noah descends into a state of madness. It's in these scenes that Noah, who is almost akin to being a jihadist met with shades of John Wayne's Ethan Edwards (due to a narrative thread involving his adopted daughter, played by Emily Watson), becomes so obsessed that he pushes both his family and the audience away. We are allowed back in, and again, without the the righteousness and good in Noah being reflected in his wife, this wide character arc would undermine the very essence of the film. Which does translate, and is very clear; but doesn't afford enough wonder and poignancy to match the spectacle, whilst at the same time making sense of a world that subverts and revises the story of Noah, but does nothing new for films of this kind. The flood, itself, is most impressive, however, and the sound mixing really evokes a feeling of crashing waves and the battering of the giant wooden vessel in the deluge.


Wow. I enjoyed that, thanks.

Flawed or not, who would have thought, that the story of Noah's Ark could be turned into a must-see movie.

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:39 am

mike edwards66 wrote:
greystoke wrote:Noah is certainly an ambitious movie, but it's very, very flawed and has been conceived with a mind to create a spectacular cautionary tale that brings elements of myth, fantasy and science fiction to the Old Testament. The story of Noah is certainly robust enough for the kind of movie Darren Aronofsky wanted to make, especially when aiming to highlight the ecological message present in the tale of Noah and his ark, and how this remains significant today. Naturally, the territory here is that of broad allegory and the kind of metaphor that's rich throughout the Bible and present across a diversity of cultures in which stories of great floods have endured. Here, Aronofsky has fashioned a screenplay that pays no heed to the Sunday school notions of Noah, but extracts the most potent aspects of his life from scripture whilst creating a world of possibilities and imagination that's bold, audacious and perhaps too ambitious to work. Or at least convince. Especially when Noah inhabits a world that feels just too familiar and akin to that of Middle Earth than something uniquely Aronofsky's. Which is surprising, because he's one of the most visionary directors working today and remains an original who is able to work within genre whilst pushing boundaries at the same time. In Noah, all the ingredients are present for this to be a success; from Aronofsky writing and directing the film with full creative control, to an impressive budget and a splendid cast. In Noah, himself, the movie has a centre that feels like both protagonist and antagonist, which is an unusual and challenging type of role for any actor. Russell Crowe is well cast in the lead, however, and despite the rich and very impressive CGI that's present throughout the movie, the forceful nature of his personality keeps Noah front and centre despite the scale of the visuals. Visuals that create an almost dystopian world that, even in its prediluvian state, feels like the world of Mad Max sans the machinery. Indeed, it's Aronofsky's bleak mise en scene that establishes a tone that's unflinching amidst the wasteland and savagery of man. A savagery that's initially in contrast to Noah, whose humble, ecological existence keeps his family from the vicious sons of Cain who lay waste to flora and fauna without consideration of consequence. It's here that I was on side with Noah, a character with integrity and an imposing physical presence that serves him well. Next to Crowe, Noah's wife, Nameeh, played by Jennifer Connelly, is vital in allowing Noah to retain a semblance of empathy when driven to build the ark and save the innocents. But Connelly, Leo Carrol, Douglas Booth and Logan Lerman, who play Noah's three sons, Japeth, Shem and Ham, respectively, can't find a great deal of room to manoeuvre next to Crowe's towering performance. He dominates every scene, even next to the Watchers, fallen angels whose bodies crashed to earth and fused with molten rock into creations that feel like part stone giant from The Hobbit and part Ent from The Lord of the Rings. Again, we're very much in a territory that's not far removed from what Peter Jackson has already created to brilliant effect, whilst an attack on the ark, which is built by the Watchers, feels straight out of Helm's Deep. The introduction of Ray Winstone's Tubal-Cain almost provides a match for Crowe, with his physicality and assuredness in the material allowing for much chewing of the scenery. Yet it still remains too familiar, but arch, and although inventiveness is abound, it's all too extreme for the material, but not extreme enough to transcend the story and reach a level of violence and knowing excess that may validate Aronofsky's vision. A vision that brings so many ideas to the story that few genuinely work; even the innocents/animals, which are impressively rendered in CGI, are soon little more than a MacGuffin, with their very existence becoming incidental as Noah descends into a state of madness. It's in these scenes that Noah, who is almost akin to being a jihadist met with shades of John Wayne's Ethan Edwards (due to a narrative thread involving his adopted daughter, played by Emily Watson), becomes so obsessed that he pushes both his family and the audience away. We are allowed back in, and again, without the the righteousness and good in Noah being reflected in his wife, this wide character arc would undermine the very essence of the film. Which does translate, and is very clear; but doesn't afford enough wonder and poignancy to match the spectacle, whilst at the same time making sense of a world that subverts and revises the story of Noah, but does nothing new for films of this kind. The flood, itself, is most impressive, however, and the sound mixing really evokes a feeling of crashing waves and the battering of the giant wooden vessel in the deluge.


Wow. I enjoyed that, thanks.

Flawed or not, who would have thought, that the story of Noah's Ark could be turned into a must-see movie.


As I pointed out at the very start of this thread, THAT occurred as far back as 1929.

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:01 am

poormadpeter wrote:
mike edwards66 wrote:Wow. I enjoyed that, thanks.

Flawed or not, who would have thought, that the story of Noah's Ark could be turned into a must-see movie.


As I pointed out at the very start of this thread, THAT occurred as far back as 1929.

You did ? Did you ? How did I miss THAT. Here's the relevant portion of your opening post, please point out where exactly, you 'pointed out' that it was a must-see movie.

poormadpeter wrote:So, here's the big flood scene from Noah's Ark, made in 1928/9. It was made just as Hollywood was turning to sound, and so some talkie sequences were inserted into what was essentially a silent film. The structure is a little odd, in that the Noah's Ark sequence makes up very little of the running time of the film. The first half and the final quarter of the film is actually set during World War I. Then that story stops when a preacher tells those around him of the story of Noah's Ark, which is acted out by the people playing the leads in the WWI section, and then the WWI story gets concluded.

The film starred George O'Brien (as you'll see in the clip, I was his body double!) and Dolores Costello. And there is an Elvis link too - the film was directed by Michael Curtiz, who directed King Creole.

The flood scene in the film has got a story attached to it that three extras died during the filming - whether this is fact or simply the studio generating morbid publicity is something no-one seems to have figured out (ie. "come see this film, the flood is so realistic people died in the making".) It was taken as fact for years, but is generally regarded as myth these days.

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:15 am

mike edwards66 wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
mike edwards66 wrote:Wow. I enjoyed that, thanks.

Flawed or not, who would have thought, that the story of Noah's Ark could be turned into a must-see movie.


As I pointed out at the very start of this thread, THAT occurred as far back as 1929.

You did ? Did you ? How did I miss THAT. Here's the relevant portion of your opening post, please point out where exactly, you 'pointed out' that it was a must-see movie.

poormadpeter wrote:So, here's the big flood scene from Noah's Ark, made in 1928/9. It was made just as Hollywood was turning to sound, and so some talkie sequences were inserted into what was essentially a silent film. The structure is a little odd, in that the Noah's Ark sequence makes up very little of the running time of the film. The first half and the final quarter of the film is actually set during World War I. Then that story stops when a preacher tells those around him of the story of Noah's Ark, which is acted out by the people playing the leads in the WWI section, and then the WWI story gets concluded.

The film starred George O'Brien (as you'll see in the clip, I was his body double!) and Dolores Costello. And there is an Elvis link too - the film was directed by Michael Curtiz, who directed King Creole.

The flood scene in the film has got a story attached to it that three extras died during the filming - whether this is fact or simply the studio generating morbid publicity is something no-one seems to have figured out (ie. "come see this film, the flood is so realistic people died in the making".) It was taken as fact for years, but is generally regarded as myth these days.


Mike, do you ever actually write something worthwhile?

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:57 am

greystoke wrote:Noah is certainly an ambitious movie, but it's very, very flawed and has been conceived with a mind to create a spectacular cautionary tale that brings elements of myth, fantasy and science fiction to the Old Testament. The story of Noah is certainly robust enough for the kind of movie Darren Aronofsky wanted to make, especially when aiming to highlight the ecological message present in the tale of Noah and his ark, and how this remains significant today. Naturally, the territory here is that of broad allegory and the kind of metaphor that's rich throughout the Bible and present across a diversity of cultures in which stories of great floods have endured. Here, Aronofsky has fashioned a screenplay that pays no heed to the Sunday school notions of Noah, but extracts the most potent aspects of his life from scripture whilst creating a world of possibilities and imagination that's bold, audacious and perhaps too ambitious to work. Or at least convince. Especially when Noah inhabits a world that feels just too familiar and akin to that of Middle Earth than something uniquely Aronofsky's. Which is surprising, because he's one of the most visionary directors working today and remains an original who is able to work within genre whilst pushing boundaries at the same time. In Noah, all the ingredients are present for this to be a success; from Aronofsky writing and directing the film with full creative control, to an impressive budget and a splendid cast. In Noah, himself, the movie has a centre that feels like both protagonist and antagonist, which is an unusual and challenging type of role for any actor. Russell Crowe is well cast in the lead, however, and despite the rich and very impressive CGI that's present throughout the movie, the forceful nature of his personality keeps Noah front and centre despite the scale of the visuals. Visuals that create an almost dystopian world that, even in its prediluvian state, feels like the world of Mad Max sans the machinery. Indeed, it's Aronofsky's bleak mise en scene that establishes a tone that's unflinching amidst the wasteland and savagery of man. A savagery that's initially in contrast to Noah, whose humble, ecological existence keeps his family from the vicious sons of Cain who lay waste to flora and fauna without consideration of consequence. It's here that I was on side with Noah, a character with integrity and an imposing physical presence that serves him well. Next to Crowe, Noah's wife, Nameeh, played by Jennifer Connelly, is vital in allowing Noah to retain a semblance of empathy when driven to build the ark and save the innocents. But Connelly, Leo Carrol, Douglas Booth and Logan Lerman, who play Noah's three sons, Japeth, Shem and Ham, respectively, can't find a great deal of room to manoeuvre next to Crowe's towering performance. He dominates every scene, even next to the Watchers, fallen angels whose bodies crashed to earth and fused with molten rock into creations that feel like part stone giant from The Hobbit and part Ent from The Lord of the Rings. Again, we're very much in a territory that's not far removed from what Peter Jackson has already created to brilliant effect, whilst an attack on the ark, which is built by the Watchers, feels straight out of Helm's Deep. The introduction of Ray Winstone's Tubal-Cain almost provides a match for Crowe, with his physicality and assuredness in the material allowing for much chewing of the scenery. Yet it still remains too familiar, but arch, and although inventiveness is abound, it's all too extreme for the material, but not extreme enough to transcend the story and reach a level of violence and knowing excess that may validate Aronofsky's vision. A vision that brings so many ideas to the story that few genuinely work; even the innocents/animals, which are impressively rendered in CGI, are soon little more than a MacGuffin, with their very existence becoming incidental as Noah descends into a state of madness. It's in these scenes that Noah, who is almost akin to being a jihadist met with shades of John Wayne's Ethan Edwards (due to a narrative thread involving his adopted daughter, played by Emily Watson), becomes so obsessed that he pushes both his family and the audience away. We are allowed back in, and again, without the the righteousness and good in Noah being reflected in his wife, this wide character arc would undermine the very essence of the film. Which does translate, and is very clear; but doesn't afford enough wonder and poignancy to match the spectacle, whilst at the same time making sense of a world that subverts and revises the story of Noah, but does nothing new for films of this kind. The flood, itself, is most impressive, however, and the sound mixing really evokes a feeling of crashing waves and the battering of the giant wooden vessel in the deluge.



Cheers for the review greystoke :smt023

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:44 am

poormadpeter wrote:Mike, do you ever actually write something worthwhile?

Good one :wink:

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:42 pm

I saw the film yesterday and i enjoyed it.

I saw it in London at an imax screening and the sound was amazing.

The acting was good, thought Ray Winston was brilliant in it as was Antony Hopkins. Not sure if Russell Crowe was the right choice to play Noah though.

It runs for about 2 hours 20 mins which is just about right, it started off abit slow and the CGI was great.

I don't think i would see it again if it was shown on the TV as it wouldn't have the same effect as it has at the cinema but im happy that i saw it.

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:41 pm

Francesc wrote:But he didn't say that the movie is a spoof. He is saying that as more clips he sees he "thinks".


Thank you for actually reading what I posted. Quite why others can't do the same is a mystery.

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:56 pm

poormadpeter wrote:Thank you for actually reading what I posted. Quite why others can't do the same is a mystery.


Ironic.

Re: Noah/Noah's Ark

Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:31 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:Thank you for actually reading what I posted. Quite why others can't do the same is a mystery.


Ironic.


You really are pushing your luck, aincha?