NOAH (2014) **1/2 Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth (voices of Nick Nolte & Frank Langella) Epic and grand undertaking by filmmaker Darren Aronofsky (who collaborated on the adaptation with Ari Handel taking many liberties with its source) depicting the final days of Earth before the biblical 'great flood' laying waste to mankind except for chosen titular peaceful farmer (Crowe very good and somewhat low-key humble) and his family to build an ark and rescue only the planet's animals for a new world to populate. While the CGI f/x are clearly the stars of the production Aronofsky manages to pay credence to the short passage of Genesis yet imbibing in some fool-hardy Hollywood big-guns (i.e. giants ala THOR's ice giants meets Tolkein's Ents and pyrotechniques and fireballs) to appease the masses. Fine camera work by longtime colleague Matthew Libatique and a few amazing sequences edited by Andrew Weisblum keep things in perspective: man truly is an island unto himself.

I was really looking forward to this for one reason and one reason only . The director Darren Aronofsky is just about the most interesting director working today . He doesn't always hit the bullseye but he did direct REQUIEM FOR A DREAM one of the very few films I would describe as a masterpiece and he really upset an uninformed audience who went in to BLACK SWAN thinking it was going to be a high brow film featuring ballet as its theme . Indeed the only time I've seen audience members walk out in obvious disgust was during a screening of BLACK SWAN . With a title like NOAH one wondered Aronofsky might have the same effect on Christians . This is a film that promised to be controversial and as soon as preview audiences saw it there was a very sharp divide between love and hate . Interesting that it had an average rating of 8.8 then quickly started falling as people on this site gave it bad reviews . One can't help thinking there's a campaign by religious believers who seem angry at this film because it deviates from scripture . As an anti-theist my only reservations before seeing it were that the trailers looked like it was inspired by Peter Jackson's version of Tolkien

The bad news is that we've got Peter Jackson meets Peter Watkins meets Professor James Lovelock . NOAH is a heavily religious film as you might expect but not in the way you're expecting . From the outset we're told that the tribe of Cain have built " industrial cities " and it's this that has brought " the wrath of the creator " . It's not the religion of the Abrahamic cult but the cult of environmentalism and Gaia theory . The subtext is so obvious that it doesn't qualify as subtext because it's far too blatant . Noah and his family are all vegetarians who don't eat meat while the villain Tubal-Cain does because .... well he's the bad guy . Actually this is the major failing of the film . There's no one to root for because the screenplay is an absolute mess . Tubal Cain shows signs of Darwinian practicalities by eating animals in order to survive but there's no real in depth psychological analysis to the character . He wants the Ark because the story needs a villain and is so overdone you're surprised why the other characters can't see through him . . Noah isn't any better because he's an animal loving psychotic misanthrope . Can you think of any obvious society full of nature loving animal loving psychotic misanthropes ? I'll give you a clue . It was a Central European country built on Neo-Pagan ideals that used an ancient Sanskrit symbol and lasted from 1933 to 1945 . People should stop to consider who they should adopt as role models and when people treat environmentalism as a religion bad things will surely happen but we're ordered to take the side of environmentalism and not to question it

In the hands of a lesser director NOAH would have sunk at the box office but thankfully we are talking about Aronofsky . And the good news he's reigned in some the excesses that made me hate THE FOUNTAIN . Yes it owes a lot to Peter Jackson but Aronofsky recognises the strengths of Jackson when he made the LOTR trilogy . We see beautiful locations that captures the bleak brutal beauty of nature throughout the film and some of the cinematography is genuinely stunning . The cast are rather uneven which is hardly surprising considering the screenplay and an audience will find their performances divisive , none more so in Crowe . Connelly is rather bland , Winstone is rather one note and is ...well Ray Winstone .love him or loathe him . By far the best performance is by ,Emma Watson as Ila who might have been a mere cypher or plot device and yet manages to flesh out her role without being showy in any way .

In summary NOAH might just fall in to a" flawed masterpiece /interesting failure " camp . It's an extraordinarily beautiful looking film that I'll buy on DVD and one hopes it'll be up for Best Director , cinematography and score when the Oscars come around but since it's been released in the Spring the studio don't seem to have much ( Pardon the pun ) faith in it and it'll be quickly forgotten . While the visuals deliver it does have a very sententious , sombre confusing screenplay that feels the need to both shout at and talk down to the audience . Whatever the flaws of this film it still showcases the talents of Aronofsky and here's to the future and whatever it brings

I am not a Bible thumper, but I would like to take a Bible and thump someone on the head with it--namely those who wrote this script. 'Noah" is an imagining of the biblical story (not a reimagining because the Bible really doesn't have much to say about the flood story that people really want to know--the mechanics of it).

My goal was to go into the theater considering this film to be separate work from the book (as I do with all films). If you pretend you know nothing of the original text, I am afraid this story does not stand well on its own.

First of all, you would expect that Noah would be the hero of the story. Actually, he was about the least likable character in the film.

Noah is a man who has what he takes to be revelatory dreams. Through them, he predicts future happenings and modifies his life accordingly. But he is a very bad "prophet", because he never seems sure he understood the messages. The most dramatic part of the film is when he tries to understand what the creator's intentions are for the race of man. He thinks he knows, and he makes bombastic speeches about it, but he obviously is not sure. Still, he acts on his best suspicions--or intends to act. When it comes down to it, he wavers. And a teenage girl has to explain to him the basics of free will.

If you were hoping for some interesting explanations about the mechanics of the ark and how all those animals were saved, you will be disappointed. The explanation we get is like saying that Santa Claus manages to visit all the homes around the world in an impossibly short time because he has magic reindeer. In the story, Noah has helpers that are no less magical. And the depiction of every species of animal that crawls, walks or flies (since this story does not consider evolution, none of the species could have evolved after the flood) is very lame. I don't know what I expected, but it was something more realistic.

I found the acting to be fine. The most enjoyable aspect of the film for me was Emma Watson's performance.

The special effects were okay. But not enough to make me forget the deficiencies in the story.