MovieChat Forums > Noah (2014) Discussion > This is a good film.

This is a good film.

posted 8 years ago by Landonio
8 replies | jump to latest

5.8? Really? What a joke. The people who don't like this film (or that it's anywhere CLOSE to a 5.8) don't understand that this is NOT BASED ON THE *beep* BIBLE. IT IS BASED ON THE BOOK OF ENOCH. It practically says so in the opening credits, and Aronofsky has said so multiple times. It's not the film's fault that you are ignorant and/or refuse to do research. Aronofsky is a brilliant director and has never made a bad film, and this is no different. It has some beautiful shots, good acting (for the MOST part), a solid score, good special effects, a unique and interesting take on the fallen angels/Watchers, and palpable emotion. Objectively, it's a well made film based off of really interesting source material. If the source material doesn't interest you, that's fine, but don't ignorantly criticize something you know nothing about. I've heard of no actual reasons why the film was poor other than it being "ridiculous" or "not how it actually happened!", even though it (probably) never happened to begin with.

Give me legitimate reasons why this is a 5.8 film. I'll wait.

In the meantime, watch this if you don't want to continue to sound like a moron:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGN6EKjvAo

[–] manolobeatz 8 years ago

Noah was Black.

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

Cite any part from the Book of Enoch that affirms the blasphemous anti-God mythology of darwinism, as does this film.

I guarantee you cannot. Enoch was no darwinist, and if this film was based on his book, then it would not be darwinist propaganda. It is darwinist propaganda because it is based on nothing other than pushing the director's liberal agenda.

By the way, I've seen other videos from this same guy that you cited in the OP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGN6EKjvAo

...including some wherein he opposes, objects to, debunks the very same darwinism that this film promotes and affirms.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

Oh, and if you want to see a comprehensive review that thoroughly outlines most of the things that are wrong with this blasphemous film, here is a great one:

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/noah-movie-detailed-review/

Although I do not necessarily agree with AiG calling the Book of Enoch "non-canonical"...I don't see how they have any godly basis to do that. But most of the other things they say are exactly on point.

And AiG lets this film off the hook for misrepresenting the satan serpent in the Garden as a modern day snake, which is an untrue, atheist-made, dishonest strawman that atheists often shadily use to try and discredit the Bible.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Jesus would slap you silly.

[–] Irish_Pete 8 years ago

Blasphemy is only an issue if the bible is true. Since it's basically a self-contradictory collection of Bronze Age fairy tales and creation myths, we don't have to worry what the sky wizard thinks of the film.

[–] diogows 8 years ago

I am an Atheist. I liked this movie.

Mainly because it took an original concept and created a pretty good apocalyptic distarter movie with a lot of suspense and some action.

But that makes some people angry:
1) Some atheists, who dont enjoy the movie because its based on religion.
2) Some believers, who dont enjoy the movie because they feel it doesnt follow the bible.

So, a lot of haters.
Myself, Im glad they did this. If people make movies about Ganesah, Shiva, Thor, why not use folklore and myth to create a nice story. Its not like God is more real than Thor, Alah, Shiva, Buddha etc.

[–] DaveBowman2001 7 years ago

Agree. Some are under the presumption this was a documentary for some strange reason. I had no interest in this when it came out, but later realized it was Aronofsky directing it, so I gave it a chance as I loved The Fountain, and Pi was decent. Better than expected.

Also don't know where all this Darwin *beep* is mentioned in the film.

[–] joel_power 8 years ago

It still sucks.