It's meant to be a biblical epic, and it succeeded (IMHO). It's not the traditional story of Noah. It's based on the Book of Enoch, not Genesis.
You are contradicting yourself. The Book of Enoch is not "biblical". So if the movie was based on the Book of Enoch, then it can not be a "biblical epic" by definition.
Moreover, at what point in the Book of Enoch is Noah portrayed as a psychopathic murderer intent on destroying his own family? At what point in the Book of Enoch did Noah have trouble deciphering what God ordered him to do?
What specifically did you think was poor about the film?
A) How about all of the plot holes? If Noah truly believed that God intended for all mankind to be wiped out, then what was the point of getting on the Ark in the first place? Why not just put the animals on the Ark and stay with his family with the other men to drown in the flood? Even "God's" actions seem inconsistent within the framework of the story. Why didn't he confuse Noah as to what his intentions were? Why wouldn't he have been clear with something so important as to wiping out all mankind? Was he "testing" Noah? If so, WHY? And why did he forgive the fallen rock angels after they helped Noah when he supposedly punished them for helping man in the first place? How is it that Tubal-cain is conveniently the only man who survives the flood? Why was God powerless to stop him from getting on the Ark? Ham goes his separate ways after being disillusioned with Noah (can't blame him), but where was he supposed to get his wife from if all mankind had been wiped out? The plot holes alone created a jumbled mess of a story that ended up making no sense in the end.
B) Lack of heroic character. Aronofsky basically gave the audience two antagonists: Tubal-cain, and Noah! Who were we supposed to be rooting for exactly? If anything Tubal-cain was the "hero" since he was trying to save mankind, while Noah was trying to destroy it (by murdering his own family). What part about that is "biblical" in any sense of the word?
C) What was ultimately the point of the film? Noah comes to his senses in the end and allows his family to live (deviating from the unique direction Aronofsky was going for in the first place). Why make Noah a demented, psychopathic character only to confuse the audience again by making him reverse himself in the end? Was that intended to justify his actions throughout the film, or to solidify him as being even more disillusioned from reality than we originally thought? Everything that would have made the story unique was ultimately destroyed in the climax.
Visually, the movie was actually good. The cinematography was great, so it at least had that going for it. But story-wise, it was pretty terrible!
All generalizations are false, including this one!
reply
share