This film is a mish mash of movie genres; fantasy, sci-fi,
adventure and Bible stories. The problem is which reference point do you use?
In a sci fi movie like Star Wars you have no problem accepting a Wookie, a
Death Star or a guy with a fish head playing a clarinet in a dive since your
reference point is sci fi. In Noah, no matter how hedonistic you may be, your reference
is the Bible. When fantastic creatures are on screen they are just incongruent.
Bible stories themselves have elements of fantasy but there is a commonality to
them. The fantasy in this movie falls outside of that commonality. When I saw
the Watchers (fantasy creatures), I sat up and said “what the heck” (I did not
say heck, I said something else). I guess the writers could not get beyond spit
balling the script.
Russell Crowe does not look like a 500 year old pre flood
patriarch, rather he looks like He-Man. He has on going battles with the bad
guy king Tubal-Cain played by Ray Winston; a British actor who is basically a
thug with an Equity card. All the actors are very good. This is about the third
time Jennifer Connelly is married to Russell Crowe on screen. Antony Hopkins,
Methuselah, is Noah’s grandfather and does some wizardry with Emma Watson (go
figure) who is Noah’s adopted daughter. Methuselah gives Noah magic beans
(sounds familiar) to get the Ark started.
The Ark looks like a failed wood shop project. It is a long
tar covered rectangular box of logs and timber. The animals came two by two, or
so they say. Then Noah’s family goes throughout the Ark with incents putting the
animals to sleep. Fortunately humans are not affected. This biblical anesthetic
is complemented by iron, bamboo, tea, gun powder and iron pipes all in the same
time line. Even fantasy needs some rationale and order. The writers never heard
of PBS.
Towards the latter part of the story the film focuses on
solid dramatic acting without gimmicks. It is a key climatic moment and very well
done. Is it that well done to carry the film? I would not go so far. In the
end to legitimize the film the writers steal two sub plots directly from the
Bible. Noah is seen picking grapes and getting drunken from his five day old
wine. In the Bible Noah is the first drunk. The script alludes to the Curse of
Ham (Ham is Noah’s son) but it needs to be more revealing (see Genesis 9:20).
It is odd that a movie so divergent wants to end on the right side of God. May
be sacrificing the writers is justified?
