Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Saw it yesterday with the folks who came down for a visit. Who else has seen it and what did you think?

I was expecting something off from the traditional story given reports I read before release and the director (was right). I think the environmental angle is a good twist on the story personally. When I think about it fits quite well with the traditional narrative without ruining it at all so I'll give them props for that. I like that they didn't shy away from showing the seriousness of what was happening, or that all of humanity that wasn't on the wood float was dying.

That said where the movie floundered for me was Noah's struggle over the survival of humanity. In concept I like it as an expansion, cause it's a relevant question both for the Biblical story and the environmental edge they put in the film, but it also came off to me as really pretentious. Kind of like the 'men are evil' thing has to be thrown in the viewers face constantly and while there's talk of stuff like love and kindness, Noah doesn't seem to get it much as a character or even address it himself so that bit felt off kilter to me. He comes off as really really cold over the course of the film up to the end and I have a hard time thinking any human would have that stone face while all that gak was going on. There just didn't seem to be any real inner turmoil in spite of attempts to show it.

Other than that my only issue is that the movie manages to be rather boring for long sections of time (overall the movie is kind of boring). I'd give the film a 7/10. It's okay but I'm not really on the edge of my seat or anything.

I find it entertaining how a few religious groups criticised the movie and the director for taking a made up story and making it more ficticious.
Apparently the movie was also banned in Saudi Arabia for religious reasons.

I would give the movie somewhere around 6 as its main selling point seems to be the use of the biblical story.
Without that it would just be a medicore fantasy movie.

Daemonhammer wrote:
I find it entertaining how a few religious groups criticised the movie and the director for taking a made up story and making it more ficticious.

Oddly, Christians who aren't a young earth creationist seems to be reacting fairly positively to the film and the alterations made. As a Christian myself, I can say I don't feel very insulted but I'm also pretty liberal with scripture. Someon on this film obviously read the Book of Enoch, and I'm more annoyed I couldn't get a movie about that than I am about the Noah story not being word for word what's in the Bible.

This film tackles a useful aspect of the OT that tends to get ignored today; Man as the wardens of creation. Many Christians are currently on the opposite side of the climate debate because they are on the opposite side of the Evolution/Science debate. This film kind of goes straight at their heart asking them why they are like that in a way.

Apparently the movie was also banned in Saudi Arabia for religious reasons.

Yeah it's apparently been banned in most middle east countries.

Well i suppose its a good thing that its trying, but i doubt its going to do much to the people who already oppose the whole climate change thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be honest i expected that the movie would create a massive uproar in both Christian and Jewish communities, i tought there would be protests and who knows what else.

Daemonhammer wrote:

To be honest i expected that the movie would create a massive uproar in both Christian and Jewish communities, i tought there would be protests and who knows what else.

Because Jews and Christians are so easy to offend and will call down crusades on your ass?

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:

To be honest i expected that the movie would create a massive uproar in both Christian and Jewish communities, i tought there would be protests and who knows what else.

Because Jews and Christians are so easy to offend and will call down crusades on your ass?

I don't think there were any major protests from the Jewish community, on The passion of the Christ. That movie did not paint them in a good light either. Of course, I could have forgotten, it's been a while since that was released.

It just looked...Bad.

I hear that Russel Crow is the only thing keeping this movie working, so I'm sceptical.

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:

To be honest i expected that the movie would create a massive uproar in both Christian and Jewish communities, i tought there would be protests and who knows what else.

Because Jews and Christians are so easy to offend and will call down crusades on your ass?

Well to be fair, we have done that before

The biggest complaint I've seen on the movie is that 'God' is not a word used. In the film characters say 'the Creator' when talking about him. I actually have 0 problem with this, mostly because God didn't reveal his name until Moses, so that the people in the film simply identify him as their creator is completely sensible to me.

Daemonhammer wrote:

Apparently the movie was also banned in Saudi Arabia for religious reasons.

That's a little misleading.
All films are banned in Saudi Arabia, there are no cinemas in the entire country.
It'll probably turn up on the regional satellite channel in due course though (entirely uncut too)

I saw it twice, because both of my girlfriends wanted to see it. I enjoyed the movie, or wouldn't have done that, I especially loved the golems. When the flood happens and you see small rock refuges covered in humans trying to stay alive, then get BATTERED by waves resulting in many of them falling down the rock bouncing in painful throes of agony, it makes you happy you weren't around. LOL. The battle scenes were pretty neat, and Methuselah is one seriously bad ass melon-fether because:



Not a bad movie, 7/10.

Thoroughly enjoyed the movie. The first half was very well done, the golems, fights and characters were all very entertaining. The second half began to lose me though. My father described the second half of the movie as "The Shining on a boat".

I like how The Daily Show was panning the Christians who thought the movie besmirched Noah's good name by having him drink, etc. Yeah, who do they think they are- the Bible?

Also some are complaining that instead of "God" the movie instead uses such vague and easily confused terms, like THE CREATOR.

 Sasori wrote:

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:

To be honest i expected that the movie would create a massive uproar in both Christian and Jewish communities, i tought there would be protests and who knows what else.

Because Jews and Christians are so easy to offend and will call down crusades on your ass?

I don't think there were any major protests from the Jewish community, on The passion of the Christ. That movie did not paint them in a good light either. Of course, I could have forgotten, it's been a while since that was released.

There were some complaints, I don't know if it manifested into protests though. Although it wasn't as much about the whole "the Jews killed Jesus" aspect of the Passion but more about the fact that Mel Gibson directed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 marv335 wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:

Apparently the movie was also banned in Saudi Arabia for religious reasons.

That's a little misleading.
All films are banned in Saudi Arabia, there are no cinemas in the entire country.

I think quite a few countries banned it, but I don't think it was because of any specific problems with the film and more of a blanket ban because they showed a prophet (which isn't allowed).

 marv335 wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:

Apparently the movie was also banned in Saudi Arabia for religious reasons.

That's a little misleading.
All films are banned in Saudi Arabia, there are no cinemas in the entire country.
It'll probably turn up on the regional satellite channel in due course though (entirely uncut too)

Is it because of the whole imaging of men and animals thing? I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

I doubt it. They have TV in Saudi.

 marv335 wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:

Apparently the movie was also banned in Saudi Arabia for religious reasons.

That's a little misleading.
All films are banned in Saudi Arabia, there are no cinemas in the entire country.
It'll probably turn up on the regional satellite channel in due course though (entirely uncut too)

I was not aware of this, i stand corrected.

Foolishness such as banning all cinema is suprising, yet it does sound like something muslims would do.

I don't understand what all the religious complaints are about. We were given ample warning that this would be a different interpretation than the bible. I'm religious and I enjoyed the movie for what it was.

Heck, I thought there were a few things they should add into the bible version.

When I heard they the Nephilim into monsters, I decided to pass. I'll watch it on tv when it comes out though.

GG

The Nephilim where monsters

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The Nephilim where monsters

I believe that's a misinterpretation. The term "Giants" doesn't have to mean "Gigantic creature", it could just mean powerful/great/ famous men (which is what I believe it means).

The idea that angelic beings mated with human beings is a misunderstanding of what the text is meant to convey. In my opinion.

GG

Then what does the tet say? Because old lore and conventional wisdom makes them out to be giants, or sometimes the children of Angels and Deamons.
Let me as you? Are you upset that Pestilence is one of the horsemen of the apocalypse. because that isnt in the lore.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then what does the tet say? Because old lore and conventional wisdom makes them out to be giants, or sometimes the children of Angels and Deamons.
Let me as you? Are you upset that Pestilence is one of the horsemen of the apocalypse. because that isnt in the lore.

Old lore? and conventional wisdom?

Let me ask a simple question..how can angel or demon create offspring in a human being? Do angels or demons have sperm? DNA?

No..angelic entities do not mate with humans, which is what people(maybe what you meant by "old lore) have misinterpreted "the sons of God" to mean.

Sons of God simply means men that were once righteous who turned away from God. "Daughters of men" represent the worldly unrighteous people.


GG

Well....If god can impregnant a human women, why couldnt angels?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well....If god can impregnant a human women, why couldnt angels?

Mainly because God himself is omnipotent and angels are not? Given that God is the creator and the laws of reality don't apply to him doesn't mean they don't apply to the created like the angel.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well....If god can impregnant a human women, why couldnt angels?

1) God performed a miracle by causing Mary to become pregnant.
2)God did not have sex with the virgin Mary like what Mormons believe.
3) Angels don't have the same power as God and only act on his behalf.
4) Demons can't create miracles.
5) the misinterpretation says that fallen angels...a.k.a. demons...a.k.a. "Sons of God" married the "daughters of men" which created some sort of mutant race of super beings. Not what genesis chapter 6 is trying to convey.

GG

Wasn't Sampson the son of an angel?

 generalgrog wrote:
The idea that angelic beings mated with human beings is a misunderstanding of what the text is meant to convey. In my opinion.

GG

It's an inference drawn from older Jewish texts, namely the Book of Enoch which details the story of the Watcher's fall (the one present in the film is different).

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Wasn't Sampson the son of an angel?

No he was not.

Samson's father was Manoah, and his mother's name is not known for certain(not mentioned in the Bible). However there was a visitation from an angel telling her that she would bear a son, and the angel gave specific instructions on how to bring the child up. Again another miracle, in the form of God making a woman who was barren, no longer so. There are many examples of this in the Bible.

Read Judges chapter 13.

GG

Ah, my bad. I remembered there was an angel involved, that was all.