Noah - russell Crowe and Darren Aronofsky

rossc007 · 31-03-2014 12:40am

Adamantium wrote: »

I like the idea that fundamentalists who try to use psudeoscience to explain such a flood can really have their version shown on screen in the way they wanted. They should be careful what they wish for.

As a myth, and one we can learn lessons from like any story

It's far easier to believe something if you don't see it in many way (as a stories works on the imagination and grow bigger and larger with every telling)

They would say it would be ridiculous that God, could grow a leg, back but curing cancer (because it's unseen), oh but of course.

huh?

crybaby · 31-03-2014 5:57am

lukin wrote: »

I don't expect this to be much good. Word is Russ only did it 'cause he needed the cash to pay off the missus from the divorce.

Sounds like rubbish to me

lukin · 31-03-2014 10:55am

Apparently Russ was incredibly polite and courteous to everyone he met in Dublin at the premiere on Saturday. Fair play to him for that.

Tea 1000 · 31-03-2014 2:05pm

lukin wrote: »

Russell Crowe is coming to town this weekend for a special screening of this movie.
http://www.rte.ie/ten/news/2014/0325/604399-russell-crowe-bringing-noah-to-dublin/
Hopefully nobody will ask him any questions he doesn't like as we know how he can fly off the handle from time to time.

Looks like it's happened:
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/ThreeTrending/video/russell-crowe-schools-irish-reporter-at-noah-premiere-30141333.html

Although to be fair, it was a stupid question and he wasn't angry at her until she had to try to get her own back with her petty UK comment.

norrie rugger · 31-03-2014 2:25pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Looks like it's happened:
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/ThreeTrending/video/russell-crowe-schools-irish-reporter-at-noah-premiere-30141333.html

Although to be fair, it was a stupid question and he wasn't angry at her until she had to try to get her own back with her petty UK comment.

We do have an Irish rugby league team though

johnny_ultimate · 31-03-2014 2:43pm

There was that article last week that theorised that so much music journalism has turned into lifestyle journalism instead - a wild generalisation, but when you see clips like that it's a reminder that most mainstream 'film journalism' has gone that way too. Frankly, I sympathise with Crowe's curt response to what was an inane, ridiculous question, but sad to see that dominates headlines instead of a discussion over what is a fascinating and inevitably divisive film.

norrie rugger · 31-03-2014 3:08pm

No one expects film journalism on the red carpet anymore. Hollywood has orchestrated that themselves too though, just look at the awards ceremony, all about what people are wearing and who they are with.

Film journos could always use the time, during promotion tours, to do some real reporting but they always just fawn over what ever tripe that the actor have just crapped onto screen

lukin · 31-03-2014 3:14pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Looks like it's happened:
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/ThreeTrending/video/russell-crowe-schools-irish-reporter-at-noah-premiere-30141333.html

Although to be fair, it was a stupid question and he wasn't angry at her until she had to try to get her own back with her petty UK comment.

Heh, I just knew he would have at least one blow up. At least he didn't throw a phone at her.

Mickeroo · 31-03-2014 3:19pm

Ah I thought he handled that pretty well, the reporter came off the worse in the situation there imo.

31-03-2014 3:54pm

When looking for film journalism I don't think anyone takes any publications like evoke.ie serious. The only in depth journalism I'd expect from them would involve whose wearing who. It's the kind of site that specialises in poorly rewritten press releases and criticism that involves nonsense lines such as "omg, a dreamy 5 star epic" when discussing the latest Nicholas Sparks adaptation.

krudler · 31-03-2014 4:34pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ah I thought he handled that pretty well, the reporter came off the worse in the situation there imo.

Once she realised her crappily researched question was going nowhere she tried to get petty, what a clown

AnonoBoy · 31-03-2014 6:46pm

krudler wrote: »

Once she realised her crappily researched question was going nowhere she tried to get petty, what a clown

She's currently spatting with him on Twitter about it.

Adamantium · 31-03-2014 6:57pm

lukin wrote: »

Heh, I just knew he would have at least one blow up. At least he didn't throw a phone at her.

He's friends with the creators, he kind of likes it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpokjMDGM60

poundapunnet · 31-03-2014 7:16pm

Ah god, scarlet for her. I have to say I always cringe a bit anyway when Irish journalists are interviewing people and have to crowbar the Irish angle in somehow. I heard one on newstalk the other week with the muppets, poor Kermit bending over backwards to emphasise he hoped they didn't offend anyone with the leprechaun characters because it is after all a children's film and not meant to be realistic, and nearly having a panic attack trying to answer a question about what Irish actors he'd like to work with. It was surreal.

Anyways, I'm interested to see Noah now. I mean apparently it's not going to answer my burning questions about rugby or whether Ireland's part of the UK but hopefully that won't detract from the experience too much.

AnonoBoy · 31-03-2014 9:10pm

Good review of Noah here: http://www.theonion.com/video/the-onion-reviews-noah,35636/

e_e · 31-03-2014 9:44pm

Here was his intro:

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

norrie rugger · 02-04-2014 2:38pm

If you're gonna shoe-horn something Irish into the question at least do it like this.

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

She even gets a "Cheers love" at the end I think lol

opr · 06-04-2014 11:26pm

I loved it. It isn't perfect by any means but it reaches for the stars. It's an ambitious blockbuster unlike any you will see this year. Visually it's sumptuous. If you like a smoke, I'd advise maybe having one beforehand. I've seen some describe it as the first $125m stoner movie

The higher you reach the more chance of getting burnt by the sun and this is certainly the case for parts but if only the ambition on show here was matched across the board in big budget movies today then going to mainstream Hollywood cinema would be an altogether much more interesting/enjoyable experience. I fully applaud Aronofsky for what he has attempted and only wish we had more of his ilk with these kind of budgets.

Opr

nyarlothothep · 06-04-2014 11:38pm

I thought it was pretty decent and exciting interpretation of a bible story. I really like the steam powered industrial take on Cain's empire and the way Aronofsky stays true to the old testament wrath. I think he could start a new genre of bible stories that could be updated in futuristic post apocalyptic warzones. I liked the stop motion animation of the watchers, although I think the compositing and rendering was a bit off. I also liked the Darwin interpretation of the creation myth, pretty cool.

SuprSi · 07-04-2014 1:29pm

I saw this on Saturday and without a doubt it was the worst cinema experience I've had since Transformer 2. I quite enjoyed parts of the first half, the tension building towards the flood, the creation of the ark, the interpretation of the story, the

giant stone creatures fighting the advancing humans

even if parts of it dragged, but when the flood came the movie ended for me.

Everything after that point was incredibly boring and felt like someone trying to make a movie longer than it needed to be. It actually reminded me of the end part of Pearl Harbour where an additional story had to be created to tie up some stupid loose ends. Absolute rubbish.

I'm really disappointed as I didn't want to see this originally but based on the positive reviews convinced the Mrs to go along. Needless to say I won't be given the choice of choosing the next movie!

TerrorFirmer · 10-04-2014 11:10pm

Can't say I loved it but it was very watchable, second half did drag somewhat though. Some excellent and disturbing imagery detailing the collapse of man and the arrival of the floods that I felt could have been fleshed out more for impact though. Not a waste of time but not sure I'd recommend it either.

LuckyLloyd · 11-04-2014 9:32am

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Can't say I loved it but it was very watchable, second half did drag somewhat though. Some excellent and disturbing imagery detailing the collapse of man and the arrival of the floods that I felt could have been fleshed out more for impact though. Not a waste of time but not sure I'd recommend it either.

Absolutely agree. The movie is too soft as far as that goes imo.

Overall though, it's a true spectacle throughout. There's plenty to debate there in terms of the religious intent of the film (or lack thereof). At the very least, all the characters are presented as morally flawed to one extent or the other, and discontent and a sense of disconnection from society is there right from the beginning of the 'new world'.

I thought the score and special effects were magnificent, and the performances suitably hammy. Any fan of cinema should see it.

constitutionus · 11-04-2014 9:54am

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Can't say I loved it but it was very watchable, second half did drag somewhat though. Some excellent and disturbing imagery detailing the collapse of man and the arrival of the floods that I felt could have been fleshed out more for impact though. Not a waste of time but not sure I'd recommend it either.

me too.

im not particularly religious and only went cause i needed a popcorn fix and nothing else i wanted to watch was on at the time.

i thought it was great. taken on just a good ol fashioned fantasy film level it did a decent job of entertaining and it stands on its own two feet as a good prehistoric apocalypse film . im a fan of david gemmel books and i kept thinking of the john shannow/sipstrassi series.

some of the imagery was brilliant, some too feckin arty, but all in all i enjoyed this a hell of alot more than i thought i would . i had a fear it'd be too "preachy" but it was alot more vague than i expected and had a fair wack of stuff i wasnt expecting at all.

TBH it works just as well for the green lobby lads in relation to mans impact on the enviroment if that floats your boat and the second half is a good examination of a guy near going insane from post traumatic shock. i mean theres some REALLY shocking stuff in this.

ive no problem recommending it and can see it doing well on the "DVD and beers" level.

very very surprising 7/10 from me.

norrie rugger · 11-04-2014 10:13am

floats your boat
tee hee good pun

Gamb!t · 11-04-2014 11:23pm

I struggle to remember the last good movie Crowe made which is a shame as I always rated him as a god actor for his early work,he's been doing crap films for a while now.

catallus · 11-04-2014 11:44pm

I was very disappointed that they couldn't manage the get the line "We're going to need a bigger boat!" into the script. I mean, it was just a massive missed opportunity.

As documentaries go, I thought it was pretty good.

TiGeR KiNgS · 12-04-2014 5:56am

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Can't say I loved it but it was very watchable, second half did drag somewhat though. Some excellent and disturbing imagery detailing the collapse of man and the arrival of the floods that I felt could have been fleshed out more for impact though. Not a waste of time but not sure I'd recommend it either.

This pretty much sums it up for me. A few great moments in the first half then it started to get a bit religiousy and contradict itself.

Murder and garrot endless amounts of invaders and then suddenly grow a conscience and not kill the babies.

very dumb.

point of note: Ray Winston is brilliant, completely stole the show. A lot of lackluster performances elsewhere, incl Crowe.

allanb49 · 12-04-2014 8:25am

Gamb!t wrote: »

I struggle to remember the last good movie Crowe made which is a shame as I always rated him as a god actor for his early work,he's been doing crap films for a while now.

Freduian slip?

weiland79 · 14-04-2014 3:01pm

Went with the missus yesterday afternoon. Perfect film to switch off too and one we wanted to see in the cinema. Can anyone explain the watchers to me though. Are they supposed to have actually existed or were they purely there to be used in the Lord of the rings battle scene?

wp_rathead · 14-04-2014 9:07pm

Found film very dull

weiland79 wrote: »

Went with the missus yesterday afternoon. Perfect film to switch off too and one we wanted to see in the cinema. Can anyone explain the watchers to me though. Are they supposed to have actually existed or were they purely there to be used in the Lord of the rings battle scene?

Is mentioned in one of the books or gospels or something, that the fallen ages were turned to mud and stone - that gave Aronofsky licence to make Stone versions of Ents

Warper · 15-04-2014 11:49am

This is really bland fair. The characters are one-dimensional bores with no redeeming qualities at all. Its a shame as the director has proven himself to be talented in the past but this is just boring. Snoozefest of a film.

Telecaster58 · 15-04-2014 12:29pm

Warper wrote: »

This is really bland fair. The characters are one-dimensional bores with no redeeming qualities at all. Its a shame as the director has proven himself to be talented in the past but this is just boring. Snoozefest of a film.

Fully agree with this assessment. Some of the characters involved were intensely irritating especially Harry Potter's mott who whinged her way through the whole film. She's have been tossed overboard

Oink · 15-04-2014 12:41pm

I liked it. I just wish they had made it darker. I would have liked Noah to show more pain, for example when he thought he had to

kill the babies

. I wanted to hear him scream and cry dammit. The PTSD part on the beach was great.

I wasn't overly impressed to see some of the Gladiator/LOTR stuff, but ok.

Hopefully it will piss off some religious nuts. That would be a double-whammy.

Potential-Monke · 15-04-2014 10:28pm

Telecaster58 wrote: »

...especially Harry Potter's mott who whinged her way through the whole film. She's have been tossed overboard

It's actually Ron's mott :pac: And she could sit there staring at a wall and i'd still go see it! *drools*

As for the film, it was meh. I was expecting a lot more with the whole flooding part, but it ended quite quickly. Didn't expect the Fallen to be in it (I avoided promotional material) so that was interesting. It was a bit too long too, but it did have Emma moaning at one stage (the good moaning, not the pregnancy moaning), that was worth it alone!

Looper007 · 16-04-2014 4:41am

For me Darren Aronofsky is a director that shouldn't mix with commercial cinema, he's always at his best as a outsider a bit like Danny Boyle. Yeah they might win Oscars and get nominated but they are always at their best when they have total control.

This is Aronofsy worst film to date, very boring for a blockbuster, with Russell Crowe doing is best OTT (when was the last time Crowe gave in a great performance), Ray Winestone is wasted, I don't know why Emma Watson was even in the film. Jennifer Connolly was under used. The only actor to stand out was Logan Lerman, who's turning into America's more interesting younger actors. I didn't even know Nick Nolte was in this. The flood was disappointing as was the action. It's biggest fault was it was boring.

Gamb!t · 16-04-2014 8:31am

allanb49 wrote: »

Freduian slip?

Typo,he was Godly in Gladiator though

Warper · 16-04-2014 2:46pm

Looper007 wrote: »

For me Darren Aronofsky is a director that shouldn't mix with commercial cinema, he's always at his best as a outsider a bit like Danny Boyle. Yeah they might win Oscars and get nominated but they are always at their best when they have total control.

This is Aronofsy worst film to date, very boring for a blockbuster, with Russell Crowe doing is best OTT (when was the last time Crowe gave in a great performance), Ray Winestone is wasted, I don't know why Emma Watson was even in the film. Jennifer Connolly was under used. The only actor to stand out was Logan Lerman, who's turning into America's more interesting younger actors. I didn't even know Nick Nolte was in this. The flood was disappointing as was the action. It's biggest fault was it was boring.

Was he?

Oafley Jones · 16-04-2014 3:12pm

Looper007 wrote: »

For me Darren Aronofsky is a director that shouldn't mix with commercial cinema, he's always at his best as a outsider a bit like Danny Boyle. Yeah they might win Oscars and get nominated but they are always at their best when they have total control.

He developed this and had final cut iirc.

Looper007 · 16-04-2014 5:26pm

Oafley Jones wrote: »

He developed this and had final cut iirc.

Really????? then bad form for Aronofsky cause it was boring which is the nicest thing I could say. He's better then this.

Looper007 · 16-04-2014 5:29pm

Warper wrote: »

Was he?

I don't know how to stick a photo up here but there's a photo of him (looking the worse for wear) in the voice over booth. He voices Samyaza one of the stone ceatures. Jesus it's amazing that Nolte was considered one of the biggest sex symbols once.

Geomy · 16-04-2014 8:11pm

Did any of you notice that the star's in the sky were visible during the day in the Noah movie.
And much bigger looking than the star's in the sky we see at night.

candy-gal1 · 17-04-2014 8:18pm

I actually loved this and found it fantastic especially the imagery - every scene seemed to have had something wowful imho!

Wanted to see it, but tbh wasnt sure what Id think of it and was really hoping for a not so preachy movie, bit dark that kinda made sense and it delivered all that for myself anyway!

Russel Crowe was superb I thought, best since Gladiator, also really wasnt what I expected at all, in a really really good way!
Would go again

krudler · 17-04-2014 11:10pm

Looper007 wrote: »

I don't know how to stick a photo up here but there's a photo of him (looking the worse for wear) in the voice over booth. He voices Samyaza one of the stone ceatures. Jesus it's amazing that Nolte was considered one of the biggest sex symbols once.

guess that's it, he's ages so much, even since Warrior and that was only a couple of years ago, was the last thing I saw him in

Ole Rodrigo · 22-04-2014 9:53pm

I thought the first part was good, what is essentially a ludicrous story was handled very well, Russell Crowe was excellent. Once the Arc set sail it went downhill with some terrible scenes from the female actors, so much so that it felt like a receiving a bit of bad news, the delivery of which went on for 40 minutes - couldn't wait for it to finish.

Overall, saved by Russell Crowe and some imaginative direction.

Shiraz 4.99 · 18-07-2014 11:11am

This was a real mixed bag but ultimately worth it, the creation sequence being the great stand out.
The stone monster nonsense at the start kind of put me at ease as you knew then it was to be more loosely based on the bible story than a faithful retelling.
The director handled the darker aspects really well, the savagery of humans was all there to be seen.
I thought Crowe was very good in the lead role, couldn't get over how much he looked like Oliver Reed at the end when he was swigging the wine.
Ray Winstone plays Ray Winstone really hamming it up as Ray Winstone & is very good.
Herominey looks as sexual as a 12 year old boy but that's deemed acceptable for some reason.

It annoyed me that they dealt with logistics of getting the animals onto the ark but they glossed over the reverse process.
Also, Noah's younger sons having to wait until their adopted sisters twin daughters were of age seemed a bit lecherous but we'll let that pass.

Aronofsky is at his best with dream & artistic sequences.
I'd love to see him given a full free reign like Malick in Tree of Life just to see what ends up on screen.

Overall, 7/10

18-07-2014 11:33am

krudler wrote: »

guess that's it, he's ages so much, even since Warrior and that was only a couple of years ago, was the last thing I saw him in

There's loads of pictures of him wandering around New York last year looking like a hobo. I guess that's what years of alcahol and drug abuse do to a man, he's lived hard all his life and it had to catch up with him eventually.

I do love the fact that when Katharine Hepburn accused him of being a drunk who'd fallen down drunk in every gutter in town, he replied with "I've got a few to go yet."

Psychedelic · 08-08-2014 2:05pm

I thought this was pretty good up until the final act when Noah

completely loses his marbles

. Visuals were cool,

rock monsters wtf? lol wasn't expecting that

. Interesting film, definitely worth watching.

sezyboo · 30-08-2014 6:22pm

Thinking of watching this tonight on maxdome (the german version of netflix).

Noah - russell Crowe and Darren Aronofsky

Comments