Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Noah - russell Crowe and Darren Aronofsky

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    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


  • Options
    #63
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    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.


  • Options
    #64
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Adamantium


    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


  • Options
    #65
    poundapunnet
    Registered Users Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭poundapunnet


    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.


  • Options
    #66
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    e_e
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Here was his intro:

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


  • Options
    #68
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    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


  • Options
    #69
    opr
    Registered Users Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    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


  • Options
    #70
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    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.


  • Options
    #71
    SuprSi
    Registered Users Posts: 6,939 ✭✭✭SuprSi


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    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.


  • Options
    #73
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,237 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    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.


  • Options
    #74
    constitutionus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭constitutionus


    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.

    :)


  • Options
    #75
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    floats your boat
    tee hee good pun


  • Options
    #76
    Gamb!t
    Registered Users Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭Gamb!t


    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.


  • Options
    #77
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    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.


  • Options
    #78
    TiGeR KiNgS
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭TiGeR KiNgS


    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.


  • Options
    #79
    allanb49
    Registered Users Posts: 6,419 ✭✭✭allanb49


    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?


  • Options
    #80
    weiland79
    Registered Users Posts: 3,307 ✭✭✭weiland79


    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?


  • Options
    #81
    wp_rathead
    Registered Users Posts: 10,069 ✭✭✭✭wp_rathead


    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 :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Warper
    Registered Users Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭Warper


    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.


  • Options
    #83
    Telecaster58
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Telecaster58


    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


  • Options
    #84
    Oink
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 2,156 Mod ✭✭✭✭Oink


    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.


  • Options
    #85
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,876 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    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!


  • Options
    #86
    Looper007
    Registered Users Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Looper007


    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.


  • Options
    #87
    Gamb!t
    Registered Users Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭Gamb!t


    allanb49 wrote: »
    Freduian slip?
    Typo,he was Godly in Gladiator though :D


  • Options
    #88
    Warper
    Registered Users Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭Warper


    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?


  • Options
    #89
    Oafley Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 6,468 ✭✭✭Oafley Jones


    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.


  • Options
    #90
    Looper007
    Registered Users Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Looper007


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Looper007
    Registered Users Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Looper007


    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.


Advertisement