story

That's how I took it, as well, hanshotfirst (I love your username, by the way). For me, the third act was a combination of Crimson Tide and The Searchers and I felt strong emotions during that third act because of it.

It was Crimson Tide because:



It was The Searchers because:

Supermallet

Well I've got a skillet with their names on it.

story

Skillet Thumpers! Now at Denny's but for a limited time!

creekdipper

Niiiiiiiice!

DVDTalk...where opposing views unite over (heavy) cookware!

creekdipper

(a) To clarify, the point is not that audiences "know better" than the critics but that they have a different impression from the critics...drastically different, it appears. I've seen well-reviewed movies that I thought were utter garbage for aesthetic reasons and have seen poorly-reviewed films that I thought were solid stories. Likewise, I've seen big hits that I thought were garbage (and the opposite). Neither the audience nor the critics have a monopoly on judgment of quality; after all, "I may not know art, but I know what I like."

I was merely saying that it seemed (IMHO) that some of the critical remarks appeared to be due to an antagonism toward the message based upon some reviewers' pointed remarks about Christianity in general. One gets the impression that the same reviewers might, in some cases, similarly point out aesthetic weaknesses in small-budget indie films that more closely reflect the reviewers' own beliefs while giving props to the filmmakers for making the effort. I don't have any problem with critics sticking to the basic elements of film-making (cinematography, editing, acting, musical score, dialogue, characterization, plot, pacing, sets, costumes, etc.). However, many of the reviewers made the same objections to the basic premise that established the initial conflict (professor forcing students to sign a statement of belief, etc.). Dang...who would ever think that a filmmaker could ever present an implausible premise in order to create dramatic conflict? Using those standards, about 90% of films should be dismissed due to highly-improbable things that get the audience involved in the story. I want REAL life or nothing at all...no allegories for me!!

(b) Sorry to disappoint, but unless you are a professional critic and are published on the Rotten Tomatoes site, you weren't included. You're just a plain ole opinionated DVDTalk slob like the rest of us.

(c) Due to past responses, not going to debate your last opinion but might point you toward imprecatory prayers, the jubilation of the saints in heaven at the destruction of the wicked, etc.

IN MY OPINION (supported by the totality of Scripture as opposed to a cafeteria approach), one should desire that the enemies of God be converted and should pray for that to happen (acknowledging the doctrine of election and knowing that some are foreordained for wrath). However, it is entirely consistent to wish to see God's justice upon His enemies. It would be nice if everyone were suddenly converted and worshiped God, but God has made it clear in His inerrant, infallible Word that universal conversion is not His plan.

Setting aside our statements of conflicting beliefs, I'd point out that your last statement lends support for the idea that some viewers (and "reviewers") incorporated their objection to the perceived message of the film into their negative reviews. By way of comparison, it would be like a critic giving a poor review to The Hangover films based upon his/her negative reaction to the language and behavior of the characters rather than the qualities of the film itself; i.e., did the film achieve the intent of the filmmakers (making the audience laugh)?

If the primary intent of Noah was to entertain, then it should be judged by that standard. More orthodox viewers might object (and might have sincere objections rather than only giving lip service, which seemed to be your interpretation of the reactions you observed...leading me to wonder if you followed up by asking those students why they objected to determine their sincerity or if you just projected your own interpretation upon their actions. However, anyone can express bias toward any film based upon their personal likes/dislikes for the subject matter, creative personnel involved, or a host of other reasons. In that case, the reviewer might either recuse themselves or make sure to stick to objective observations.

Likewise, one should judge the intent of GND. Was it to proselytize? Entertain? Sir up controversy or encourage debate? That's not to say that a well-intentioned movie cannot be a piece of crap artistically (based upon commonly-agreed standards...some thought Yoko Ono's screeching was rapturous), just saying that one shouldn't let one's own biases interfere with an honest assessment of the actual product. I've seen movies that I would have given an "F" grade based upon story or production values and would describe as a waste of time but still might find a few admirable qualities (a particular performance, musical score, etc.).

And I will acknowledge that a 15% rating from R.T. doesn't mean that the critics only found 15% of the movie to be on an acceptable level of film-making...it just means that only 15% recommend the movie (at least, that's what I think the R.T. ratings mean).

RichC2

tl;dr but yes you're correct, the 15% means 15% of the critics "Recommend" the movie.

15% doesn't tell you how many critics gave it say a 2.5 out of 4 since that's generally negative but not entirely bad. This is why they include the score as well:

God's Not Dead - 14%, Average Rating: 2.7 out of 10. But it also only has 14 reviews.

I had no problem with the content or message, but the execution was pretty brutal. That is all.

EddieMoney

I give it 4/5. I became more impressed with it as it went on. Crowe was great. The whole cast actually was great.

Rival11

Great flick.Aronofsky drills home the point that everyone and everything has a purpose. Very entertaining movie. I'm not a big crowe fan at all but thought he was excellent this. Score was outstanding as well.

TheMovieman

Hated it from the bad performances (Connelly in particular) to bloated story and just downright silly moments (Rock Transformers). Couldn't pay me to watch this crap again (and I'm not overly religious, so I couldn't care less about the changes made).

2/5

jmu878

100% agree. Was super excited to watch this as a pretty big Aronofsky fan, but I had a hard time sitting through this. Absolutely hated it. Glad it was only a RedBox rental..

DJariya

I also rented this last week.

It lost all credibility with the inclusion of the Rock monsters. I liked Crowe, but that was about it.

Supermallet

They're not rock monsters, were you guys even paying attention?

DJariya

Yes, I know they were fallen angels, but still I think they could have portrayed them differently. It came across as goofy for something that was supposed to be a biblical history epic.

Supermallet

Yeah, because there's nothing silly in the bible.

My Other Self

And that's reasonable rationale for Aronofsky to include something silly in his film?

mattysemo247

That was my thought too. You would think while Noah was walking through the ark over 9 months he would notice that half of the animals were missing or eaten.

Dan

I finally got around to this tonight. Redbox'd it for $0.53. Expectations were low.

Yes, the rock monsters were silly, but once it was described WHY they were there, then it made me feel bad for them. I actually kind of liked them. Overall, I enjoyed the movie. Probably because I was never going to take it too seriously to begin with. I wouldn't call it Aronofsky's best, but then again, I don't know which of his films I WOULD call his best.

I'm not sure that I'd ever revisit this one, but it was entertaining.

Supermallet

I didn't think they were silly. I'm just saying it's strange to criticize a Biblical epic for having something silly, when the Bible is full of weird, silly, and crazy shit.

bootsy

Finally got around to watch this tonight and man this movie was close to terrible. I kept thinking the movie would get better but after an hour into I knew it probably wasn't happening. Crowe was the only positive thing going for this movie.

hanshotfirst1138

I know that they aren't, they're the Nephilim encased in earth for helping the humans, but they look like rock creatures, I don't think there's any way around that.

Solid Snake

Huh.

I fucking loved this thing. It gets iffy for me in the 3rd act. Not sure why. It feels off to me. Unlike any biblical film before it this one actually felt like it had depth to it. I liked how it was very beautiful but ugly as well. I loved the Nephilim. They were cool. Not sure how that took people out of it.

And that's coming from an Atheist.

Rival11

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the fallen angels (rock dudes) were Nephilim - I believe Nephilim were in the book of enoch (very controversial book left out of the king james bible -- go figure huh? but the book was left in the the Ethiopian bible) and they actually mated with humans and did some other crazy shit with them (the book of enoch is a crazy read and it actually contains aliens and ufo's).

I believe the rock monsters in this movie version were simply just punished for helping the way they did.

Again, I may be wrong but just wanted to bring it up.

Why So Blu?

They are Nephilim - here's excerpt:

"seek refuge with the fallen angels known as the 'Watchers', confined on Earth as stone golems (nephilim) for helping humans banished from the Garden of Eden."

hanshotfirst1138

Aren't the Nephilim and the Watchers technically different things? I thought the Nephilim were the offspring of humans and angels? Or are you telling me that I shouldn't be using Supernatural to study Biblical mythology?

Why So Blu?

The second part and that's just how Aronofsky decided to incorporate the characters.