Noah – The Emperor’s New Movie

Let me just start by saying two words which you can accept as fair warning to avoid this stupidest movie in years: Rock People.

Need more?

Tragically, as Western Civilization continues to decay all around us, one thing remains unmuddled: everything is politics. And nowhere is that more true than in media. The same polarization that fired Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and then got him rehired, and made Mel Gibson $600 million, and then lost him his Hollywood career, and made half the world want to canonize Roman Polanski with the other half wanting him castrated — these are the same social causes propelling the embarrassingly awful horribleness of Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, into an 76% fresh rating from the shameless, agenda-driven critics at, and setting so many Christian leaders and critics into shilling for the same. Please, stop the madness. It is astounding to me how Christians can be lured into a defense of the indefensible because they are so afraid of the charge of “unreasonablenes.” Trying so hard to be nice, we end up being patsies for people who have no other agenda than to make money off of us.

Oh yeah. And ROCK PEOPLE.

Honestly, there is so little that is Biblical in the piece that it isn’t even worth critiquing it as an irreverent adaptation. If the Bible was an original writer of the material, the WGA wouldn’t even insist on it getting a shared story credit with Aronofsky. It isn’t an adaptation in any serious sense of that term. There is a boat, a flood, and a guy named Noah in both pieces, and that is all they have in common.

Noah is a terrible, terrible movie. I kept thinking all through, “Wow. The secular critics hate Christians this much. They hate the Christians so much, that they will rave about this piece of crap because they think the Christians are going to hate it for ideological reasons.” And the Christian critics? Well, too many have been all balled up in the throes of self-loathing for at least a decade, which leads them to depths of self-contradiction in their popular culture appraisals that never seems to have a bottom. As soon as the momentum around this picture as offensive Scripturally began to go – and it is clear that this was generated intentionally by the studio and PR people promoting Noah – the Christians felt themselves double-dared to show themselves “enlightened” enough to embrace the movie even as it spits in their eye in every way – as an adaptation of Scripture, as a work of cinema, and as a plain old story. Remember when so many Christians felt the need to embrace the neo-porn mess, The Master? I remember one guy insisting that it was the best film of the decade. It wasn’t. It was an offensive, puerile mess. And remember when we were all told to go see The Da Vinci Code to promote “dialogue.” What a crock! In this case, the insane need to embrace modern sewage has the critics swallowing huge, gargantuan portions of ROCK PEOPLE!

Of course, there is also the sheer profit motive driving some of the reviews. Promoting movies is a high stakes business, and, sadly, the world of the professional movie critic is thoroughly mired in it. In the interest of full disclosure, for example, this blog is hosted on the Entertainment Channel of Patheos. That same Entertainment Channel received money to feature the movie ‘Noah’ to accompany its release. The website took money to essentially function as a paid advertising service for the movie. But those who are visiting the site don’t know that.

Where was I? Oh yes, Noah is a terrible, terrible movie. As a story, it doesn’t attain to the level of the worst of the cheesy Biblical movies made in the fifties. Aronofsky broke the first and sacred rule of storytelling: you have to make the audience care. We never cared about Noah even after he was kind to a wounded, half dog – half snake. (No, that wasn’t a mistake.) We never cared for any of the characters. I kept hearing people say this movie is deep. It isn’t. It is psychologically pedestrian. The only emotion the movie elicited in me was laughs of scorn. The script is problematic in every way in which a script can be problematic. Bad characterizations – no complex personalities, just stereotypes. Unmotivated choices abound. No imagery or story subtext. Huge story problems requiring ark-sized suspension of disbelief. Earnest, oh so earnest, dialogue with every syllable on-the-tedious-nose. Awkward transitions. Completely missing a coherent theme. Embarrassing soap-operaish holds on actors looking tense or worried or just staring ahead trying to convey lostness and doubt. And the fakest, funniest looking, plastic green snake used repeatedly to indicate “Evil is in the house.” It’s bad enough to be a Christian movie!

It’s so dumb, I can’t even write a serious review. Seems likely the studio purposely created and then drove all the controversy around the movie because they knew they had a dog. They’re hoping they can have a huge opening weekend because as soon as word gets out that this is a dull, idiotic waste, it’s going to drop like a rock person next weekend.

Here is a short list of some of the stupid story problems in Noah: (Is it possible to spoil a rotten thing? Well, be warned anyway…)

- Some of the angels felt compassion for Adam and Eve. God was so petulant and wrathful that he turned those angels into rock people. Then, human beings killed most of the rock people somehow. So, the rock people hate humans. But they take a hankering to Noah for no reason and build the ark for him.

- We say in screenwriting that the most cliched way to try to establish sympathy for the main character is to show him or her being nice to a sick child or an animal. Well, this creatively lazy piece has Noah doing both. But his gentleness to the missing-link dog is undermined when he pulls the arrow out of its flank and then stabs to death three humans. His adoption of the sick girl is undermined later when he tries to stab her infant daughters.

- Noah is a completely unsympathetic character. Somewhere in the beginning of the third act when he was in a knife fight with the raw-rat eating guy, I asked my friend, “Is it wrong of me to want Noah to die?” When the audience is rooting for the main character to be knifed (so he can’t kill his infant grandchildren), the filmmaker is deep, deep in the “film as disaster” end zone.

- Noah chides his son for ending the life of a teeny wildflower. And then he has the rock people cut down an entire forest to build the ark.

- We are told that the cities are centers of technology, but when we see the cities close up, they are just tents and unwashed people with really bad hair. You would think if they were so advanced they might have invented shampoo.

- It starts to rain, and five minutes later, Tubal Cain attacks the ark with an army of thousands and thousands. That’s a great general!

- The evil city people believe it is the apocalypse within seconds of the first drops of rain.

- Tubal-Cain hides on the ark -unknown to Noah – for nine months. He stays hidden despite the fact that he is eating the animals raw to keep up his strength. There went all the unicorns, I guess.

- The animals are lulled to deep sleep by a herbal smoke potion. It knocks the elephants flat – but it has no effect on the humans.

- Noah spends nine months firmly entrenched in his plan to murder his grandchildren at their birth. He’s intractable and insane in his conviction that this is what God wants. But then, when he is about to stick the knife in the children, he just changes his mind. Unmotivated choice.

- Five minutes after they emerge onto the new land, Noah makes himself a winery and gets crazy drunk and naked. It’s not clear if he is angry at “The Creator” or angry at himself or just an introvert who suddenly has nothing to do.


I was looking forward to the effects, but, really, the movie storytelling is so bad, that the effects fall flat. There was one cool shot of people clinging to a rock and getting washed away, but it was over too fast. The score is over the top and intrusive. It is striving so transparently to make up for the lack of emotion in the picture that it repeatedly calls attention to itself, in the worst way.

Oh yeah, and there is a ton of annoying, superior liberal preaching about how we should all be vegetarians, and that technology and cities are innately bad because they hurt the planet. Dumb, oversimplified liberal utopia nonsense. But it barely offended me because I was so much more offended by the terrible story craft in the piece.

Stay far away and save your money. Rent The Ten Commandments for the weekend. Or Ben Hur. Or even a bad Biblical movie like The Robe. Any of them are a thousand times better than this piece of pretentious, over-hyped garbage.

Galaxy Quest called. They want their rock people back.

Anybody who says Christians need to see the movie to promote dialogue is being a tool. Anybody who says the movie is visionary is jumping on an Emperor has No Clothes bandwagon. Any pastor who creates a sermon to coincide with this awful piece is being played for a sucker. And the Christians who are promoting the film for money should be ASHAMED of themselves. Really, how dare you?

P.S. rock people

[NOTE FROM BARB: I am going to close the comments for this thread mainly because I just can't keep up with moderating them all and it seems the main points have been made. Thanks to all of you for sharing and participating in the discussion.]

Because That Puerile, Stupid Song is Really a Poison
Coming Soon: Exposing the Ickiness of the Christian Movie Selling Business
See Barb at Via Affirmativa in Colorado Springs in May
“Nothing Left to Say of Me” – Flannery O’Connor’s, “A Prayer Journal”
  • Guest

    Thank you for the thoughtful breakdown! …lol. I like the focus on STORY. Everyone else I’m reading is talking about everything BUT the story. Kinda sounds like Da Vinci Code, which I was surprised had A-list names on it. p.s. who are the rock people?

    • JD

      Read Greydanus’ articles at National Catholic Register – he explains the biblical basis for the “rock people” or the Nephilim.

    • Scott Watts

      Thoughtful breakdown!

      Also read Greydanus’s review for that.

      (Partially edited as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

  • Stephen Sparrow

    Well thanks Barbara. I have a sheaf of gift movie vouchers & in spite of pressure to use two on Noah, I’m not going to bother. I actually suspected it would be a dog having sat through/endured some trailers

  • PNP, OP

    Barbara, sorry, I’m a little confused. . .so, you’re saying you hate the movie and we shouldn’t go see it, right? ;-) Fr. Philip Neri, OP

  • Merrymom

    Yup, that’s pretty much what i thought this movie would turn out to be. I don’t need to waste my money to be disappointed.

    When I had heard about the environmental theme that was enough for me. God did not wipe everybody out to save the environment. He wiped everybody out because they were wicked. If this movie conveys anything other than that, than it is utter garbage.

    I hear that God is not referenced in this movie at all. I mean, really? I wish that somebody with some actual faith would come along and make a Biblical movie. It would be a breath of fresh air!

  • Paul

    But are there rock people?

    • brnicolosi

      Just enough, Paul, to make the movie completely absurd.

  • mithril1971

    Thank you. This made me laugh so hard. And – once I recovered my breath- wonder why we do these things… we need good art. And we need it now.

  • scott

    P.P.S. Rock People

  • Joe Mroz

    Not just because they hate Christians. They also think that Christians are stupid, and that Christians should love anything with a “religious” title or theme.

  • Bornacatholic

    A movie based on the life of Noah’s Producer, Arnon Milchan, an Israeli
    Spy and Arms Smuggler, would have been more interestuing

  • Stephen

    I saw it. While it was pretty dumb, I think you’re over reading why it is getting praise. Strip away the bible story, and pretend for a moment that it is a completely original work. If it can be praised for one thing it’s that it did not follow the generic, beaten path of the predictable blockbuster action movie.

    For better or worse, the conflict was within the main character, it had plot turns, it had an unique structure and flow.

    The critical reaction is less anti-Christian, but more anti-mindless blockbusters. I don’t think those calling it profound are comparing it to the Passion or even Life of Pi type movies. They are comparing it to Transformers and Pacific Rim and every CGI-laden Superhero movie. Compared to those, it was pretty deep. It was pretty insightful.

    • brnicolosi

      I suppose it is true. Compared to a mindless, vacuous, insulting and stupid surefit of spectacle movie, ‘Noah,’ might actually seem intelligent.

  • Dbom

    I hate reading a review and never getting a true impression of the author’s thoughts about the movie!

    Very frustrating!

    Anyways, the rock people sound cool…

    • brnicolosi

      They relly aren’t. You should go to Transformers as they do a better job for someone like you.

      • Dbom

        My sarcasm was too obscure I see; my bad.

        Liked the review and I’m sure the rock people were lame.

        I’ll stick to the straight-forward remarks from now on…

  • Jeffrey Quick

    I have to wonder whether this is a setup: “Make a horrible Bible movie that will flop, so we can say, “See? There’s no market for Bible movies!”

    • Molly Mackey

      Or…generate negative press so people are compelled to spend their money just to check it out for themselves.

    • Merrymom

      How about this, they portrayed the story of Noah in such an outrageous way( rock people, magic snake skins, other stupidity) that people will toss the rest of the Bible away as just fantasy on par with Lord of the Rings etc. The Bible is not fantasy. Maybe to the Atheists but not to the believers.

      However, there are a lot of people out there that are weak in their faith and could be influenced by this stuff in a very bad way. Heck, I have read the story of Noah many times and I knew for a fact that Noah being homicidal toward anybody was not in Genesis! Yet I still made myself look just to be sure. That’s how dangerous it is to misrepresent the Bible on film. You can seriously harm a persons Faith and that is a very serious thing.

      • brnicolosi

        I agree that part of the agenda here is to make the Bible seem ridiculous. Aronofskyis, after all, a proud atheist and athesim has two drones: “There is no God,” and “If there is a God He is Rotten/Stupid/Cruel.”

  • James Patton

    I am not doubting you that this movie is horrible but anyone that has read Genesis 6 knows that the “sons of God” and the six hundred year old Noe are an intriguing clash of theologies for todays Christians.

    • brnicolosi

      No clash for me. The story is a myth meant to teach a theologicl truth. The Bible includes many different kinds of literature.

      • James Patton

        I wasn’t aware that parts of the Bible were mythology…

  • bosco49

    Thanks for the straightforward review. I had made up my mind earlier to give this flick a pass. Your critique nails down that decision for me.

  • Rebecca Cusey

    Barbara, I think your post here has some pretty high points. I always love a good Galaxy Quest reference.

    That said, I liked the movie. I liked in in honesty and sincerity, not in self-loathing or self-interest. I’ve never said I think it’s the best movie ever, but I do think it’s a step forward in a discussion of faith on film.

    We can disagree. I am ok with that. I’m not ok with implications that I and other critics have been less than honest in our reviews. I am not ok with the idea that I’m not allowed the dignity of my own opinion.

    • Scott Woltze

      Your phrase “not allowed the dignity of my own opinion” doesn’t come from a Christian worldview, but from our modern secular notions of autonomy and an often false conception of dignity. You have the God-given freedom to say what you want and do what you want, but whether dignity accrues to those things (“the work of your hands”) turns on whether you’ve put on the mind of Christ. While God gives us the dignity of choice, what you do with that choice may or may not have dignity.

      Barbara’s complaint was that too many “Christian movie reviewers” have been seduced by the culture (both in their aesthetic and ethical sensibilities) and so either don’t recognize garbage when they see it, or try to “baptize” garbage for other ends. Since she believes the movie was self-evidently garbage, she then assumes that some other end was at issue.

      • Rebecca Cusey

        So you’re saying I don’t get to have my own opinion?

        Good to know.

        • Politiva_com

          I think he said your own opinion may or may not have dignity but you definitely get to have one.

          • Rebecca Cusey

            Thanks for the translation.

            What I heard was a lot of fancy words that sounded impressive and added up to “You’re wrong so be silent.”

        • Nordog6561

          >>So you’re saying I don’t get to have my own opinion?<<

          Well, actually, no, he didn't say that at all.

          Basically he said that your dignity is not based in your opinion.

          So, yeah, sure, you get to have your own opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts.

          And the fact is that he didn't say you couldn't have your opinion.

      • Charles Ryder

        Pull down thy vanity, Scott.

    • brnicolosi

      The other implication seems to me to be just as bad. You think this movie is good?!?! REALLY? We could go through it a minute at a time and point out its glaring flaws. They are not subtle. It is bad visual storytelling and in that sense it is not just a matter of opinion. You can say that the guy with a .123 average in baseball is actually a great hitter – in your opinion. But your opinion would be wrong. ‘Noah’ misses the mark in that same way in just about all of the key elements of visual storytelling. Again, the flaws are not subtle.

      So, I have to wonder why people are soft-peddling the reviews. There has to be something else going on, right? Just makes sense.

      • Rebecca Cusey

        Really. That is what I think. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m standing by my review. I do think it’s good. I wasn’t bored. I was moved. I was interested. And I left the theater thinking “I’m not sure I agree with all those theological implications.”

        I repeat…I left the theater thinking about theology.

        When was the last time THAT happened?

        So I have to wonder….are you accusing me of something specific? If you think I have made a moral error here in regards to NOAH, I’d like to hear it.

        • brnicolosi

          I don’t think I’m accusing. I am generally befuddled as to how professional critics could look past the glaring technical story errors in this piece.

          • Rebecca Cusey

            I’m befuddled how anyone could have liked Wolf of Wall Street, loved American Hustle, or disliked Frozen. That’s part of what makes criticism fun, entering into conversation with someone who saw the same movie I did but had a totally different reaction.

        • brnicolosi

          Did Patheos get any money fro the people marketing Noah? If the answer is yes, then all the prime real estate on the front page of the Entertainment Chnnel is essentially a paid advertisement. So?

          • Rebecca Cusey

            Patheos got advertising money. I did not. Like all reputable newspapers and websites dependent on advertising to keep the lights on, we have a strict line between editorial and advertising. The front page of the Entertainment Channel is my jurisdiction and I decide what is featured based on what is well-written and/or newsworthy. It is not decided by advertisers, has never been, and never will be.

            So…your assumption is wrong.

            Ads, obviously, are decided by advertisers, although the advertising department may reject some (I don’t make those decisions.)

            Noah has been a huge story in secular and faith-based media this week and I’m proud that we have owned that story here at Patheos. I don’t need to make a case that it was the most newsworthy story for us these few weeks.

            This is the way things go in media and has gone for a long, long time, since the early days of newspapers.

            I wrote my review independent of any advertising money or anything else. And we’ve had plenty of movies we’ve advertised that I have panned.

            It comes with the territory when you try to actually make a living in media. There are established ways of doing things, which we follow and which are entirely ethical.

            I do not appreciate having my credibility questioned or the credibility of other critics who like the movie. We can have a different opinion without being crooks or sellouts.

            You’ll notice your review is also featured on the front page of the Entertainment section and was featured in our weekly newsletter.

            This is because, although I disagree with your take on the movie, the post is obviously newsworthy and I ran with it.

          • Rebecca Cusey

            So Barbara, I left a detailed explanation for that. I don’t see it here. Are you not approving comments that answer questions you raise or did it somehow get glitched away? I can rewrite if needed.

            Basically, Patheos is supported by advertising. There’s a wall between advertising and editorial. Like every other newspaper and website out there. Nothing untoward there.

          • Rebecca Cusey

            never mind. Now I see it. Computers!

      • Ryan

        She’s not saying the movie is an accurate depiction of the biblical account, or that it’s a box office success. (Although that last one is looking like it could be turn out to be true, so if you’re the studio, you could call the movie “great” from an ROI point-of-view, and you’d be right.)

        Your example refers to quantifiable facts, and you’re trying to say that someone’s opinion of a movie is the same. It’s not.

        One could say of your baseball player that they ‘liked’ the way he swings, and they would be correct, as they’re expressing their personal taste for how they feel about his swing. They could be referring to the fluidity of it, the strength of it or the even the sound of it. As long as they’re not referring to the accuracy of it (which is a fact), they would not be wrong, they would be free to have an opinion of their own.

        Just because you feel a movie isn’t well-made, doesn’t mean other people aren’t allowed to like it. They might be looking at completely different factors than you are.

        I haven’t yet seen NOAH, although I must say your extremely negative review has tempted me to go see it. I’ve seen many a film that are praised or insulted by reviewers which I’ve found to personally think the opposite of. When I see a film critic as convinced as you are that that a film is wrong (or more specifically, that people who liked it are wrong), I automatically think they missed something and feel challenged to find out what that is.

        An opinion of art can’t be wrong.

    • brnicolosi

      I think you are soft-peddling your own review. Go back and read your review. It is practically a panegyric of enthusiasm. You actually express the wish that all movies made about transcendence could be like ‘Noah.’ I went in with high expectations based on your treatment.

      • Rebecca Cusey

        I’m flattered that you would weigh my review at all. I appreciate that. Sincerely. I have always appreciated the way you helped me start thinking about culture.

        I have read my review. (I’m kind of compulsive/narcissistic that way) and I do wish more movies could be like NOAH. I liked the way they wrestled with the dark subject matter on its own terms but in a fresh way. If I gave stars, I’d give a four out of five and I did give it a fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. So, yes. That is what I think.

    • Romulus

      The movie lost my interest as soon as I heard of its disregard for typology — specifically, monkeying with the
      theologically significant number of persons aboard the ark. It may be
      an OK fantasy adventure film, but is too theologically unmoored to be
      of any interest to believers as such.

      • Clare Krishan

        the number was there (think of the structure of a menorah – one central candle three pairs of shoots radiating out like branches of a fertilized, growing and expanding plant) IMHO I saw a story arc adapted to create a motion-picture-length-sustaining drama. [Spoiler alert] Echoing an homage to ancient semitic rhetoric, the birth of the twin girls “balance” or complement (to use the theology of the body of the soon-to-be canonized John Paul II) the uncoupled sons (actual poetic semitic rhetoric repeats identical memes as reflections) the typology is respected.
        This treatment called to mind for me the ‘theatre absurde’ work written by Karol Wojtyla known as The Radiation of Fatherhood, which posits the battle of the sexes as a spiritual encounter, that persons are perfected in mysterious ways not fully under their control, but effected in so far as they learn to trust in mutual gift of each other (communio personarum to use theological Latin) mediated by the grace of Divine Providence. Noah is in fact here a much more Trinitarian treatment of the meme than I would have expected from a secular Jewish director: the “recovering alcoholic” scene with his daughter-in-law was one of my favorites (as a Catholic I see Marian typology related to the Church’s role in pastoral care and spiritual direction here) not even Noah was wholly aware of how God was using him (ie as primitive a voluntarist as Tubal-Cain, with idea of justice that tyrannically came to dictate his calling) until … his reflexive conscience was piqued by how that dictatorship-of-relativism conduct impacted those around him… ie old-fashioned compuction begets the fruit of reconciling grace. God wills mercy not sacrifice, His love is fruitful, constancy can be trusted indeed that such a concept as wisdom – a precious gift, hard-won – can only be passed on within human relations in families, and for which we are responsible, were the messages I got from the movie. That’s a profoundly scriptural insight. A deeply religious sense.

  • Ed Hamilton

    “Five minutes after they emerge onto the new land, Noah makes himself a winery and gets crazy drunk and naked”. That’s what Genesis says (exept for the 5 minutes). You should have looked it up…lol.

    • brnicolosi

      I didn’t need to as I knew the story well. It wasn’t the drunkenness that I object to. It was that movie jumped from the arrival on land to Noah stroking some fully grown grapes to Noah surrounded by ten empty cups. It was dumb.

  • Paul

    Stone the rock people! I’ll wait until it’s at the bargain matinee.

  • SamCatLu

    Evan Almighty was a better Noah movie.

  • h2oplyer7

    It’s a movie. I have not seen it yet, but I do not think your criticisms hold much water. There is always artistic license, and like it or not, the first part of Genesis is very otherworldly. You seem like a great gal. I think you should ask yourself if you are persecuted as much as you believe.

    (Paartially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

    • James Hunt

      You don’t think the author’s criticisms “hold much water”? Too funny.

      You think the author should ask herself if she is persecuted as much as she believes? Too sad.

      I think you should re-read this article after reading Mark Twain’s “The Literary Offenses of Fenimore Cooper.”

  • Pelagian

    Noah is a terrible, terrible movie.

    Movies are a terrible movie.

  • Manny

    Hahaha, tell us how you really feel. :) I’m glad I read this. Now I’m curious to read other reviews.

  • Augustine

    Oh, but see? The Pope must see it, Crowe said so!

  • Green Mug

    I only saw the preview and already knew it was going to be dumb. Apparently the story of one man’s faith and trust in God driving him to incredible lengths isn’t an interesting enough premise for Hollywood. You need some explosions, and (of course) rock people.

  • Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

    Thank you for this review. It’s very entertaining and well written.

  • Timothy

    Barbara, I have yet to see the film, but I think you’re looking for an evil liberal agenda where none exists.

    Regarding vegetarianism, before you go off on the film, perhaps you should reopen Genesis. In Genesis 1:29 God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.” It wasn’t until Genesis 9:3 – after the flood – that God changes it, saying “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” Far from being a liberal with an agenda, here Aronofsky is just being faithful to the text.

    Frankly, Steven Greydanus provided a different review of the film which, while not pulling any punches, still gives the film its due.

    (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

    • Phil Steinacker

      Timothy, you have no standing to criticize Barbara for prejudices and agendas when you selectively quote Scripture to make a false point.

      If you are going to lecture Christians on the Bible, then you should begin by actually reading it. I laughed out loud (an image of ROTFLMAO comes to mind) when I read your proposition that God only gave man a vegetarian diet “In the beginning…” and that it wasn’t until after the flood that God granted man Divine authority to eat meat. Seriously? You might want to retract that, bub. Egg on the face doesn’t become you or anyone.

      Genesis 1:26 tells us (and also could have informed you had you first read the three verses just prior to the selection you posted):

      26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the
      beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to
      the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air,
      and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

      Do we need to explain to you the meanig and significance over the word DOMINION to you?

      How about “rule over”? I give you three guesses what that might entail. The first two don’t count.

      Barbara is correct about the high-profile Christian sell-outs (reviewers, for money, and religious “leaders”) who give this movie a pass and pretend it has legitimacy, but she neglected to castigate the lazy and pseudo-Christians who carry the same water for free. “Noah” is a radical environmentalist/vegan propaganda tool, and you are out here shilling for it by building one of central lies pushed by “Noah” upon a distorted understanding of Scripture. In a word, it’s trash.

      IF you are a Chrisitan and NOT someone who just looked up Genesis to see if you could find a passage to support your own individual interpretation of the Bible, you should know an essential guideline to reading Scripture accurately (well-known to those who authentically study the Word) is to read what is written before and after whichever verses are the subject of your focus. Furthermore, long-time students know this concept must be elevated if the focus is an entire chapter; in this case, one must read the entire chapters immediately preceding and following it to more properly understand the chapter under study.

      The reason for this is the the Word of God is an integrated whole; no part of Scripture – when studied properly – contradicts any other part. Rather, it fits together as an integrated whole.

      Failure to apply this simple guideline results in losing proper context and leads to what is known as “proof-texting” – a practice in which far too many Christans engage, as well, and eventually results in a plethora of contradictory interpretations. The Holy Spirit can’t be blamed for all that human error – an another entire discussion – and it doesn’t let you off the hook, either.

      You, sir, have no clue how to read Scripture. You got caught with your hand in the biblical cookie jar. You were so intent on “proving” Barbara wrong you failed to read the previous three verses which would have put the kibosh on your bid to put her in her place.

      Sorry, puppy. She’s right and you are WRONG.

      The only thing which surprises me is that I’m the first to slam you for the Scriptural fraud you atttempted to perpetrated here, given it’s been a day since you posed this errant nonsense.

  • James Marler

    Thanks for the review, but what I would really like to know is how you felt about the rock people. :-)

  • Jhawk77

    Love your review, Barbara. It’s not likely I’ll see the flick – certainly not on the big screen – because of your review, and because of Hollywood’s incessant attacks on Christianity and everything it represents. As your review points out, even when they “attempt” to bring a Biblical story to life they can’t do so without rewriting it to fit their agendas.

  • itsjenjen

    But how do you really feel about the movie? ;)

  • R2D3
  • Ann McFarland

    Barbara I wish i could share this post directly on my facebook author page under Ann Clark McFarland which is where I put movie and book reviews. If I could I would say this….

    So….There is more than one “Christian” opinion about this movie. My former teacher approaches it from her bible knowledge perspective and her consistent quest for quality screenwriting. So…. I must share her viewpoint on my page (She’s not happy with the movie) as well as the others I have already shared, people who are “happy with the movie.”

    I must admit, I am excited to see “bible” stories even vaguely used as source material for cinematic story telling in this generation BUT….BUT I too, hold onto a desire to see the existence of a cinematic story that, when using a bible story as a story base, gives an “unaltered biblical background,” PLUS showcases expert craft. I KNOW this is possible. It will require writers who have both values fixed irrevocably in their brains. I will still see this movie for myself and draw my own conclusion.

  • Jack Maverick

    “He stays hidden despite the fact that he is eating the animals raw to keep up his strength. There went all the unicorns, I guess.”
    ROFL – great line, Barbara. :)

  • Jesse Pepin

    Wow, just wow.
    I’ve never been to your website before.
    First off, you continually call this a terrible film. Your evidence for such is 100% through the enlightened lens of the splendor of Christianity. You mention character stereotypes and expressions, which is very helpful. This is not just a bad movie, it’s a bad BIBLICAL movie. I can accept the latter, as even comic book movies are panned when they get too far away from their source material.
    But I especially love the part where you mention the agenda of Rotten Tomatoes critics. The hypocrisy over there is almost comical.

    (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

    • one comment

      Well Jesse, this is the patheos blog “hosting the conversation on Faith”… am I wrong? I read another review (Christian) that calls the movie Sci Fi with biblical overtones… is that honest enough? If that is more of what the movie really is, then that should be made clear, don’t you think? The movie is modeled after the story Noah after all. Why confuse the basic Truth, good as good and evil as evil, why confuse the two hoping everyone will run and refer to a Bible trying to figure out what is the “real story”. That seems a rather backward way to evangelize, to “get more people checking the bible.” In my humble opinion.

    • Nathan Mileur

      Thank you. It’s so true. The movie followed what the bible had to say about Noah PERFECTLY, and filled in the empty spots with creative freedom… The author is brilliant to point out the artistic mess of Noah. As regards story principles all he has are Fallacies. Fallacies. Fallacies.
      This is a secular film created by secular people, based off of a biblical story. I’m a Christian and I believe the Gospel permeates hollywood. Secular stories can teach people about God. The attributes of God couldhave been portrayed wonderfully, and people would’ve been inspired by a biblical story for probably the first time in their lives. But alas.
      You attacking this film is nothing like people attacking the classic “Creation of Adam” painting. That artist also took liberties. Even as to the appearance of God and how the creation occurred… yet it is a normal piece to see in churches. When that artist becomes a filmmaker… Everyone loses their minds. It doesn’t make sense.

      (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

    • raptorep

      Don’t claim to be biblical when your not, I believe that for it to be a good movie you need some creative license, but twisting the character and adding nonsense Rock people is nothing but mockery and is offensive to the source material. Hell Evan Almighty is a better than this. I also gave Noah the benefit of the doubt till the reviewers and people actually saw the movie and I’m horribly disappointed.

    • TK McKamy

      YES. I’m with him

  • Merrymom

    This movie is garbage! It’s extremely irresponsible as well. You don’t mess with scripture in this horrid kind of way!

    Can you ever imagine Noah becoming homicidal towards his own family? Does it get any stupider than that? To even imply this kind of garbage is a slap in the face to Jewish people and Christians.

    The Bible is a sacred book and for somebody to take license with it in this way is reprehensible.

    Rock people, give me a break. It’s laughable.

    Ben Shapiro has a take on this as well. Here’s a link to his article.

  • Josh Stunkel

    I have not seen this yet, but have been looking forward to it. My only question is have you seen Aronofsky’s other films? And did you like them?

    He has yet to make a film I did not like.

    • peter parker

      Just saw this movie. Had to be the worst movie Ive ever seen. Not only that, this movie was blasphemy on the big screen! Please Please do yourself a favor. DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE! It was horrible, ridiculous, science fiction dribble that had nothing to do with the story of Noah. Get serious – Rock people as fallen angels? Noah – a man of God as a homicidal maniac? This movie turns scripture on its head. I was so looking forward to it and now I feel as if I have been deceived.

    • brnicolosi

      Josh – Requiem for a Dream is a great film – but so disturbing it can never be recommended for a general audience. The Fountain was a mess. I walked out of Black Swan.

  • Rebekah Weigel

    Thank you for posting this review. I’ve been following the discussions very closely from the beginning and after a screening last night I totally agree with Barbara’s review. I am very disappointed that some people in the faith community are encouraging Christians to support this film to encourage dialogue. I do believe we need to dialogue, but not for the reasons being mentioned. Due to Aronofsky’s take on the Biblical story we need to do damage control to help convince people Noah wasn’t a lunatic and God really isn’t an unloving dictator who cares more about plants and animals than humans. I don’t think people realize that many people across the world who are not familiar with the Biblical account will think this is the real story. Hollywood needs to know it is not acceptable to tamper with and taint Biblical stories. I am sure they would not have spent $125 million dollars to tell their own interpretation of Muhammad’s life and expect Muslim’s across the world to embrace the film to encourage dialogue.

    • Delcast

      To be honest, I understand where you are coming from, but I’m also slightly shocked that you are advocating for better information about the subject.
      Have you read the old testament? because then, God was indeed presented as a very strict overlord, and yes, his purpose with the flood was to wipe away humanity. Reason why after the events he establishes the rainbow covenant with noah to never wipe out humanity again, and only then allowing men to eat meat (drained of lifeblood).

      That said, Aronofsky is clearly not interested in solely presenting a one sided view of the narrative shown in the bible. The movie uses a lot of documentation from Talmudic souces, The apocrypha, Judaic Scriptures, and a fair bit of dramatic construction to inject context into the brief (only a few hundred words long) account of the deluge portrayed in the official bible. These other documents are quite well known int theological and anthropological studies, and go as far ( and even farther than the bible itself).
      It may be an uncomfortable fact for you, but Noah and the Ark are present in more than just the bible, so the story is more than just the single narrative that you are adhering it to.

      You should also know that the biblical narrative adds some really unsettling details that are not taken into account by the movie and that would be even more outrageous if it did (like the real fall of the watchers, which is mentioned briefly, and the Curse of Canaan which depicts a really disturbing situation between Ham and Noah, just to name a few).

      However, do keep in mind that I don’t think the movie is very good, and I know there are many innacuracies which i don’t really add or detract from the narrative… but I find it’s main weakness to be its rather meek observations, and the shoehorning of its environmental message undermining and compromising some of the drama in pro of the spectacle.

  • Matthew Townsend

    This review is entertaining.

  • scott

    YOU my friend, are a truth teller (and you do it in a humorous way). This is my favorite review of Noah to date and i greatly appreciate you shining a light on the dysfunction.

    ps rock people

    • Rick Duckworth

      It’s should have been named anything EXCEPT NOAH, who DID all as GOD commanded him to do! It it fictitious and should be called as such. I would like for someone to make a movie of Noah that actually follows scripture……

  • Steven Murray

    What can we, as true Catholics, expect when we watch a movie made by secularists? Come on now. There are so so many things that they leave out or change or depict that are not only untue, but irreverent. Take the movie The Nativity. Where they have Our Blessed Mother, Our Blessed Mother!, getting her palms read. Having her experience a painful birth. This is not only untruthful, but heresy!! In the movie Jesus, by the History Channel of all places, I shutter to know that people watched that thinking that this was truth, was not in communion with Sacred Scripture. Why waste your time, money, and risk your faith for this nonsense?!! Just seek Truth. Pray, fast, abstain. Strive for holiness. Do not seek entertainment with putting your very soul in danger. There will never be a movie made for true Catholics. Not unless it is made by, with the grace of God, a person of fear of God and love for Our Dear Lord.

    • Meagan Roberts Munsell

      Do you truly believe Mary didn’t have a painful birth? I didn’t know Catholics believed that. hmm.

    • muzjik

      Catholic tradition is not the same as Scripture.
      No where in the Bible does is say Mary did not experience the normal pain associated with childbirth.

      • Scaevola

        Genesis 3:16 “To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” The Vulgate says “Multiplicabo” for “I will intensify.” Childbirth was not painless before the Fall.

        Revelation 12:1-2 “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.” This is a sign of Mary.

  • Athelstane

    There is a boat, a flood, and a guy named Noah in both pieces, and that is all they have in common.

    I cannot help but thinking of Tolkien’s retort when he was dismayed by suggestions that The Lord of the Rings was drawn from Wagner’s Ring Cycle as a kind of adaptation. “Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceased,” he snapped.

    The connection between NOAH and Genesis seems equally tenuous. Even by Hollywood standards. In many ways, it seems a repudiation of the story as related in Revelation.

  • Steven Murray

    What can we, as true Catholics, expect when we watch a movie made by secularists? Come on now. There are so so many things that they leave out or change or depict that are not only untue, but irreverent. Take the movie The Nativity. Where they have Our Blessed Mother, Our Blessed Mother!, getting her palms read. Having her experience a painful birth. This is not only untruthful, but heresy!! In the movie Jesus, by the History Channel of all places, I shutter to know that people watched that thinking that this was truth, was not in communion with Sacred Scripture. Why waste your time, money, and risk your faith for this nonsense?!! Just seek Truth. Pray, fast, abstain. Strive for holiness. Do not seek entertainment with putting your very soul in danger. There will never be a movie made for true Catholics. Not unless it is made by, with the grace of God, a person of fear of God and love for Our Dear Lord.

    • wc4mitt

      What’s heresy re the Mother of Our Lord experience a painful birth. Jesus Himself experienced pain throughout his life; particularly his agony and death because he was truly human as was his mother. The Blessed Virgin Mother is surely not above her son. Both were sinless but he was also the Son of God who suffered intense pain. I am a Catholic who loves Our Lady dearly and so I love Truth which is Jesus Christ even more.

      Study Blessed Dons Scotus history, who initiated the truth of the Immaculate Conception, and, explains this issue brilliantly eons prior to the Papal document on the Immaculate Conception (1850) and Her apparition at Lourdes (1854). Rent the dvd or purchase it at or Ignatius Press re Blessed Dons Scotus. You won’t be disappointed.

      Dons Scotus was declared Blessed by Pope John Paul II, who was/is devoted to the Blessed Mother. Surely PJPII wouldn’t elevate heresy to the ranks of the Blessed. That’s the beauty of our Catholic Faith – always amazes us just when we think we know all there is to know. This is precisely what keeps the Church young and hope alive in its members.

      Many blessings in your and my continued search for the fullness of the Faith and Truth in Jesus Christ.

    • William Neal Fancher Jr

      I would like your opinion on Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”? I found this to be Catholic in all aspects, as it presented each moment of Christ’s passion, as we know from sacred scripture. Also having the movie spoken in the original language of Aramaic was beautiful. I enjoyed hearing the true language of Christ.
      This may be a far-fetched, but I feel Mr. Gibson is undergoing a massive spiritual warfare. It seems that evil began an ugly attack on him, after he made The Passion of The Christ, and with it’s huge success and how it moved so many people. Please pray for Mr. Gibson

    • quisutDeusmpc

      The Blessed Virgin Mary could have experienced pain in childbirth. That is neither untruthful or heresy. Neither the sacred Scriptures, sacred Tradition, nor the teaching Magisterium has proclaimed one way or the other on the matter.

    • Pamela Turner Murungi

      There is nothing in Scripture that says God spared Mary the pain of childbirth. I completely believe that He gave her the strength to get through the childbirth yes, and that He kept his Son safe through the procedure, but that’s just personal conviction based on study. I don’t find anything in my Bible that says He spared her the pain.

    • Paul Plant

      A non-painful childbirth?

      Revelations 12:1-2
      And then a great wonder appeared in heaven: There was a woman who was clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet. She had a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out with pain because she was about to give birth.

  • janen7

    I don’t know Rebecca, but she seems to be level-headed and objective in her opinion (and very charitable in her responses). I haven’t seen the movie, but I read Steven Greydanus regularly, respect his opinion, and find it really hard to believe that he would be buffaloed or getting a kickback.

  • Mack

    With a few word changes this could be a review of the ghastly 1960s mess THE LION IN WINTER. Or DUCK DYNASTY.

  • Darren

    In the two words vein, “sow’s ear”.

  • John Barba

    Nice review and banter, reminds me of Siskel and Ebert. I’ll wait for Netflicks to show it free.

  • Suzanne

    Great review. It’s being shared on Facebook.

  • sdfasdf

    Barbara – have you read this review and do you know one another?

  • Gary Schneeberger

    As one of “the Christians who are promoting the film for money” and, who, in your opinion “should be ASHAMED of themselves,” let me respond briefly to your final question: “Really, how dare you?”

    I dare because I walked out of the theater after seeing this film searching the impulses of my own heart, mindful that I had been shown mercy by God when I deserved judgment. I dare because, even before it premiered, I was able to spend two hours outside of a screening talking to nonbelievers about the biblical Noah and the biblical Jesus — and how I identified with the struggles the former must have had in answering God’s call and how my life was forever changed by giving it to the latter. I dare because this is a $130 million tentpole film that has an entire country talking about the Bible and not a comic book, about God and not a character from “The Hunger Games.”

    I dare because I want to contribute to shaping culture by encouraging Hollywood to make more films that affirm and revere the stories and the faith I hold dear. I dare because I choose to try to be a part of the solution rather than shake my rhetorical fists at the problem. I dare because this is where the Lord has called me.

    Hollywood does not have two horns. Christians do not have two heads. The more each side can see that truth in the other, the better world we will be able to make through the most influential art form in history

    That’s how I dare.

    • brnicolosi

      Well, of course, God can change someone’s heart with a pile of dog poop. So, bravo! Good for your soul!

    • TJL

      Sorry, friend, but your “I Dare” points are delusional and they do not address the teaching of error, which is a sin and which leads to sin, whether you choose to believe it or not.
      Were you able to stop everyone after the movie and sort out all the error?
      Do you understand the significance in the cohesion of accuracy in Sacred Scripture?
      Do you understand how damaging gradual degradation of Sacred Scripture is to the Faith of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?
      Even a little error, from time to time, can add up to major misunderstandings.
      Please rethink your tolerance for error when it comes to the depiction of God’s Sacred Scriptures.
      Hollywood is better off sticking to comic books rather than perverting our Scriptures.
      If it takes rotten movies like this one to get people talking about God, then we need to look to our own failings in evangelization, and not look to Hollywood to get us talking.
      When a child does a malicious act toward another, do we reward the child for giving us an opportunity to teach the difference between right and wrong? No. Of course not. But we do take corrective action and tell them what they did was wrong.
      And, do we not make an effort to teach before the breach?
      Be strong and faithful. Be courageous and call things what they are. Do so in charity, but please, do so.

  • MaryTN

    Why build an Ark if you are going to kill off your family anyways?

    • brnicolosi

      Because it makes a cool visual set piece.

  • Luke T. Harrington

    You’re really going after this for showing Noah get drunk? You realize that happened in Genesis 9, right?

    • brnicolosi

      Yes. But I was going after the timing in the film. Read more carefully.

  • Jim

    “- Five minutes after they emerge onto the new land, Noah makes himself a winery and gets crazy drunk and naked. It’s not clear if he is angry at “The Creator” or angry at himself or just an introvert who suddenly has nothing to do.”
    Actually, that scene is just documentary footage of Russell Crowe that was inserted into the film.

  • Betty

    Well, I guess a review like this is one way of getting back at Aronofsky for being mean to Christians. As a Christian I had no intention of seeing the movie even before I read this review.

  • Adsphe

    I think I’ll hire the DVD. But from what I’ve read so far, there is a true reflection of pros and cons, just like tradition and liberalism. Hey the film would depict an accurate representation of Noah’s time in our modern take. Are the rock people the pope and the singing nun?

  • scottwsomerville

    If you actually want to read something INTERESTING about Noah, there’s a really intriguing novel of the same name that actually has a plot. It involves demons who incarnate themselves into human form (no rock people, though) and casts Neptune as the arch-villain. It’s a good read!

  • Mike Rogers

    Dare I remind everyone that William Shatner wanted rock people in Star Trek 5 but the technology was not there to pull it off. ROCK PEOPLE.

  • minxcomix

    Did Disney have anything to do with this movie? Because they have a tendency to take the title of a good story and create something completely other.
    And Rock People sounds so Disney.

  • Politiva_com

    I have read a couple of reviews now on Noah and I can’t get past the Rock People, even in the good reviews. This film sounds like Mad Max with some Ents from the Lord of The Rings and a flood thrown in.

  • Napoleon

    I heard the Rock People were the only GOOD part of this mess.

    • brnicolosi

      Ha! Well, I can say that their presence on the screen did elicit the most emotion from us – in the sense that chortles is an emotion.

  • HartPonder

    In Genesis 6:1-4 we read:
    When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. … The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
    The word Nephilim is sometimes translated “giants”; etymologically, it may mean something like “fallen ones.” Who the Nephilim are depends on who the “sons of God” are. Basically, there are two main interpretations.
    One view holds that the “sons of God” are angels — fallen angels who couple with human women, producing demi-angelic offspring, the giant Nephilim. This view is endorsed by the Old Testament-era books of Enoch and Jubilees. (These books are not canonical, although Enoch is quoted in the New Testament book of Jude.)
    The other view holds that the “sons of God” are descendants of the righteous line of Seth, while the “daughters of men” are offspring of the corrupt civilization of Cain. On this theory, the Nephilim are warriors, not giants.
    Both interpretations have strengths and weaknesses, and the film borrows from both. On the one hand, it differentiates between the wicked line of Cain and the righteous line of Seth (culminating in Noah’s family). On the other hand, it depicts angels of light literally falling from the heavens and crash-landing on Earth, where, in punishment for having disobeyed God, their bodies of light merge with the stuff of earth, becoming imprisoned in rock.

  • Cecelia Dickman

    But… I thought Noah DID get drunk after building a vineyard in Genesis?

    • brnicolosi

      He did. Your point is?

      • Ed Hamilton

        You’re hilarious!

        (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

  • HartPonder

    Below is an excerpt from a very interesting topic about the Biblical Nephilim…
    There will always be interpretations, even the Ten Commandments had a story line of Moses involved with Egyptian’s ruler’s daughter… Ben Hur is a favorite, but not Biblically historical by a long stretch… I do not have any opinion one way or another, but the Nephilim biblical reference has always interest me…

  • Kristen

    So I take it you don’t like rock people? I haven’t seen it so I don’t know. But how exactly should the Nephilim be portrayed?

    • brnicolosi

      In any way that doesn’t make the audience burst out in derisive snickers.

  • James M

    “Let me just start by saying two words which you can accept as fair warning to avoid this stupidest movie in years: Rock People.

    Need more?”

    ## And the same to you. “Rock people” – what is that supposed to mean ? There are no rock people in the Biblical story; though there are some in Ovid’s version of the Flood story:

    Whatever else it may be, the Flood story is a story – as much so as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, or TLOTR. That it is a theological story, does not make it any less a story. And as a story, it is in the public domain for people to treat & modify as they like. The Talmud – a Jewish work, produced by the same race as produced Genesis – contains material that expands the Biblical account. Christians have added to it: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives Noah a fourth son, Sheaf, “born in the Ark”, as the ancestors of the English kings. So why can modern story-tellers not tell their Ark-related tales ?

  • Tsr63

    The story of Noah is DEFINITELY not PC (God judges world and its inhabitants because of their sinfulness and depravity: Genesis 6:5-6). The only sins to the Hollywood crowd is not driving a hybrid, or not voting Democrat/Green Party — everything else is OK and it’s not PC to say otherwise. Zero desire to see this movie – we get PC messages rammed down our throats by Hollywood enough. Russell Crowe heading to the pope reeks of desperation. They know it’s a dog.

    If we want dialogue, let’s just talk the Bible and discuss what it says.

  • cobalt_blue

    Had no intention of seeing. Not because I’m a Christian- I’m not. Not because I hate Christians- I don’t. But simply because I’ve come to expect Hollyweird to screw up any book they try to adapt, and so far with a few rare exceptions they have not failed to live down to my expectations.

  • John W. Morehead

    So the review starts with two words of dismissal, Rock People, as if that’s a good beginning argument? Should we dismiss Lord of the Rings films because of The Ents, or two classic Star Trek episodes because of rock-like creatures?

    I’m not a fan of the film as my comments will indicate at Cinefantastique Online’s podcast next week.

    (Partially edited for inciviliety according to the Nicolosi Protocol.)

  • Tom Pawlik

    A bit understated but a good review.

    • Jerry B. Jenkins

      My ‘said-I-meants’ exactly. Gotta love Barbara N.

  • Gail Finke

    Hey, don’t dis Galaxy Quest!

  • tobi

    now that i read your rant, i want to see the movie. great.

  • katietaylor

    Whenever artistic expression changes a book I read into something completely different, I get annoyed like most people. I’m not talking about getting super bitter either. For example, during the hunger games and a couple harry potter movies I wish they added important information that was included in the book. And as a reader of the Bible, I’m allowed to get annoyed at Noah without fellow Christians calling me out on being some prude. Especially considering I’m a fairly liberal individual who had no problem meeting with the deans after I started a gay-straight alliance at my Christian university. While I think all of the debating is rather extreme and would never boycott the movie or anything crazy, I happened to think the movie sucked just like I did the new 300 movie that just came out. It was completely different than the story and portrayed Noah to be some evil savage trying to kill his family members. I was disappointed just like any other movie I was excited about that happened to suck. It’s just getting humorous having so many fellow Christians calling me out on being unloving and “making atheists hate us more” by people with no atheist friends at all who still think wearing a bikini is a sin. This movie sucked and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Haha

    • brnicolosi

      Excellent Katie. “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.”

  • Christopher N

    Who really cares? The movie was not meant to be an accurate account of the Biblical story… so I don’t know what you guys were expecting. See the film for what it really is. A hollywood action flick made for profit… not historical content

    (Partially edited for incivility according to the Nicolosi Protocol.)

    • Anonymouse

      “Historical”…. *snickers*

      • Christopher N

        i used “historical” loosely.

    • Phil Steinacker

      Accuracy – or it’s lacking – is not the issue. The biggest problem most Christans have, beyond the silly foolishness Barbara so ably takes down, regards the deliberate intent by an atheist director (with a history or disrespecting the faith) to twist and distort Scripture held Sacred by both Judaism and Christianity into a progressive vegan/enviro screed. God is barely mentioned, and to the extent His reasons for the flood are given, it’s because man is a meat-eating, strip-mining polluter who also picks flowers when he shouldn’t (yep, it’s in there).

      This movie presents itself as a famous story from the Bible. Whatever the intent, the result is subject to judgment by those who hold dear the source content.

      BTW, we cannot assume that movies in Hollywood are made purely for profit. A number of media and film professors and reviewers have studied the modern history of filmmaking and discovered that Hollywood spends exorbitent sums on agenda and propaganda movies that have bombed. This practice is persistent over decades, and the content is always driven by left-wing political winds pushing favored agendas tochange the hearts and minds of the public.

      One of the earliest studies was contemporary to the enormous success of ET. If Hollywood is always so genuinely interested in profit, then the success of warm-hearted family fare like ET pointed the way to a template of success woth mimicry. Did. Not. Happen.

      In fact, people had been staying away from movie theatres in droves for so long that there was real concern in Hollywood that ticket prices might have to recede to levels seen several years ago. Screen stars began to worry their absurd salaries might have to be cut. I think the drought finally received some relief last year or the year before (I don’t follow that closely, and only occasionaly visit a theater), but the researchers marveled at Hollywood’s obstinance in the face of an obvious template for block-buster success and its refusal to give the public more of what it shoed it woule receive gladly. Instead, the industry continued unabated in its attempt to transform the American public into the jelly fish-brained liberals content to be mind-melted into happy submission.

      Progressives and other liberals have had far greater success in hijacking our children by immersing them in the cess pool of the public school system (and yes, most Catholic schools have become nearly as bad), but Holly wood still wants part of that action.

      If they keep throwing bilge like Noah onto the wall and one day they may find the formula which works. For my part, I pray the public rejects Noah for the mind-puke morality it peddles.

      • Christopher N

        the reduction of people going to Hollywood films is not necessarily due to the fact that Hollywood filmmakers, execs, producers, etc have been making films to promote their own agendas that people did not want to see, as you suggest. This is a result of general degradation of the art of film making as a whole that has been seen in recent years within the industry, not because every hollywood film was made with some “agenda” behind it that the public didn’t want to listen to… so to suggest that that the drop in annual consumption of the hollywood “product”is simply due to that is completely fallacious, as there are many examples of movies that clearly have no political, spiritual, etc agenda behind that have flopped simply because they were poorly executed… nothing more, nothing less.

        also, there have been many “family fare” movies that have been highly successful post ET… yes, maybe not with the exact same story line or with aliens that possess light up fingers, but with very similar themes and moral conflicts. so idk what you’re talking about on that one…

        and finally, you say that you don’t care about the accuracy yet only a few sentences after that statement, you show disdain for the fact that the reasons for God creating the flood in the film are inaccurate according to reasons provided in the Biblical scripture that Christianity and Judaism hold so dear??? kind of sounds very contradictory to your first sentence.

        and although it “twists and distorts” the Scripture, his intent was never to be “historically” or “scripturally” accurate in the first place and he made that clear in several interviews… everyones contempt on here is so misguided because the movie didn’t turn out the WAY they wanted it to, with Biblical accuracy closely followed and revered… If you want it that way, stop complaining and go make a movie about the Noah story yourself

    • Shauna

      I, as a Christian, would like if a movie is going to be based of biblical scripture, it maybe actually be based of biblical scripture. There are millions of people who have never picked up a bible and may go and see this and ACTUALLY think this is what is in the bible. I want more people reached to accept Jesus and for their soul to be saved and not be scared away. The director is an atheist, so he obviously has some agenda against Christianity.

  • Paul Duda

    Oh yeah, cuz, ya know, nothing crazy ever happened in the Bible. So rock people… yeah.

  • Noah_Vaile

    So. What did you really think?

    Did you like it?
    Or what?

    I mean. There are terrible movies that I liked. Even knowing how bad they were.


    • brnicolosi

      There a re some movies that are so bad they are fun to watch. Noah is just a dull pretentious slog.

  • Guest

    The lady can’t protest too much, methinks.
    It’s a great review for tanybody with half a brain and a great sense of humor!
    Maybe we need to see awful offerings like Noah because after all, Jesus hung out with drunkards and prostitutes. And maybe even me. Dogmatic Jesus forgive me. Let’s all pray for artists!

    (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

    • Manny

      Huh? What does Jesus hanging out with drunkards and prostitutes have to do with her review?

    • Jerome Hughes

      Well, He did sit and eat with them, but He, then, revealed to those who scolded Him for eating with them, which was to teach them repentance.

  • giles23

    I never wanted to see it, but now I do. I HAVE to see the rock people! Barb, I think you are the Director’s angel.

  • Harmony

    There are a lot of other religious people on this site who gave the movie positive reviews. They have been saying that not only is it Biblical, but it goes further to allow us to see the sacrifices and hardship Noah had to go through to follow God’s command.
    Perhaps it’s not Biblical according to the King James Bible. But the movie gets its source material from more sources than the few chapters we have in our version- i.e. the Torah and Jewish traditions (they wrote Genesis first, right?)

    (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi protocol.)

    • Laura J. Davis

      I’m pretty sure the KJV didn’t have rock people in it.

    • TJL

      No. Its not even close to any versions, apocryphal or canonical. It’s 99% fiction.

  • johnnysc

    Gotta admit…..pretty good marketing strategy. 50 percent of Catholics voted for a staunch pro abortion president so make a ‘religious’ movie and pepper it with the liberal hot topics that will attract those Catholics who place their liberal political ideologies over the teachings of Jesus and His Church and walla….you get a sizable addition to your known secular audience.

    • TJL

      Good point.
      But those who call themselves Catholic, while at the same time opposing Church teaching, are actually Protestants in denial.
      If someone disagrees with even one of the Truths taught consistently by the Church, that person has protested a teaching and has excommunicated himself/herself with such heresy.
      There is no such thing as being a “cafeteria Catholic”. You can’t pick and choose. It’s all or nothing.
      Christ is not the King of a democracy.
      Truths don’t change with fads, fashions, and social desires.
      If a person doesn’t like a teaching of the Church, that person should go find one of the Protestant churches that suits him/her. They need to stop trying to change the Church.
      We are what we are. If they don’t like it, they can leave it.
      We don’t need the large numbers as much as we need the Truths.

      • johnnysc


  • Marv Katz

    Great review – “spot on”. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE movie – worst ever. Aronofsky should refund our money – this movie was hyped and is actual JUNK. Too bad Jennifer Connelly and Russell Crowe attached their names to this garbage.

  • William Fuzi

    At least there is still honesty in the world. This movie is what happens when an atheist wants to paint Christians in a bad light.

  • penguincompassion

    One of the worst Christian books of all time was promoted by a Christian to me. I can’t remember the name of it off the top of my head, but it was about this character who was a big black lady who played God and many other problems were found in that book that was as far from Scripture as Pluto is from the sun. Half way into that book, I stopped reading and threw it away. I’ll mention the title in the reply section if I remember it soon. Anyway, my point is it’s not just some “Christian-themed” movies we need to be careful of, but also what passes as “Christian books” with some Christians.

    • Shelby Alvarez

      The Shack

    • Jenny Uebbing

      Ugh, the Shack. I read it, unfortunately. Hideous.

    • Kane Lach

      That book is called the shack and It’s actually about God meeting people where they’re at, rather than what ethereal form God takes. It’s a work of fiction that contains manifestations of the character and nature of God. Not new doctrine.

    • Berkeley Young

      The Shack?

    • knuckledragginrightwingnutjob

      You’re probably talking about “The Shack.” Decent story. Crummy theology….

    • Jayce Davidson

      The Shack?

    • BlueMit11

      You’re thinking of either “The Shack” or “Rock People.”

  • TJL

    Thanks for a learned and honest report.
    I hate to insult people, but I must say very clearly that anyone who isn’t stunned by the amount of grotesque errors in NOAH, just simply is ignorant about Sacred Scripture and needs to buckle down and read.
    And, to say such error merely promotes discussion or dialog is to live in a fantasy world.
    How on God’s green Earth are we supposed to go around and correct all the errors that are planted in peoples mind by this?
    You NOAH supporters who claim to know Scripture had better get busy. You’ve got a big mess to clean up, and God WILL hold you to it.

    • Constance Chapman

      About as believable as Superman. :P

    • bender

      Having “errors” or additions is not necessarily a problem. Any work depicting the Bible must necessarily take some artistic license.
      The problem is not that this film appears to be wrong, it is that it appears to be misleading. And not merely in the fraudulent bait-and-switch variety, but as a matter of theological scandal, a lie against the truth of God.

  • smartypants

    I love this review so much! I think I’ll read it again. Two thumbs up .

  • mallgator

    I love this review. I’m still laughing….. ROCK PEOPLE! LOL…

  • garry vath

    Firstly, the director and producers never claimed this would be a Biblical interpretation. Second, there’s not a whole lot of detail surrounding the Genesis story. This would leave film-makers to be creative in filling in the blanks…again, keeping in mind they are making a movie for entertainment purposes. So, as for this review… the writer lists the story issues that really made this movie so bad. Out of the 9 points, 6 seem to me to be not that big.
    -Noah chides his child, then cuts trees .
    -the city people are not very advanced (no shampoo, this is a witty writer!)
    -Tubal Cain mobilizes people quickly (a lot of things are often sped up for film sake)
    -the people are upset too quickly after rain starts (see previous comment)
    -animals are sedated by herbal smoke (well, SOMETHING must have kept them in line)
    -”five minutes” after getting off the ark Noah builds a winery, gets drunk and naked (well, he did…I guess it was the 5 minutes part that made this a stupid movie)
    So, in the end it’s 3 issues that are most contentious…
    -the rock people thing…there actually were a group of beings called Nephilim that no one really knows anything about, and also mention in the Bible of giants.. so I guess the film makers took some pretty wild interpretation with that … so take that with a big grain of salt
    -Tubal Cain hides on the ark … yup, artistic licence on this… trying to build up some tension for the viewer I suppose.
    -Noah having some mental health issues, thinking he needs to kill his family… right, not in scripture.. obviously the film makers are trying to present a Noah who is conflicted, flawed, confused … dare I say human?
    Whether or not one enjoys this movie or thinks it is terrible, I think reviews should be fair, with viewpoints articulated honestly. Thank you for your wit and integrity!

    (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi protocol.)

    • David Instone-Brewer

      The movie is as enjoyable as this review. It is a creative movie, not a docudrama. If it just followed the Bible text, Noah would have nothing to say (he doesn’t say anything in the Bible) and the story would be over in ten minutes. And of course the story wouldn’t have any surprises. Come on – it’s a great story and it is full of the message of The Creator in Genesis. If you want a docudrama, watch a docudrama.

  • Benjie Dakis

    you are crack up!!!! LOL. Love the phrase Rock People! You are so cool! Too many people incorrectly think that a MOVIE is for entertainment not a way to learn about the truth about God. The director or scriptwriter did not say it is an accurate of the event in the life of Noah. If you read the story of Noah (Gen 6-9 because I didn’t know where it is written) there are a lot of gaps, that anyone without any understanding or reverence for the central idea of the Scripture can put their own version of story, which the director and scriptwriter did, they put their own version. The gist of the story is this “that God detest sin, and will not tolerate it and that a judgement will come, as harsh as that truth is that is the reality,even in this dispensation of grace that we are in.

    (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

  • BillNewcott

    Well, every critic is entitled to an opinion about a movie, but they are not entitled to question the integrity, intelligence, and spirituality of those who disagree with them. Read my review (link below)–I also take issue with the rock people, and the environmental agenda of the film. But if Aronofsky made a movie sticking strictly to the Biblical narrative, the movie would have been exactly 10 minutes long. Didn’t you (or she) ever wonder if Noah felt a little badly about leaving the entire world of people outside to die? And check out the Bible–Noah actually does go out and get naked and drunk after it’s all over. And there is a profound spiritual truth to the movie–not hidden, and far from sugar-coated: Noah comes to the terrifying realization that he and his family are actually no better than anyone who died in the flood. That’s right: He realizes to his horror that he and his entire family are sinners (!), saved (!) solely through the intervention of God on their behalf. That realization drives the entire drama of the film’s final act. He’s so overwhelmed by the concept that he for a time believes his whole family deserves to die with the rest of them: Only when he sees his newborn grandchildren does he begin to understand the concept of God’s justice balanced with love. Dramatic embellishments aside, for my money, “Noah” is one of the most profoundly Christian movies Hollywood has ever made. And by the way, the writer totally lives up (or down) to the last graf of my review: Those people who tut-tut Aronofsky’s “Noah” are the ones who will gather their families around the TV on Easter to watch “The Ten Commandments,” and not raise an eyebrow when the totally fabricated Edward G. Robinson sneers, “Nyeah! Where’s your Messiah now, eh Moses??”

    • Meerkat

      I agree with your review totally. To paraphrase a friend of mine, “Noah and his cute, pristine little arky arky with sweet, clean, smiley animals trotting 2 by 2 into the ark is for Sunday school children. Time for Christians to grow up.” Noah was a gritty fallible human confronting his own sinfulness and trying to grasp what his Creator God wanted from him and to be obedient. This is another review I found to be right-on~

      • BillNewcott

        Thanks, Meerkat! I did enjoy that review. It’s actually fun to read the differing opinions. Great films get people talking, and by that standard, at least, Noah is a great film.

  • mencik

    Actually, the WTOP (Wash. DC News radio) movie critic claimed the movie was fatally flawed because of the ROCK PEOPLE!

    So, not all of the mainstream media likes it.

  • Matt

    Really the only thing I agree with you on are the rock people- that’s pretty ridiculous. However, I’ll go over your points with you.

    1. Rock People. Totally agree with you. Stupid way to explain how the ark was built.
    2. Noah “chiding” his son for cutting a wildflower, then cutting down an entire forest, gives you perspective into how much Noah values life and nature, and then just how far he is willing to go to obey his GOD. You raise an intriguing point here.
    3. Cities are centers of technology- it’s freaking 3000 B.C. What were you expecting? This was the budding Mesopotamic area, lush, but filled with pre-progressive humans who were barely human (hence the flood).
    4. That’s right, because a general who was preached to that the earth would flood would NOT fight to get on a boat when it actually starts raining?
    5. Rain was a big deal up until a few hundred years ago. The Bible is FILLED with rain gods, or the idea of praying to gods for rain. If you could predict heavy rainfall, you were claiming to be a god. Hence the disbelief, then utter panic.
    6. Tubal-Cain hid on a massive boat that held two of every kind of animal. Less than 300 years ago, stowaways hid for months at a time on MUCH smaller craft just to make it to America.
    7. Yeah I didn’t get this much either. Herbal smoke? Pish tosh.
    8. This caught me off-guard as well. Not true to the original story, but hey, plot twists sell, right?
    9. This actually WAS in the Bible. Noah gets drunk, and one of his sons sees him naked. Go look up the part about his son Ham, and how he was cursed by Noah and by God.

    All in all, you raise some very valid points. Thanks for your keen perceptiveness and humor.

    (Partially edited for incivility according to the Nicolosi Protocol.)

  • Shelby Alvarez

    Galaxy Quest called. They want their rock people back…classic. I laughed so hard I cried on my keyboard.

  • keely1

    Oh, why, oh why, didn’t I read this before I saw the movie? I laughed out loud a couple of times and almost spit out my drink when they said the reason the Creator sent the flood is because people were horrible to the Earth. I say it was a combination of Lord of the Flies, Lord of the Rings ( those rock people remind me of something in LOTR), Castaway, Psycho, Waterworld, and confusing Noah with Abraham when he tries to sacrifice his twin grandchildren. We walked out of there saying what a bunch of crap the whole thing was, but there will be many who don’t know the Bible, and will believe this is the story! And to think these people went to the Vatican to meet the Pope. WHAT?!

  • Danielle Massey

    I was wondering… Does the movie have any Rock People in it????


    • Jeff Collins

      Yes, they are the Fallen.

  • rrginprocess

    Why is anyone surprised by the results of this film? 1) It has nothing to do with the Biblical narrative 2) This story stands on it’s own revealing deep truths about God’s passion and intimacy which this version trashes 3) Those involved in manufacturing this travesty treat this story as if it were nothing more than myth, a fairy tale.
    Just these three points are enough to warn Christians away from supporting another lie about who God is and what those who follow Him are like. Let’s face it, Christianity does not need any more media twisting into lies what we hold true!

  • Al Menconi

    I watched NOAH and reviewed it for my blog and agree 100% with Nicolosi’s review. Not only is is off the mark biblically but worse, it’s 2hrs of boring. What a waste of time. Save your money and tell your friends. The above review is spot on.

    • Jeff Collins

      Then you too missed the actual story behind this. Read the Books of Enoch, scripture tossed aside by the Roman Councils and then maybe you’ll understand.

  • Stephen Bowen

    Honestly, why is the reviewer so pissed and offended about a movie? Does he really feel this movie was SUPPOSED to please all of Christian idiosyncrasies? As someone said below, did the makers of this film profess it to be an all-encompassing accurate depiction of the biblical story of Noah?

    I enjoyed this movie because I wanted a fresh new outlook on a STORY that I’m already familiar with. That simple. Maybe I don’t want to nitpick at the Christian subtleties of a movie that happens to be loosely based on a story from the Bible. Maybe I just want to enjoy the movie for what it is. Entertainment.

    • davegilbertson

      1. the film critic that wrote this piece is a woman
      2. most of her critiques were based upon cinematic criteria not biblical authenticity
      3. I’m thankful for her review, as it sounds like a tired film and I love movies, but feel like I’ve been more disappointed in tired, lazy, and bad films of late

    • Shauna

      The fact that you say a “STORY” screams loud and clear why you didn’t and can’t understand. If you also paid attention and read you would realize the critic was a she and not a he.

    • Dan Berger

      Perhaps I would have more respect for your opinion if (a) it wasn’t the same crap people keep saying about every rotten movie ever made and (b) you had enough on the ball to recognize that this reviewer is not a “he.”

    • bender

      Sounds like the movie makers succeeded quite well in leading you astray — not only away from truth, but not even caring about truth.

      Frankly, I don’t understand the “better to drink poison than go thirsty” mentality.

  • nathanluk

    Ms. Nicolosi, I was struck by your comment protocol/policy at the side of your article – carries the label of your own namesake ‘Nicolosi Civility Protocol’:

    “… all thoughtful comments are welcomed. But if your comments are rude, obscene or basically amount to “You’re a stupid poo-poo head!”

    I found it ironic that the tone and language of your own article doesn’t seem to fall in line with the ‘Nicolosi Civility Protocol’.

    • brnicolosi

      Isn’t it wonderful? Welcome to the sheer brillaince of the benevolent dictatorship! To paraphrase Obama, “I am the Blog President I can do anything I want.”

  • Claire Thompson Willers


    • bobby reifsnyder

      What’s disappointing is that you did not do your research to find out that this isn’t and was never meant to be a direct story from the Bible. And as for your statement about being careful what we watch… Christians should educate themselves in every aspect of these so called “worldly” things. You don’t want to go preaching against them and sounding like an utter fool because you don’t know what the heck you are talking about do you? Christian standpoints… Seriously? Today’s Christian standpoints are nothing but cheap plastic junk you buy from Walmart. Christianity has become skewed beyond belief.

  • pablocruize

    Yes but are there any songs and umbrella’s?

    • brnicolosi

      Russel Crowe does reprise his singing a la Les Mis.

      • Ken H.

        It’s even *that* bad, huh?

  • knuckledragginrightwingnutjob

    From the director, Darren Aronofsky, himself:

    “While Paramount Pictures is trying hard to sell the film to Christian audience, Aronofsky told The New Yorker, “‘Noah’ is the least biblical biblical film ever made. I don’t give a f– about the test scores. My films are outside the scores.”

    According to The Los Angeles Times, Aronofsky greeted the movie audience by telling them that his film is “very, very different” from the Bible movies of the past and “anything you’re expecting, you’re f—— wrong.”

    Sounds like he missed the memo on promoting dialogue…

  • Matt Parker

    Come on!!! This is why we are failing to reach the next generation. Instead of thinking of how this movie can get people interested in the Bible and other stories in it, we bicker about how accurate a Hollywood movie is. Is it accurate no… But what do you expect? Is it a tool we can use to get others interested in what they see as boring book for extremists? Most definately! So get your heads and minds out of your traditional and this is all about how it makes me feel train of thought, and learn to see the potential use to reach and talk to people outside of our church. So don’t be quick to judge and burn something!

    • brnicolosi

      Thanks, Matt. But I m a movie critic. That means I judge things. And while I would never advocate a literal telling of the Scriptures on the screen, I do think the sacred text deserves some reverence.

      • Rocklaholic

        I appreciate that this is not a good movie, but it appears to me that what you are saying is that even had it been a word for word depiction of the Bible story, you would have reviewed it harshly, because you “would never advocate a literal telling of the Scriptures”? I’m not saying the movie should be seen, especially if it claims Angels were turned into rock people and eat humans, but why should a movie based on a Bible story be any different than one based on a novel? Even for an atheist.

    • Lee Button

      Why not actually use the Bible and have a real discussion. That’s what Paul did when he addressed culture.

  • Eric Whitten

    I don’t like the taste of crap, so I won’t be paying to have it shoved down my gullet. I thought that I would have heard more from those who didn’t appreciate Hollywood screwing with their story? This is THEIR HISTORY that’s being twisted and rewritten.

  • brandonstarnes

    Great review! Saw the movie last night and was like what Bible was this guy reading. I guess we should not expected anything less.

  • Stephen Elliot

    It’s a shame you didn’t enjoy the film, Barbara. You missed a great opportunity to imagine the Bible from a new perspective.

    • brnicolosi

      And that would be the atheist perspective? In order to enjoy this film, I would have to forget everything I have every learned about screenwriting and cinema. But you do go ahead and enjoy it.

      • Jeremy Royal Howard

        Atheist perspective, brnicolosi? The movie is very clear about the existence of God, angels, heaven, etc. Also, what have you learned about screenwriting and cinema that makes it impossible for you to enjoy the film?

        • brnicolosi


    • fredx2

      Why would you want to “imagine” the bible from a new perspective? And why would a perspective that includes “rock people” have any more validity than a perspective that had Mickie Mouse in it?

    • Carrie Hunter

      Stephen your comment quantifies exactly what any bad review from a
      Christian will be perceived as – an unwillingness to listen, our being
      rigid and dogmatic regarding accuracy, our being offended because we get
      offended by *everything*. etc…

      Because you know, we Christians haven’t a clue about what makes a film great. We know nothing of artistic integrity or cinematic merit. We don’t watch good movies so how would we know any better?

      • nathanluk

        Carrie, considering I can’t remember the last time a great film with great character and storyline development came out of the specifically Christian community I am more inclined to agree with your sarcastic sentiment! I have no doubt we are good critics, who know good story lines when we encounter it and are among those who have good taste in films, but when was the last time we created a film from the explicitly christian community that had good plot and character development?!

    • Levedi

      I don’t care at all that the film is unbiblical. It’s the nature of story telling to re-imagine the story’s meaning with every iteration. But this movie is objectively bad story telling regardless of the source material.

    • Stu

      Comic book perspective?

  • Rockon

    Russell Crowe takes issue with Christians who criticize Noah without even seeing the movie. My question is how any Christian could even think that it was going to have any accuracy to begin with, coming from who it came from??? 98% of Hollywood are either anti-GOD or are too cowardly to take a public stand for their Christianity for fear of losing work. 

    • Augustine

      Of course that Hollywood takes issue with criticism without purchasing a ticket! As long a critic pays up, it couldn’t care less about what he says.

  • moovova

    I feel like Barbara Nicolosi was holding back in her critique of the movie “Noah”. She should say what she really feels.

    (BTW…all joking aside…GREAT review! I won’t be wasting my $.)

  • Ray Dees

    AC/DC, for those about to Rock, people!!!!! __/

  • Carl_Vehse

    Here’s a clip about the Galaxy Quest rock people.

  • The Irish Atheist

    You are aso brilliant! What a surprise !

    (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

  • fredx2

    Saw it last night. The movie is not without merit, once you look past all the goofy stuff. If you can ignore rock people, Noah becoming a naked slobbering drunk at the end, the silly idea that there was an industrial three thousand years ago, the idea that Noah really wanted humanity to die out to cleanse the earth, a part where the movie leans toward killing all the people on earth so the animals can enjoy it, the idea that there was a stowaway King on board for nine months who ate the animals raw without notice, that Noah’s son was out to get him because Noah abandoned the girlfriend the kid had for like 30 minutes, you might like it.
    Still, it was a good old Hollywood spectacle, much like a Transformers movie. In fact, that is really what it was – a transformers movie. The Leader of the rock people actually talks exactly like Optimus Prime.
    And the Director had a message of sorts, a deep message that wants to get across about how lucky we are to be here. Or something like that. I am not sure. But in terms of money spent? It’s a normal night out at a transformers movie.
    Actually, think about it. The director had to create some kind of conflict during the boat ride because otherwise the movie would have been 40 minutes or so of Noah standing on deck, drumming his fingers, waiting for the water to go down. Sending out a bird every now and then.
    But in terms of enlightening us about the bible story? I give it about a 2 out of 10 points.
    Also, it was kind of weird how they refused to say the word “God” during the entire movie, instead calling him “The Creator”. And that’s pronounced Kree-ay-TOR.

    • johnnysc

      “Also, it was kind of weird how they refused to say the word “God” during the entire movie, instead calling him “The Creator”.

      Not really a surprise when you consider that those who hold to their liberal political ideologies over the actual teachings of Jesus baptize in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier in order to avoid the masculine Trinity.

    • smith005

      You wrote: ” If you can ignore rock people, Noah becoming a naked slobbering drunk at the end,” etc.

      In the Bible after landing the Ark Noah plants a vineyard, gets drunk and is found naked by his sons.

      There will be scenes in the film that we don’t agree with, as long as us as believers in the Bible know our scripture than we can understand right and wrong in the film. I believe the film Noah has potential to lead viewers of the film to read Genesis to find truth in Noah and the ark. If the film leads even just one non-believer to faith by that person choosing to open up a Bible and seek truth, than that’s more than enough for me to appreciate. God will use this film to reach to others, whether we understand how or not, the film was still made for a purpose.

  • stlouisix

    Axiom: Beware of atheists making Biblical movies as you won’t find God but rather the devil!

    The proof is below.


    Skip Noah and Its Evil, Pagan Agenda!

    I don’t plan to see Noah. I don’t relish giving money to a Hollywood that mocks Christians and often produces films that lie about our beliefs. The day of the biblical blockbuster that respected Christians even while embelishing the story, The Ten Commandments leaps to mind, is long gone. The cynical view says producers mostly respected our pocketbooks, but at least our values weren’t undermined, ridiculed, and distorted.

    I saw The Ten Commandments as a child (and later Ben Hur) on school field trips and remember well the excitement and the spellbinding impact of seeing them on the big screen. But there’s apparently little biblical truth in the current Noah film and a large dose of liberal agenda. Check out this review about Noah pushing evolution and black magic

    and this one calling the movie “disgusting and evil paganism.”

    Here’s how reviewer Ken Ham puts it:

    “Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie that has Noah as some psychopath who says if his daughter-in-law’s baby is a girl, he will kill it as soon as it’s born. And then when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah (the man the Bible calls righteous Noah-Genesis 7:1), brings a knife down to one of the baby’s heads to kill it and at the last minute doesn’t do it-and then a bit later says he failed because he didn’t kill the babies. How can we recommend this movie and then speak against abortion! Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people.”

    Yup, Hollywood couldn’t resist giving their favorite sacrament and the culture of death in general a biblical blessing no matter how much they had to twist Genesis to do it. I saw The Ten Commandments as a pre-teen. Would you want to take even a teenager to see this monstrous film?

    My recommendation on Noah? Watch the episode in The Bible with John Houston depicting the patriarch.

    His portrayal of Noah hearing the voice of God reminds me of Bill Cosby’s hilarious routine as Noah takes shelter in his workshop and peeps out the door, awe and reverence in his face. In my opinion it’s the best part of the film. Here’s the scene as the animals load onto the ark with Noah as a sort of zoological Pied Piper.It’s charming. I doubt anyone will say that about Hollywood’s latest Noah. Anybody with sense would have pushed him off the ark.


    As I read that Breitbart review

    I thought it basically said that The movie NOAH is a Godless piece of pure unadulterated Eco-fascist trash with the only thing missing being Gore doing a cameo as God and the discredited Penn State Mann-Made climate type, Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann doing the narration.

    Penn State Probe Into Mann’s Wrongdoing A ‘Total Whitewash’ – Global Warming Is Frozen Over

    Mann-Made Climate Changes

    Judge To University: Release Climate Researcher’s Mann’s Papers

    Another Rant From The Hypocrite, Michael Mann

    Warmists Like Mann Need To Face Justice For Their Deceptions

    Purported Penn State Climate Researcher Michael Mann Is Shameless

    The Bogus Hype From Climate Alarmists Like Michael Mann That July Heat Record Shows Rise In Global Temp

    Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline In How Science Was Bastardized

    And if the Breitbart review is accurate, that’s exactly what it is!

    • Merrymom

      Despite the fact that John Huston was an atheist, he still managed to treat the Bible with reverence and respect when making his film. He portrayed the stories well.

      You have to wonder why an atheist would even be interested in making a movie about the Bible. In John Houston’s case, I think that he was curious and intrigued and maybe even a little interested in finding some kind of faith within himself. As for Aronofsky, I don’t believe that he is particularly interested in the Bible or our faith. He was more interested in exploiting the story of Noah to push his own personal agendas and for profit.

      I thought it was shameful of Aronofsky and Crowe to try and pull Pope Francis into it all. From what I can glean from news reports, the Vatican had told them in no uncertain terms that the Pope would possibly meet with them, but if they sniffed a “photo op” kind of situation it was off. Well, somebody let the cat out of the bag and the meeting was pulled. They had to settle for being in the general audience and getting a Papal blessing on themselves and not their awful movie. Trying to receive the Pope’s blessing on this movie stunk of desperation to me.

  • Gina @ Oaxacaborn

    So you thought it was just OK?

    • brnicolosi

      I don’ t think I would express it that way.

      • Gina @ Oaxacaborn

        Humor. :-P

  • Gina @ Oaxacaborn

    Serious question: what camp were you in re: Aronofsky’s The Fountain? That was a very polarizing movie, and I’m curious how you felt about it.

    • brnicolosi

      I thought it was a mess too. But I thought it was a better film than ‘Noah.’

  • ML Wilson

    I researched the antediluvian world for my trilogy over ten years. I poured not only through the canonical scriptures, but also other Deuterocanonical books such as Enoch (which clearly Darren Aronofsky may have heard about, but did not bother to study) and the book of Jasher.

    While these books are not regarded as canonical by most Christians, may I offer that most Christians do not know how the Bible was put together and why these books were initially excised from the canon to begin with.

    Aronofsky’s version is a flight of fancy without any real biblical understanding whatsoever, but as the majority of the audience – including Christians – don’t know any more about this mysterious period of Biblical history, his version will be regarded as definitive for years to come.

    If any are interested in a version closer to what actually occurred, may I suggest:,

    • HornOrSilk

      That, I think, is the major problem with this film. It uses (or abuses) Enoch and other texts, doing eisigesis in the secondary material through a New Age lens.

      I mean, if they really wanted to “go there” and follow the notion of some group of “angels” which were “neutral,” they could have used later medieval tradition on the faeries (see the Voyage of St Brendan in medieval tradition, even as it is employed by Tolkien). It would be an interesting thing to add to a movie like this, however, its position and theology is far different from the new age theories of the “giants” (which really wants to use them for a masked UFO-theory of God to reject the Bible as a whole and see it as human misunderstanding of extraterrestrials). That this will become the “main” version people see of Noah for years to come makes me think we will have a new “Dan Brown” New Age ideology to work with and overcome .

  • X Contra

    I am not prejudiced about silicon-based life forms, or, as you term them, “Rock People.” After all, Rock People are people too, and they have feelings. They were featured in at least one episode of Star Trek, with Captain Kirk.

    I heard the “In a world” radio blurbs, with Russell Crowe grunting, “It begins,” and I realized that what I had heard, that is was a mess, a chocolate mess, was true and that I ought to hit the AUTO bypass switch on my wallet.

    MR. Aronofsky, I am ready for my close up.

  • Meerkat

    And if Catholic stuff also gives you a knee-jerk reaction, try this one~

    • Valerie Finnigan

      I don’t consider it a profoundly Catholic review. “Is humanity worth saving?” is not a big question. Catholic teaching clearly regards this “big” question a no-brainer.

  • Zach Propes

    I really want to stay as un biased as possible but the person writing this article is a genius. The most frustrating part of this read is when you realize you would never be able to think this profoundly and write this well.

    (Partially edited for incivlity as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

  • Zach Propes

    Genesis 2:5-6. Rain had not yet fallen from the sky. It makes perfect since that the people freaked out when it started to rain.

  • Laura J. Davis

    Best Review EVER! LOL! Thanks for keeping me out of the theatre.

  • KesherForum

    I completely disagree with this review. I felt like the heart and essence of the biblical text was very alive and well represented in this film, just as I have seen it alive and well in films that aren’t about biblical characters, but very much are based on the biblical themes of rebellion, redemption, and restoration (e.g., Narnia, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, etc.). I wonder what the reviewer or others slamming this movie thought of those theatrical adaptations that many pastors have and still use to illustrate the teachings of the Bible.

    Although Noah doesn’t stick to the biblical text, just as Evan Almighty didn’t stick to the biblical text, I thought that it did an excellent job at challenging viewers to contemplate and appreciate the importance of seeking and obeying God in the midst of fierce opposition.

    It’s not the fictional aspects of this movie that should disturb people. It is the vivid portrayal of the biblical facts that the movie portrayed that should.

    Even if you despise the creative liberties taken in this film, you can not deny the reality that it very vividly and creatively captured the depravity of man and the potential for evil that lurks within all of us, even righteous men like Noah, and the ever-present struggle of choosing right over wrong, good over evil, God’s way or my way. This film reminded me once again that God’s ways are far higher than man’s ways, that He is a God of immense power and might. A God of justice, but also a God of mercy, grace, and compassion. And most importantly, that He is God and we are not. I honestly don’t think I’ve seen a film that has brought me right into the tension and paradox of God’s character as well as this one does.

    I think it is impossible to deny that fictional and non-fictional narrative (this film has both) provides a pathway to our hearts for truth to transform us. Every story in the Bible exists not only to transfer information, but to open the gates of our hearts to be transformed. What I particularly appreciated about this
    movie—both the fictional and non-fictional aspects of it—is that it provided a pathway for my heart to engage with the reality of God’s character and the reality of my own depravity (greed, lust, anger, etc.) that can wreak havoc in the lives of others. While I believe it is vitally important for people to get acquainted with the details of the biblical narrative, I’m far more interested in seeing that people engage with the meaning of that narrative and the God behind it. Was this not why Jesus used parables? I think this movie can and will help many people engage with certain aspects of their relationship to God. It certainly did for me.

    • Meerkat

      Amen to all you said!

    • Mark Charles Salomon

      Why do you compare Evan Almighty, which is not based on any biblical text? As soon as you made that analogy you blew your credibility to zero

      • Amy Unruh

        I believe you might have missed the sarcasm dripping from that post.

      • SitsUnderWaterfalls

        Evan Almighty is also “based on” Noah as well, although that film is a PG-rated comedy. Nobody took it seriously as an adaptation, and I think she’s saying, you know, just because this is a drama doesn’t mean it should be taken seriously as an adaptation either.

    • Scott Leigh

      Evan Almighty sad as it was stuck closer to the text. Oh and thx for bringing up L.O.T.R. Aronofsky if director who is Jackson’s opposite when it comes with faithfulness to the original and if foolishly entrusted with Lord of the Rings would’ve made a guy named Smeagol the hero protected by donkey riding ‘wing’ (think Princess Bride) Wraiths, hunted by evil elves, dwarves, and hobbits who dare to try and destroy his Precious.

  • Angela Sealana

    I thought the ‘Watchers’ were the weakest part of the script, but as your fellow Patheos Catholic blogger Billy Kangas points out, they are inspired by creatures mentioned in Scripture. It’s too bad you was distracted by them.

    I 100% disagree with your assessment that there were no complex characters. I could give umpteen amounts of proof that the characters wrestle with big questions, both the “good” characters AND the “bad” characters, which is why I loved this movie.

    So, each to his own. To those reading, I say: Go see it yourself. It’s too bad everyone is going to the theaters with all the baggage from everyone else’s reviews…that’s why I wanted to see it ASAP. And I hope to see it again.

    • Al Menconi

      Since are the only person who has said the characters were complex, please explain WHY Noah found Grace in the sight of the Lord as the Bible says, and explain why God was so pissed at the rest of the world that He send a flood to destroy them? If you could explain those questions, you would have the foundation of a decent movie. If you enjoyed Noah so much that you want to watch it again, these questions should be easy for you to explain.

  • Bx007

    LOL at making a “short list of some of the stupid story problems” about a film about a ridiculously stupid story.

    • Servantof God

      Its a great TRUE story!;)

  • bender

    When it comes to properly understanding the Noah story, one must first properly answer the question of what it is about.

    Is it a story about condemnation? Or is it a story about salvation?
    Is it a story about death? Or is it a story about life? (and what is meant by “death” and “life”?)
    Is it a story about hate? Or is it a story about love?

    If we read (or watch) the story in the light of Christ (as we should whenever trying to interpret scripture), the answers should be clear. And should we be trying to steer people toward the right answer and the truth, or away from it?

  • Babz

    Wonderful, hilarious review. LOL. Read Gen 6. for the preview to the actual, factual event of the flood. And as Jesus says – and it will be as in the days of Noah – so if you’re into reality – you ain’t seen nothing yet. Also, listen to Chuck Missler’s teaching on Noah. Just remember – the battle’s not human. It’s the powers and principalities at work behind the scenes.

  • Gayla Suffridge

    If you want fiction, then call it fiction. If you want to portray biblical truth on screen, read the Bible. You know that historical account of the anything from creation to the end of the world. Ignorance is epidemic apparently.

  • Natalie

    Remember when people say that the book version is better than the movie? Well, they were right.

  • Joshua Hedlund

    I would like to address two elements of your review.

    First, you seem confused by the “rock people.” My understanding is that they are a reference to the Nephilim of Genesis 6 and/or “The Watchers” from the Book of Enoch. If so, their prominent presence in the movie is less confusing and in fact serves to make the film ‘more Biblical’ than it does without that understanding.

    Second, you seem confused by Noah’s treatment towards plants. You say, “Noah chides his son for ending the life of a teeny wildflower. And then he cuts down an entire forest to build his ark.” ChristianityToday’s review states that in the film “Noah tells his son early in the story that we only pick those plants that we’re going to use, and we leave the others to grow.” I believe this understanding makes Noah’s treatment towards the wildflower and the trees consistent – any plant can be cut down but only if it is for use, not for amusement.

    I hope this makes these parts of the film make more sense to you. I would humbly suggest that it is possible that other parts may have explanations as well, and that some of the Christians who are promoting this movie may not have the motives you accuse them of having, and may sincerely see value in this movie. Thankfully we all have room to disagree about the permissible things and whether or not they are beneficial.

    • Angelfire4280

      I respectfully suggest that you take Hollywood and it’s products waaaay too seriously. They take themselves seriously enough. A little ridicule may help them to remember their place.

      • RocksCryOut

        “A little ridicule may help them to remember their place.”

        Probably not, Angelfire. They’re making a ton of money on this piece of flotsam. Goes to show you what months of controversial media promotion will do.

      • brnicolosi

        I’m a movie critic. I get paid to take movies seriously.

        • Angelfire4280

          The above movie review in this article is full of ridicule. I agree with the review and support it. Reading comp. is your friend.

    • brnicolosi

      I’m not confused. I thought the rock people were stupid.

    • Al Menconi

      You can make the film say whatever you want, but please answer why was Noah “good” and why was Tubal-Cain (?) “bad?” Why did Noah find grace in the eyes of God? And why was God so pissed at the rest of the world that He sent a flood to kill them off? Answering those questions would have made a good storyline instead of this boring claptrap you are trying to justify. And please tell me where the bad guys got the bazookas to fight the rocks? I know it’s just a movie and doesn’t have to make sense, but it sure would have been a heck of a lot more enjoyable if it did make sense.

    • suzyG

      If he knows the entire world is flooding, why the concern about the flower? I don’t think it would make it through the violent upheavels. Do you? Portraying the Nephilim as giant rock things is just absurd. Remember the little fact that the director is an athiest? You can’t defend this as a true biblical account.

      • Cole Johnson

        probably because the flower bit was before he knew about the flood.

  • Duper

    The Rock people, or watchers, are supposed to be fallen angels. Now why Noah would enlist the help of those banished form Heaven to assist in God’s will is anyone’s guess. This is a work of fiction and should be received as such. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s from the world so why the big surprise? Remember what our Lord said in those regards.

  • jtal

    I liked The Robe.

    • brnicolosi

      It was very earnest and theatrical. Of course, the times were not cynical.

  • tutwelve

    Barbara, I totally agree. The movie was completely ridiculous. Rock people? Such a notion is hilarious.

  • Brandon Slagle

    This image sums up my only thoughts about this film.

    • brnicolosi

      Excellent. But you are missing the cheesy plastic green snake.

  • Robert A Murphy

    “They hate the Christians so much, that they will rave about this piece of crap because they think the Christians are going to hate it for ideological reasons.” Or maybe because they liked it? I’m an Aronofsky fan in general. I love his movies. His movies are never going to be feel good movies or histories. Got to say it: the “world” doesn’t really care about christianity nearly as much as you might think except when Christians say and do hateful, hypocritical things. It could be that the critics didn’t grow up placing felt giraffes onto a boat with a smiling Noah for the first 8 years of their life and didn’t have that to base the movie on. Sure, everyone knows the story. So what if the movie doesn’t follow it?

    If it was a Biblical movie (i.e. Christian movie) it would star Kirk Cameron, a cheesy soundtrack, horrible production, and would generally suck. This isn’t a Biblical account in the same vein that 300 was “about” the Persian invasion under Xerxes.

    What’s very interesting to me is that the Evangelical Biblical narrative says that God created the world in 6 days, used the ribs of a dude to make a woman, kills the world except Noah and his family (no smoke potion but the animals probably did something during that time…) because the woman eats an apple after being enticed by a talking snake, nukes Sodom and Gomorrah and turns a woman to a pillar of salt for watching, giants, rocks that spout water, and bread falling from the sky… and this movie is too much to believe??? Sheesh. Not trying to be heretical here. I’m a Christian. I just don’t get how

    • Al Menconi

      Question: if it’s not about the story of Noah, why call it Noah? What made the bad guys bad? Eating meat? Why did Noah find Grace in the eyes of God? Because he DIDN’T eat meat? Become holy and don’t eat meat!! What in the heck is that? I don’t understand why reviewers didn’t butcher this film. The message was so stupid! And worse, why make it so boring? If you want to believe God would condemn angels to be rocks because they had sympathy for Adam and Eve, then who made the bazookas that were used to fight the rocks? Let’s just go all the way and call it “The Transformers – biblical version?”

    • Noelle Campbell

      So… you don’t get how a woman is made out of the rib of a man, but you are Christian and totally buy the whole raised people from the dead and came back to life thing? I just don’t get how.

  • Joseph A. Vicari

    Stop all the hypothesis just read from the source Moses writings in Genesis at Chapter 6:9, “Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God.” This movie is a lie with expressions of demons. #noahmovie.

  • Scott Leigh

    An atheistic flood of a dud trying to ‘capitalize,’ on uninformed Christians who hear Crowe crow about criticism (going on since 3/11 Mex. City) saying ‘they haven’t even seen the movie. I feel sorry for the reviewer who had to sit there and watch this. But nice job divulging this wasn’t the deluge. ROCK PEOPLE!!!

  • twitch

    IT’S A MOVIE!!! You want entertainment, go to a MOVIE! You want education, READ A BOOK!

    • Stu

      If you want entertainment, you really should go to a good movie.

      • brnicolosi

        Stu wins Comment of the Week.

  • Mike Davis

    Making money on films is Hollywoods job. 90% of the stuff they come up with is sh-t. Just to get it on DVD for more sales, since no one with a brain goes to Movie houses any more. Read a good book you will at least increase your vocabulary

  • VoiceOfReason71

    Rock Biter hasn’t had a job since Neverending Story. I’m glad he could come out of retirement for this. ;)

  • smith005

    From above article: “Five minutes after they emerge onto the new land, Noah makes himself a winery and gets crazy drunk and naked. It’s not clear if he is angry at “The Creator” or angry at himself or just an introvert who suddenly has nothing to do.”

    In Genesis Noah plants a vineyard, gets drunk and is found naked by his son Ham. Ham tells his brothers, who then cover Noah with a garment. Noah gets mad at Ham. While in this film he may not be mad at Ham during that part of the film, I wouldn’t know as I haven’t seen the film yet. I plan to see the film later this evening.

  • Dave

    If you think Rock People are ridiculous, I can’t wait to hear what you think of a talking snake, a talking donkey, and two bears sent by god to kill children who made fun of a bald man?

  • Mike

    So… what you’re saying is, you liked it?

  • Annah Marie Taylor

    It’s a movie. I.e., entertainment. The story of Noah wasn’t exactly a literal work of non fiction as it happened word for word either.

    There are some artistic elements in the movie like any other movie. Watched Gladiator? 300? The Passion of the Christ? These “Historical” movies have additions to embellish the artistic quality of cinema.

  • George Palma

    I’m not quite sure what many people and christian bloggers were expecting about the movie Noah. Let’s be for real and honest, Hollywood has stopped making, supporting, etc., christian-based/themed movies for who knows how long. And Noah is just another example. If many know and understood the whole story of Genesis, they would know the truth. Can we expect that from Hollywood? Absolutely not!! They will take liberties beyond our imagination to implement their own imagination and interpretation. Interesting enough that in Sacred Scripture, Genesis does not really reveal too much about Noah’s adventure before and after the flood. So what were we really expecting from the movie?!? And oh! Noah’s story in Sacred Scripture began the second creation story and even then God was still in charge much like the first.

    As some have said, “it’s a movie” and we really shouldn’t be too overly critical or sensitive. If we’re going to be in such an uproar about a movie, why not be in an uproar when living out our faith and/or proclaiming and defending Sacred Scripture in the public square!! Crying “foul” about movie is petty. Cry out louder when it should really be heard and where it matters the most. Let us be the true “ROCK” like Peter and Paul in our world today.

    • Beazus1116

      So, my only issue with this review- and the first part of your comment (though I agree with what you say about focusing on living your faith rather than worrying about petty Hollywood inaccuracies)- is turning the inaccuracies into some systemic persecution of Christians, when what it really is, quite simply, is just how Hollywood does things. The concept of warping stories into unrecognizable piles of “WTF” is neither new, nor unique to stories of a biblical or theological nature.

      Off the top of my head… Braveheart? The only historically accurate elements in that movie are that William Wallace was Scottish, had a victory at Stirling Bridge, lost at Falkirk, was captured & executed. That’s it. Everything else, well, to say it is grossly distorted is very forgiving.

      Disney’s Pocahontas? Good lord, please. Yes, there was a John Smith whom Pocahontas saved from execution, but Pocahontas was a 11 year old girl at the time. Not a buxom independent woman, not John Smith’s lover. And that’s not even getting into everything else.

      The Patriot? While the characters were fictional amalgams of historical figures & literary invention, the movie nevertheless turned a morally ambiguous war into a cartoon of good guys/bad guys.

      Mel Gibson seems to be a consistent feature in my examples… Here’s a Russell Crowe example:

      A Beautiful Mind. Yeah, that guy had hallucinations about aliens, was an abusive husband with an illegitimate son, & divorced his wife for over a decade. Gladiator too. There is no evidence that Marcus Aurelius had any desire to return Rome to a republic, he was not a victim of patricide (in fact, Commodus co-reigned as Emperor with his father for 3 years), no short reign of Commodus, no murder by the hand of a fallen general turned gladiator (though he did compete as a gladiator in Plebian games, but he won all of those). No, Commodus was in fact assassinated by strangulation in his bath. Not to mention a host of battles, weapons, phrases, & even animals that didn’t exist at that time.

      Plus, let’s not forget other beauties like JFK, Pearl Harbor… Seriously, the list of Hollywood movies with a flagrant disregard for source material is endless.

      So, yes, I don’t disagree that “Noah” looks like a terrible movie. I knew that from a 30 second clip I saw of bad emo acting from Russell Crowe & That Chick From Harry Potter (her legal name). But that’s not a function of anti-Christian media & an atheis director. That’s just a function of Hollywood not knowing how to deal with creating a compelling narrative out of historical/theological accuracy, & instead feeling a need to stuff movies full of clichés, superhuman feats, & nonexistent love stories.

  • Tricia Prewitt

    Best review ever! Thank you.

  • tigerbait

    I haven’t seen it, just because I know what Hollywood does to our sacred scriptures. a story taken out of the Koran . given the same level of disrespect and intolerance would create a firestorm from the muslim population. perhaps a war. no one would even consider such an abusive move. we are a weak and feckless lot.

  • blaffer

    @Barbara Nicolosi I agree with some of what you say (yes, the characters are totally cardboard and the dialogue is stilted). A lot of the examples you mention to demonstrate the stupidity of the film are wilfully wrong. Even an agnostic like myself can see that.

    * “The angels take a hankering to Noah for no reason”? Not at all, it takes a small miracle (involving water) to convince them Noah is not like the others.

    * “his gentleness towards the missing-link dog is undermined when he uses the arrow on three humans”? Nope, that’s just to show how Noah only kills when he has to. He doesn’t even eat the animal even though food is scarce where they live

    * “his adoption of the sick girl is undermined”? That one is all about faith and doing what God commands. It eats Noah alive!

    * “Noah is a completely unsympathetic character.” If that is your touching stone for a good film, you are seriously narrow-minded. ‘Naked’, ‘Citizen Kane’, most noir films, everything Neil LaBute does, there’s no shortage of great films that have leading characters you wouldn’t want to be friends with.

    * and concerning the Rock People: that’s actually quite a clever and logical image. Fiery angels are hurled to earth, where they melt with the soil. What do you get? Rock/lava creatures!

    ‘Noah’ is far from an unmitigated success but it deserves a lot better than all the cheap shots you direct at it.

  • rhjunior

    You know, I was expecting heretical, blasphemous, totally scripturally incorrect and yes, bad— but…. this is bad beyond awful. It sounds like it deserved an award just for how bad it managed to be. I think the guy was deliberately working at it.

  • Dan Markoff

    Concerns the new Noah movie:

    it’s just a free cash for the show
    business based on well known, but well twisted bible story. As results
    of all impressions – those who have been watched the movie without a
    plain bible acceptance and faith, would keep their cripple knowledge
    about the God’s character and will develop a cripple understanding about
    His master plan to reestablish the harmony in the universe with justice
    and merciful redemption. Ultimately, the goals of the film makers of
    ‘Noah’ are clear – making money on ‘fear fantasy’ and religious
    parody… and eventually – destroying the objective approach to the
    bible’s faith.

  • MateretMagistra

    Yours and Matt Walsh’s review are spot on! All the others are stretching it and searching for something that does not exist!!!! It is insane for any Christian to think this is remotely a Biblical interpretation of the holy man, Noah.

  • Peter S

    “Hate christians”. Have you forgotten that Noah wasn’t a Christian?

    • brnicolosi

      No. Was that supposed to be a gotcha?

  • APW

    Reading this review is worth the price of admission to the movie that I now won’t see. I heard somewhere that Aronofsky is actually an atheist. So why bother doing a biblical story?

  • kanenas101

    Is it wrong to want to see this just to see how bad it is?

    I’ll wait for it to come out on Netflix if I do.

  • Eric Petty

    I must have watched a different movie, because I couldn’t disagree with you more strongly. And that is the beauty of art. I thought it was a brilliant look into the torture a man might feel had he been saddled with this blessing/burden. The characters were complex and definitely well-acted. Casting was brilliant and the special effects and cinematography were amazing. Taken purely as a film, I would recommend everyone see it at least once, unless you’re biased already. Then you should see it twice and take it for what it is: a movie based on events and characters from the Bible.

  • Guest

    Good for you. You got 123,000 shares on FB and 2,322 tweets. I saw the movie with teenagers who loved it, like they loved Lord of the Rings or Transformers, and then they went to read the Bible for the first time. Then they came and asked me about what they read and wanted to know more. I count that as a win for God’s kingdom. They were moved by teenage icon Emma Watson. The movie is aimed at teenage boys in my opinion. Know that I am praying for you.

    (Partially edited for incivility as per the Nicolosi Protocol.)

  • bryhudso

    Brilliant review! Precisely my sentiments.

  • Catherine Kuehl

    An awful movie, period, and I like Russell Crowe. That’s saying something. Found the whole thing offensive, and you summed up exactly why.

  • Masters Larry

    The movie was absurd but something else bothered me even more. The theater was packed… a strong faith based audience no doubt. The moment it ended, there was an eerie silence as everyone stood up to leave.

    It was like everyone there felt as I did. More than disappointed, though I expected the jazzed up Hollywood factor. I felt ashamed. Sounds weird doesn’t it? It was like we all felt ashamed. It seemed like God’s story had just been hijacked and I contributed to it.

  • harrykuheim

    No worse than that Matt Dammond garbage movie where at the end he hacks the Evil computers and commands them to “Deliver Health Care to Earth”.