Noah reviews

Maya22 said:
I haven't see the movie, only the previews. I think Jennifer Connolly plays Noah's wife, and the 'Hermione' actress plays their adopted daughter. Noah and his wife have two young sons in the movie.

As I recall, in the OT version, Noah and his wife had three adult sons and three daughters-in-law, all who rode the ark. I supposed that Bible literalists believe that those four couples repopulated humanity.
Click to expand...

Which fits perfectly with the genetic bottleneck suggested by examination of the human genome, and synchronous with bottlenecks identified in most all animal species... No, wait...
 
My son went and saw this move and I cant help but wonder if it was intended to be a bit subversive to the U.S. evangelical narrative. People like Ken Ham seem reluctant to ascribe too many miracles to the Flood story, perfecting to resort to materialistic explanations as much as possible.

These are some problems with the flood story that were handled by resorting to the supernatural:
- A huge forest appeared over a short period, sprouting from a seed from Eden.
- The mammoth task of harvesting the trees was done by giant nephalem.
- They lived in Pangaea so the animals could walk en-mass directed by God.
- The water sprouted from the beneath the earth as the tectonic plates shifted to modern day positions.

The final two are based on Walt Brown's hydroplate "theory" which involves truckloads of magic to believe if you have a high school understanding of geology.

I'm hoping that seeing these miracles created with the same CGI that gave us The Hobbit and Harry Potter might give people pause for thought as they much their popcorn.
 
Sideroxylon said:
My son went and saw this move and I cant help but wonder if it was intended to be a bit subversive to the U.S. evangelical narrative. People like Ken Ham seem reluctant to ascribe too many miracles to the Flood story, perfecting to resort to materialistic explanations as much as possible.

These are some problems with the flood story that were handled by resorting to the supernatural:
- A huge forest appeared over a short period, sprouting from a seed from Eden.
- The mammoth task of harvesting the trees was done by giant nephalem.
- They lived in Pangaea so the animals could walk en-mass directed by God.
- The water sprouted from the beneath the earth as the tectonic plates shifted to modern day positions.

The final two are based on Walt Brown's hydroplate "theory" which involves truckloads of magic to believe if you have a high school understanding of geology.

I'm hoping that seeing these miracles created with the same CGI that gave us The Hobbit and Harry Potter might give people pause for thought as they much their popcorn.
Click to expand...
The problem for the Ken Hams of the religious community with their preference for "materialistic explanations as much as possible" is that, as you say, they eventually break down in the face of observable reality, and their only recourse then is to magical (or movie) thinking- the assumption that the deity just automatically has whatever properties (or the scenario whatever possibilities) needed to make it real. I've said this before, but it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest to begin an argument with a pretense that it's rational and supported by, as well as limited to, real-world evidence, knowing that they will only be able to continue it by resorting, at some point, to whatever unlimited magic their faith makes necessary. That sort of dishonesty is fine for the movies- that, and the audience's willingness to suspend their disbelief for the sake of entertainment, is what makes them work- but it seems a little specious (at best) in a method of thought that aspires to "Truth."
 
Last edited:
I have wondered how "Biblically based" it really is when the TV ad says Rollingstone gives it such high praise. Talk about a juxtaposition...
 
I would love to see a big budget, well researched and accurate film about the Jewish revolt against Rome in the 60's and 70's CE.

I've got a few ideas if any big Hollywood producers want to contact me...
 
I don't know how accurate it was, but there's Masada with Peter O Toole.

I agree that somebody did their 'weird answers in genesis homework' to capture some apologetics for Logistics That Don't Really Work Very Well in the flood story.

There is a misogynistic thread to the whole story that is not very flattering to the male characters, and well, God in particular. A teaching I wish they'd left dead and buried in the OT was the notion that Ila, (Emma Watson's character) was defective unless she could have children.
 
Kopji said:
I don't know how accurate it was, but there's Masada with Peter O Toole.

...
Click to expand...

I vaguely recall seeing it and thinking it was a bit dull.

I think to do the full story justice, a trilogy would be in order. Peter Jackson, I'm looking at you...

First film deals with the Roman census and the birth of the Zealot movement under Judas the Galilean. Ends with John the Baptist's beheading.

The first half of the Second film deals with the Historical Jesus: (my movie, my HJ) who was a Zealot and a follower of JTB, his short career as "Teacher of Righteousness" and his summary execution under the extremely brutal Pilate. The film then takes up the story of James the Just as he takes control of the fledgeling "Church" and spreads the word of the Messiah gone to intervene with God on their behalf and who is going to return with an army of Angels to defeat their enemies. The High Priest sends Saul and Costobarus to persecute them. Ends with Paul getting a bright idea...

Third film: Lots of factions; Romans, Rich Jews, Poor Jews, Christians, Jewish Christians, Arab Jews, Arabs, Greeks, Syrians etc all wanting control of Jerusalem and the Temple. There was a LOT of money in that thing...

James is just barely managing to keep selling the idea that Jesus will be back any day now with his Heavenly Host, while Paul is undercutting him with his "Christ Jesus" and preaching against Jewish customs. The rich Jews conspire and Bad Guy Ananus convenes an illegal Sanhedrin and they stone James to death. Everything goes eerily quiet (maybe the occasional clink of a sword being sharpened) for the prophesied seven and a half years (see Daniel)...

Then we have the big war. A BIG WAR! Virtually every city in the whole country was smashed to rubble by the biggest Roman Army Ever. Climax is the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, after the terrible siege...

So basically the Third film is the battle of the Pelennor Fields over and over for two hours (plus some set-up, minus the Oliphaunts) then the utter silence as the Romans enter Jerusalem. Except for the Zealots on the Temple Mount, everyone else was dead already. The Romans torch the Temple and the Zealots throw themselves into the fire.

Everybody Cheers, and we sell more popcorn...

Yay for bible movies!
 
A little off topic:
My wife goes to hear a preacher on occasion and he claimed that Christianity is true because he went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
But the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground twice, how could anybody know where that really is
 
truthseekershelley said:
I have wondered how "Biblically based" it really is when the TV ad says Rollingstone gives it such high praise. Talk about a juxtaposition...
Click to expand...

When you remove God from a story about God it's a safe bet it's not Biblically based. I haven't seen it though so I'm only going by what's been said about it. I'll watch it when it shows up on TBS or Sci-Fi or something.

I'm disappointed that they didn't use The Book of Enoch more. That would make a great movie by itself, I would love to see Enoch acting as a lawyer for the naughty angels. I'd go see that in a second. Book of Jubilees has some deleted flood story scenes too but I haven't read much of that.
 
kedo1981 said:
A little off topic:
My wife goes to hear a preacher on occasion and he claimed that Christianity is true because he went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
But the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground twice, how could anybody know where that really is
Click to expand...

Well, you see in the 4th century Constantine's Mum went on holidays to Jerusalem and some of the helpful locals told her where to look.

They weren't just looking to make a shekel off the rich foreign lady by telling her anything she wanted to hear, oh no, they knew all about it...:rolleyes:
 
Brainache said:
Well, you see in the 4th century Constantine's Mum went on holidays to Jerusalem and some of the helpful locals told her where to look.

They weren't just looking to make a shekel off the rich foreign lady by telling her anything she wanted to hear, oh no, they knew all about it...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

IOW Jerusalem then is just like Jerusalem now.
 
Peterson said:
When you remove God from a story about God it's a safe bet it's not Biblically based.
Click to expand...

They didn't remove God, where did you get that idea? I've heard others say the same thing and I don't understand why people are saying this. Not only is "God" called "God" at least once in the movie, he's referred to constantly as "The Creator", which is basically the same as "God". Even the bad guys in the movie never express any doubt that God exists. God is a major character in the movie.
 
No mud. The landing place looked a bit idyllic, humm maybe like the mountains of New Zealand. I half expected to see some dwarfs, a halfling, and a wizard stroll by.

****
I don't recall Masada being boring but I was very young. I've been known to only watch the interesting parts of movies, like maybe the end where everyone dies except Josephus.

I think we have plenty of religious movies on tap already this year. I admit to some curiosity about the collective message in sort of a 'meta sermon' sense. If I was a believer and saw them all, what would be the take away?
Go vote, or go hide in my bunker?
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
They didn't remove God, where did you get that idea? I've heard others say the same thing and I don't understand why people are saying this. Not only is "God" called "God" at least once in the movie, he's referred to constantly as "The Creator", which is basically the same as "God". Even the bad guys in the movie never express any doubt that God exists. God is a major character in the movie.
Click to expand...

Fox News has been pushing the idea that the film removed God and made Noah an unlikable character in order to undermine Christianity.
 
Peterson said:
When you remove God from a story about God it's a safe bet it's not Biblically based. I haven't seen it though so I'm only going by what's been said about it. I'll watch it when it shows up on TBS or Sci-Fi or something.

I'm disappointed that they didn't use The Book of Enoch more. That would make a great movie by itself, I would love to see Enoch acting as a lawyer for the naughty angels. I'd go see that in a second. Book of Jubilees has some deleted flood story scenes too but I haven't read much of that.
Click to expand...

God is mentionned in the movie. As creator and as god once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom