Pages

Monday, March 31, 2014

More Noah reviews

THERE ARE ENDLESS REVIEWS OF NOAH and there's no point in trying very hard to keep up with them, but as the whim hits me I will note some from time to time. Here are two recent ones.

By J. Hoberman in Tablet Magazine: Darren Aronofsky’s ‘Noah’ Is a Hot, Wet, Cinematic Mess. It rains and rains in the most eccentric Old Testament adaptation, and most Jewish biblical blockbuster, ever made. Lots of spoilers in this one. I haven't seen the film yet, but what I've read about it sounds more this-decade forgettably trendy than particularly Jewish. But I'll keep an open mind until I do see it.

By Ezra Glinter in The Forward: Darren Aronofsky's 'Noah' Departs From the Bible, But Doesn't Go Far Enough. Blockbuster Flood Story Tries To Be Too Much, and Too Little. Excerpt:
In a few chapters, the Bible describes a strange primordial world in which people live to be hundreds of years old, extraterrestrial beings invade Earth, and a wrathful God speaks to the devout while obliterating the rest of humankind.

There’s enough here not just for a lifetime of self-published books explaining the true origins of humanity — were the Nephilim, in fact, “ancient aliens”? — but also for a great Hollywood movie. What’s better fits the blockbuster aesthetic than ancient landscapes mixed with sci-fi speculation, sword-and-sandals action with Lovecraftian horror? Despite the disappointments of similar projects — the “Stargate” flicks, say, or Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” — it’s a movie I’d like to see.

Unfortunately, Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah,” starring Russell Crowe in the title role, is not that movie.