A flood is coming....

Opening in US theaters on March 28

Dave and I  want to see it.

Russell Crowe and Anthony Hopkins are irresistible

And Darren Aronosfsky is a first class, Oscar nominated director.

Here's an excellent interview on the film between Collider  and Mr. Crowe>

Russell Crowe Talks Spending Time in the Rain, Researching Biblical History, Working in Iceland, and More on the Set of NOAH


During a break in filming on Darren Aronofsky‘s biblical epic,Noah, Russell Crowe, who plays the eponymous figure, stops by for a chat with me and my fellow journalists who are visiting the set.  In one of the many ways the film will defy expectations, he’s not wearing a robe and sandals.  He’s dressed in scraps of leather, furs, and something that doesn’t resemble any particular time period, but conveys the pre-history of the tale.  As Crowe tells us, eschewing the traditional representation of the biblical story is one of the reasons he wanted to be a part of the project.
During our conversation, we also talked about spending so much time in the rain, what else about Aronofsky’s vision that attracted him to the project, what he learned in his research, shooting in Iceland, and more. 

Are you enjoying spending so much time in the rain?
RUSSELL CROWE: Yeah, the job’s fantastic.  When it first comes out, it looks like fireworks. You have that two blissful seconds where you’re swallowed by the beauty and awe of it…and then you get wet.  It kind of goes downhill from there.  So that why I just keep in my mind every time before I take I just look up and look at the beauty there.
What do you do in this one that you’ve never done before?
CROWE: Well, I’ve never gone for a swim in about 35 degrees off the coast of Iceland before.  That was a very interesting experience.  We found out later that night that it was the most dangerous beach in Iceland.  Every year, people just get taken off the beach.  That’s why they were paramount on safety.
What was it about Darren’s vision that made you so interested in this?
CROWE: It’s funny.  He called and said, “I’m going to tell you the name of the project I need to do with you.  And once I’ve told you the name, I don’t want you to comment.  I just want you to allow me to make you two promises.”  I said, “Right.”  He said, “The name of the project is ‘Noah’.  Now the two promises: First promise is you never have to wear a pair of sandals.  And the second promise is that never at any stage will I require you to stand at the bow of the ship, flanked by a giraffe and an elephant.”  So I was working in New Orleans at the time, so he came down and we had a couple days of talking about it, I read it, and I also saw all the pre-viz ideas he had for it, so it was clear it was going to be spectacular.
It seems like a daunting task to take on this kind of character and do it in a new way in a new story.
CROWE: That’s kind of what I like about it though.  Everybody has images in their mind when they hear “Noah”, and none of this matches up to that.  None of it at all.  There’s a lot of reading, actually, about pre-diluvial human life, and it’s quite enlightening, actually—what’s been discovered by archeologists over time.
Have you researched beyond the bible what theological scholars say about Noah or different interpretations?
CROWE: Yes, all of it.  It’s very interesting.  I had some people around the other night and they’re both ministers, actually.  They’ve worked in Africa stuff like that.  And they really wanted to talk about their version of Noah.  The Judeo-Christian Noah.  And I really want to get into the conversation because I’ve been doing so much other reading about Noah, but at the same time, “I don’t really want to bug you,” but at the same time, if you’re like me, that’s the only version you know.  Every single ancient religious text has Noah.  Every major religion shares stories up until Noah.
What kind of Noah are you?
CROWE: A wet one. [laughs]
There’s a lot of talk about how the size of the ark is exactly how it’s described in the Bible, so there’s a lot of accuracy, but you’re saying this isn’t like the one we know from the Bible.  Is it the look that makes it so different, or is it where this character goes on this journey?
CROWE: The thing is if you actually read the Bible, you can see there’s a whole lot more information in there than the way we interpret the Bible.  Because there are single lines in the Bible where if you just take them at face-value, they don’t make any sense whatsoever in the world we see, we know, and we understand.  That’s the major twist with Darren.  This world that exists pre-flood is not the dusty, sandy, Middle-eastern world of the Judeo-Christian understanding.  It’s broader than that.
What kind of dialogue is there in this?  It’s Biblical English?
CROWE: We kind of discussed that.  It’s sort of a wild thing to make the assumption.  There’s an arrogance either way.  There’s an arrogance if you think you’ve got something correct, and there’s an arrogance if you don’t even address it.  So we kind of stuck to the middle of it, and I would say in a way we’ve gone for what I would say is clarity rather than exactness, because that’s impossible.
So because Noah has spent ten years of life building the arc, is he more enlightened than most people?
CROWE: That’s a good question because still at this point in the story is he having communication with the creator or has he just gone mad?  But you’ll see from the beginning of the movie that he’s made certain decisions about how he’s lived his life.  I’m trying to avoid saying the word “pure”, but he has a simpler understanding of how Man and Earth, and Man and Creator, are supposed to be.
What’s been the most challenging aspect of filming so far?
CROWE: Running naked on the beach in 29.6 degrees for a whole day, and getting so cold.  So freaking cold.  So it was interesting.  It was funny too because all of us, we experienced so many beautiful things in Iceland.  It was a magnificent place.  Beautiful place to shoot.  We were basically along the whole journey of lava.  We were sort of on top of volcanoes and glaciers and stuff.  And then we were on glacial, volcanic planes, and then the ocean where the lava meets the ocean.  So the day I was lying around naked, there were these incredible little stones, and these [gestures to the recreated versions on set] aren’t very good examples because they’re still very sharp.  Down by the beach, the stones are tiny and they’re perfectly round.  And those little stones will get in places…I found it very odd, the mathematics of how they get there and how they stay there for days.  No many how many showers or whatever.  But we also found some incredible shapes too.  Some of them I brought back to my kids.  You have the crust of the previous eruption and the glacier has formed over it, and it’s erupted again, so the molten rock has gone through the glacier, and it looks amazing.  It looks like plastic.  And you pick it up, and it’s not plastic.  It’s got weight to it.  Iceland is fascinating; really an amazing place to visit, and great for the film to go there.
http://collider.com/russell-crowe-noah-interview/

From Darren Aronofsky's twitter feed:

The first actual review that I've come across.  I haven't seen the film yet. It doesn't open in US for another couple of weeks, but I agree with the author's opinion generally:

Quote :

www.washingtonpost.com

Noah’s arc of triumph

By Kathleen Parker

There’s nothing quite so helpful as a fatwa and threats of a Christian boycott to create buzz in advance of a new movie.

“Noah,” scheduled for its U.S. release on March 28, has become such a target. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain have banned the movie because it depicts a prophet, which, as Danish cartoonists will attest, isn’t the peachiest of ideas in certain circles.

Even here in the land of religious tolerance, the National Religious Broadcasters threatened to boycott the film unless Paramount, the film’s distributor and co-financier with New Regency, issued a disclaimer that the movie isn’t a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. It is good to have fundamentalist literalists explain exactly what the Bible’s authors intended, especially since a literal interpretation would keep moviegoers away or put them to sleep.

To wit: In the literal tale, no one speaks until after (spoiler alert) a dove sent to find land returns with an olive twig in its beak, indicating the flood is over and the world is saved. In the movie version, people talk, which is awfully helpful in following the narrative.

Alas, under pressure, Paramount altered its advertising to say the movie was “inspired” by the Bible story and is not the Bible story.

Note the frequent use of the word “movie” in the preceding paragraphs. This is because “Noah” is a movie. It is not a sermon or a call to prayer. It cost $130 million to make and is intended to entertain, inspire and — bear with me, I know this is crazy — make money. It does not presume to encourage religious conversion, disrespect a prophet or evangelize a snake, though it does glorify virtue in the highest.

I recently viewed the film and can confidently report the following: If you liked “Braveheart,” “Gladiator,” “Star Wars,” “The Lord of the Rings,” “Indiana Jones” or “Titanic,” you will like “Noah.” If you liked two or more of the above, you will love “Noah.” Your enjoyment increases exponentially with each movie checked above, though I should warn that “Titanic” made the cut for only one reason, the major difference between it and “Noah” being obvious. “Noah” also includes the essential love story or two, without which no story floats.

“Noah,” in other words, is a big movie. There’s plenty of action and enough gore and guts to leave young children at home. It’s a morality play/spiritual journey without being preachy, except occasionally by the protagonist. Noah the man can be a tad over the top at times, but this is an obvious plus when you’re being instructed by the Creator to build an ark and fill it with snakes, among other creatures.

And, let’s face it, Noah is Russell Crowe, from whom one wouldn’t mind hearing: “Would you like to see my ark?” We’ve come a long way, baby, from Charlton Heston as Moses in Cecil B. DeMille's “The Ten Commandments.” Add to the cast Anthony Hopkins playing Methuselah, Yoda-esque in his ancient wisdom; Jennifer Connelly, who plays Noah’s wife; and Emma Watson as his adopted daughter. There are also Noah’s three heart-stopping sons, whom we witness evolving from innocence to self-knowledge as they question their father’s authority (sound familiar?) and try to resist Oedipal urges that surge to the surface with the terrifying brutality of a serpent’s strike.

Poor Noah, alienated from a world consumed by evil, aspires to goodness and justice even as he questions his qualifications to the task. Moviegoers are treated to a short course in original sin, magically presented with zoom lenses, a pulsating apple and, shall we say, reptilian dispatch. (“Anaconda” probably deserves an honorable mention on the list.)

This is all to say, the film is art, neither executed nor to be taken literally. And who are these experts who know precisely what the Bible’s authors intended? Among other criticisms are the implications that evolution and creation might be mutually inclusive and that man and beast are equal in the eyes of the Creator. Noah and his family are vegetarian and demonstrate respect for the Earth’s fragile balance.

Pure heresy. Next thing you know, we’ll all be driving Teslas and eating basil burgers.

To each his own interpretation, but at least one conclusion seems self-evident: The Bible’s authors were far more literary than we. They clearly had a keen appreciation for parable and metaphor as well as a profound understanding that truth is better revealed than instructed.

If the literalists prevail, we just might need another flood.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-noahs-arc-of-triumph/2014/03/14/3678b092-abaa-11e3-98f6-8e3c562f9996_story.html

Leave it to the bible thumpers to take the fun out of everything.  God bless the producers of this film and all who watch it with an open heart.
Love,
Betty

Noah received excellent reviews from both Variety and Hollywood Reporter:

The Hollywood Reporter: "Noah's physical and mental toughness is strengthened by an abiding faith, and Crowe's splendidly grounded work here recalls some of his finest earlier performances, notably in Gladiator, The Insider and Cinderella Man, in which he embodied values of tenacity, trustworthiness and resourcefulness that inspired confidence that his characters would do the right thing."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/noah/review/689450#.UywhuQ6jJoY.email

And Variety: "...Aronofksy’s Noah (superbly played by Russell Crowe) doesn’t hear God’s voice booming down from the heavens like in Bill Cosby’s celebrated standup routine, or sit on the stoop shooting the breeze with the Creator like Steve Carell in “Evan Almighty.” Rather, the looming flood and the mission of the ark come to him in the course of two vividly rendered hallucinogenic dreams — one natural, the other induced by some special “tea” served up by Noah’s grandpa, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins, leaving no bit of scenery unchewed)."

http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/film-review-noah-1201130643/

Be sure to check out the entire reviews - I've only quoted the bits that wee most important to me.

Another extremely positive review - a video from Movieline:



So far, the biggies all say it's a great film. I am counting down the days until Friday.

This Vimeo video featurette give scenes from the film along with comments from theological reviewers:

http://vimeo.com/89714097

It just gets better and better - only giving the opening paragraph because the article is full of spoilers:

Quote :

Russell Crowe is the stormy center of Aronofsky's turbulent and terrifying 'Noah'

Darren Aronofsky's "Noah" is not just one of the most ambitious films I've seen this year, it's one of the most ambitious films I've ever seen. It's a movie that is spilling over with ideas and images and emotional explorations of the metaphysical. It's a movie in which shamanic culture is part of the same tradition as fallen seraphim and blatant miracles. It tells a story that is so familiar at this point that it has no impact whatsoever and tells it in a way that is constantly pushing and challenging the viewer. Whatever your idea of the story of "Noah" is, Aronofsky, along with his co-writer Ari Handel, has found a distinct and different way into it, and what he's made is going to be worth conversation all year long.

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/review-russell-crowe-is-the-stormy-center-of-aronofskys-turbulent-and-terrifying-noah

Annie,
I love this review.  I look forward to the movie.
Love,
Betty

Just got home from seeing the movie.  I'm still in a daze.  Incredibly powerful and intense.  Go see it.

Annie

It's been a full day now, and I'm still mulling over this film - for so many reasons.

I've been trying to write a personal review, but the words to fit my feelings just would not come.

I just came across a review that said exactly what I was trying to say, so here it is:

Quote :

ARONOFSKY'S 'NOAH' IS EVERYTHING _ EXCEPT BORING
By JOCELYN NOVECK (AP)

What to make of Darren Aronofsky's "Noah"? Perhaps that's the wrong question. Indeed, what NOT to make of "Noah"? Because it is so many things.

It is, of course, a biblical blockbuster, a 21st-century answer to Cecil B. DeMille. It's also a disaster movie — the original disaster, you might say. It's an intense family drama. Part sci-fi film. An action flick? Definitely, along the lines of "The Lord of the Rings." At times you might also think of "Transformers," and at one point, even "The Shining."

But there's one thing "Noah" is not, for a moment: Dull. So, what to make of "Noah"? It's a movie that, with all its occasional excess, is utterly worth your time — 138 minutes of it.

Although the real star of the film is its visual ingenuity, particularly in a few stunning sequences, one must give ample credit to Russell Crowe, who lends Noah the moral heft and groundedness we need to believe everything that ends up happening to him. Noah's near-descent into madness would not be nearly as effective had Crowe not already convinced us of his essential decency. At the same time, the actor is believable when pondering the most heinous crime imaginable. It's one of Crowe's more effective performances.

It wouldn't have been possible, though, without considerable liberties taken by Aronofsky and his co-screenwriter, Ari Handel, in framing Noah's story. There's been controversy here, but if you glance at the Bible, you'll see why liberties are necessary: the story takes up only a few passages, hardly enough for a feature-length script.

And yet, it's one of the best-known tales in the Bible, if most of us only remember the children's version, with visions of brightly painted animals standing two-by-two on the ark. But there's a much more serious backdrop: Man's wickedness, and God's desire to purge the earth of that wickedness. Aronofsky dives headlong into this story of good vs. evil, not only between men, but within one man's soul.

We meet Noah and his family as they're attempting to live peacefully off the land, and ward off the greedy, violent descendants of Cain. Noah has three sons and a wife, Naameh (Jennifer Connelly, genuine and appealing). Along the way they pick up Ila, an injured young girl who will grow to love Noah's son Shem (an invented character, played with sensitivity by Emma Watson.)

Noah visits his grandfather, Methuselah, embodied with scene-stealing vigor by Anthony Hopkins. The old man — and by the way, this is relative, because Noah himself is already over 500 years old, according to the Bible — helps him induce a hallucination, which brings a vision. The Creator will destroy the Earth in a great flood. Noah's job, of course, is to build that great ark, and get out of Dixie.

It's a monumental task, but Noah has help: the Watchers, huge, lumbering creatures made of rock, who, for Aronofsky, represent the biblical Nephilim. Are they angels, giants or men? Interpretation varies.

But it is here that the movie courts ridicule. These creatures look a little too much like Transformers, and detract from the mystical feel of the film. A giggle is surely not what the director was going for here, but he may get a few.

But that ark? It's a wondrous thing — constructed on a Long Island field, according to measurements specified in Genesis, and finished up digitally.

Also stunning: the flood itself, more chilling than any you've seen in a disaster flick. It's also rather magical to watch the animals arrive, two by two (and by virtue of CGI) at the ark.

But for sheer cinematic beauty, it's hard to beat the dreamlike sequence in which Aronofsky illustrates the story of creation, as recounted by Noah. At this moment, you may well forgive any excesses in the film. Like his flawed hero, Aronofsky has a vision — a cinematic one — and the results, if not perfect, are pretty darned compelling.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/aronofskys-noah-everything-except-boring

Oh, and BTW, Abe - be forewarned - there are lots of snakes. Annie

Since every dollar is dear these days, I'll have to wait. So few films please me lately that I'm afraid it might be me.

Your choice, of course.  It won't be the same, though, on a smaller screen.

But you know what's right for you.

Early box-office indicates it will be around for a while.

I imagine it's like Dancing with the Wolves - need a full screen to appreciate the expanse.

Partly, DK.  Much is filmed in Iceland.  Much is CGI.  The rain is real, from rain machines created for the filming.  Then there's the flood itself.  It's massive in its special effects  The ark was built to scale, using Biblical porportions.  It's all very large scale and hard to describe.

It's just an experience - hard to describe, but many viewers are saying the same thing.

Not everybody likes it, though, so I don't know if you would.

It honors the biblical story, but goes beyond it.  It's about the difference between justice and mercy.  It's about whether or not we should follow an Old Testament god.  It's about an individual who starts out good, and in the process of trying to do what he believes God wants him to do, he come in contact with not only his own darkness, but the darkness of God Himself.  It asks more questions than it gives answers.  And all of it is presented in these spectacular settings, and performed by a superb cast, directed by an equally skilled director.

It's still hard to explain.  I will have to see it again, but not this month, because my entertainment budget is limited, too.  I shot my March wad on it, so I will have to wait and see what April has in store for me.

If it had come out later in the year, I would be shouting Oscars - all the way around, but there are still nine months in the year, so who knows?

For me, it was a profound experience, but that's just me.

I value your opinion.  Maybe it'll fit in my next month's budget.  I will have one less house guest.

Hope it works out.

It's a film that invites discussion. would love to hear what others who see it think.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=noah.htm

Still flooding:

Box Office Mojo reports that Noah made close to $44,000,000 in its 1st weekend in US, making a worldwide total of almost $98,000,000 worldwide. It should remake its cost of $125,000,000 by the end of this next weekend.