Noah_Russell_CroweI didn’t get the chance to see Noah this weekend, but it appears the movie has done respectably at the box office, enough to fuel future biblically themed epics.

The intriguing thing about Noah is not the movie itself but the Christian response, particularly the evangelical response. I don’t ever recall seeing evangelicals so divided about a film. By and large, we stick together.

Evangelicals en masse rejected Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ. I was just a kid then, but I remember hearing about this “blasphemous” movie. On the other hand, we flocked to Prince of Egypt, an animated though reverent portrayal of Moses’ story. And, of course, The Passion of the Christ stands out as the biggest biblically-themed blockbuster of all time. In the decade since Mel Gibson’s Jesus hit the screen, we shrugged at Evan Almighty, ignored the TV movie of Noah, and rallied around Sherwood Baptist Church’s films.

But then came Noah.

It’s a movie that’s made waves among evangelicals (pun intended), but let’s be honest: we’re not all in the same boat here. In fact, I struggle to remember any film that has drawn so much praise and criticism from churchgoing Christians.

Here’s the rundown of options as I see them, scrolling daily (hourly) across my FaceBook and Twitter feeds:

1. Cheers

I haven’t seen any evangelical leader claim that Noah gets the Bible right, but many have lauded the cultural opportunity this movie affords. Focus on the Family President Jim Daly and pastor Erwin McManus appeared in a video encouraging Christians to attend. Popular film reviewer, Phil Boatwright, pointed out the extra-biblical elements, but recommended it as a discussion-starter:

“Noah is an epic movie experience that engages not only the cerebral but the emotional. On the way to the car, people discuss it… That’s when you know you’ve experienced true art. It’s not just a time-filler before going to some other time-filler. It’s a film that demands debate.”

Christianity Today featured an extensive, seven-page review of the film. It begins with an encouragement for evangelicals to engage this film and then offers five reasons why:

  1. Noah is a good movie made by good filmmakers who pursue important questions and think of movies as art.
  2. Noah is a solid adaptation.
  3. Noah is visually and imaginatively compelling.
  4. Noah re-enchants the ancient world in powerful ways that counteract some of the worst excesses of modernity.
  5. You should actually see it for yourself.

Greg Thornbury, president of The King’s College in New York City, points out two major theological objections but believes the film is path-breaking and will help re-enchant a new generation with the biblical narrative:”

Aronofksy’s Noah is a way of putting ourselves before the Bible’s “dangerous question” as Barth put it. The grim, gritty, and supernatural antediluvian biblical world takes us back into ancient history, of origins. Who are we? What has gone wrong with the world? Where is justice? Is God there? What does he have to say? That ancient world sets us back on our heels and forces us to take stock in this strange new world inside the Bible.

Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, offered 5 positives and 5 negatives, and then encouraged Christians to engage rather than boycott:

The main events from the Noah story are depicted in a powerful way on the big screen by name brand actors and quality production. Christians should be ready to engage moviegoers in conversation about biblical and cultural themes that are portrayed in this movie.

2. Jeers

Those who are critical of the movie fall into one of two camps. First, you have the Christians who think the movie fails at the level of storytelling. Brian Godawa (a Christian who’s no stranger to Hollywood productions) thinks the movie fails at fundamental levels:

“On the nose” dialogue. Flat characters that you just don’t care about. A sick twisted hero that you just don’t care about. Look, I know your hero has to have a character flaw, but this is so extreme that you can’t stand Noah, and you just want to leave the theater.

The second category of critics are those who believe it fails because of its unfaithfulness to the biblical story. Ken Ham didn’t mince words:

Friends, last night I watched the Hollywood (Paramount) movie Noah. It is much, much worse than I thought it would be—much worse. The director of the movie, Darren Aronofsky, has been quoted in the media as saying that Noah is “the least biblical biblical film ever made,” and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

Sophia Lee of World sees the film as missing the mark, primarily for being an epic that shows God’s judgment without His mercy:

Expressed only through dreams and nature, Noah‘s God is mythical, impersonal, and devastatingly involved. Any references to God are seen through Noah’s perspective. That’s a good sum-up for the film itself—a wholly human approach to figure out deep yet simple theology with great intellect, emotion, and creativity, yet somehow missing the crux of it. That’s the true tragedy of Noah.

Al Mohler’s response is similar:

The odd elements are not the problem, the movie’s message is. Furthermore, the way that message distorts the Genesis account is a far larger problem when it becomes clear that the misrepresentation extends to the master narrative of the Bible – including the character of God.

3. Mixed

While some are jumping out of their theater seats to applaud Noah and others are taking to social media to express their disdain for this film, a smaller number are greeting this movie with mixed feelings. They are neither ecstatic in support or categoric in their rejection. For example, Joe Carter sees his take as falling somewhere in between the cheers and jeers:

Noah is an art movie masquerading as a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster, an incongruous hybrid that is unlikely to satisfy most movie goers. Yet despite all its flaws, Noah is a worthy addition to the deluge apocalypse genre. It’s not a great film—it’s barely a good one—and it certainly isn’t the biblical masterpiece many of us were hoping for.

And my friend Aaron Earls views the film from the perspective of the director, Aranofsky, who is a secular Jew. He concludes his review with an insightful analysis of a backwards-facing Noah, and why Christians are bound to see the film’s theological component as lacking:

Aronofsky can give us a Noah who longs for creation, but he cannot show us a Noah who looks forward to the cross. There is no covenant from the Creator to promise a future redemption. This time, the serpent’s head goes uncrushed.

The ark in this film can only remind us of what was lost and try to salvage as much as possible, it cannot point beyond itself to the place we can run into and find ultimate salvation and the eventual redemption of all of creation – humanity included.

The film raises tremendous and worthy questions about sin and grace, justice and mercy. I’m thankful any time we have a chance to discuss those in culture. We can enjoy it as a film and an opportunity for significant discussions.

But it cannot give us the right answers because this Noah is faced the wrong way. With only creation in view, Noah has its back to the cross, leaving viewers adrift in an ocean of opinions and wishes without any solid ground to provide true hope for what comes next.

Noah found salvation in the ark, but without turning our gaze to the cross, there is no room for us.

What about you? Who saw Noah this weekend? And would you recommend I go or wait until it’s out on DVD?

Print Friendly

Comments:


41 thoughts on “How Christians Are Responding to the Noah Movie”

  1. I practically never go the movies and haven’t been in years, but I went on Saturday to see this. This film is a mocking, blasphemous, bible butchering, occultic, science fiction affront to the God of Genesis. On every conceivable level. Lyndon Unger has the best review I’ve read yet. He saw it too. http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/a-no-holds-barred-review-of-noah-the-movie-2014

    Trust me Trevin. His review is the last one anybody ever need read. He’s a much writer than I am too.

    1. Ben says:

      Over the top much, Greg? I thought the movie was brilliant and respectful of the Genesis narrative. The evangelical freakout over the film is simply embarrassing.

      1. Dan Kreider says:

        Right, Ben. Evangelicals are so embarrassing. A godless man shoots a film that makes a dangerous mockery of God, and Christians just fly off the handle. How uncool. How can we ever expect the world to like us if we keep getting worked up over matters of biblical inaccuracy? They’re going to think we’re fools. And we can’t endure the thought of that.

        1. Anita says:

          I just want to say this- I saw Noah. Yes, there are many evangelicals that are getting upset about this film but everyone please remember that while biblical accuracy is important and nothing to be embarrassed about, please remember that this film was not meant to be biblically accurate or evangelistic in any way. Some of the ungodly reactions that have came about because films weren’t biblically accurate can be embarrassing but speaking up in a Godly way in favor of biblical accuracy is not. This film can be a good conversation tool. I did find the movie to be beautiful visually but the script and acting had a lot of problems! I think that my actual words were at one point, “The dialogue is stupid.” That is just my opinion.

    2. Martin Brook says:

      Us Christians need to get a grip. We complain about everything and particularly Hollywood but when they do something brilliant we still complain. Nobody goes to a Hollywood movie to improve their theology so why are we worried about the theology. Take an unsaved friend, they won’t know if it’s ‘accurate’ but they will be faced with the living God and then you can talk to them about it.
      Thank God that Hollywood is getting involved in what really matters.

    3. David Westrum says:

      I found the depiction of man’s sin nature being so destructive and deserving death very true and faithful to the Biblical account. Though not a central theme – Noah’s wife says “God will provide” and I think Christians should pick up on this. And of course we can encourage people to take a Bible personally in their hands to determine how far off or on track the movie is. Give the author a break! Mel Gibson had four gospels to work from, here he has just a few chapters to work with leaving a lot up to the imagination.

  2. “Trust me Trevin. His review is the last one anybody ever need read. He’s a much better writer than I am too.”

    Sorry. Hopefully one day I’ll learn to stop posting before I’m too tired to miss typos like that.

  3. Kevin Keating says:

    I think many Christians are failing to appreciate what the film is doing because they’re making comparisons between it and the Genesis account without first doing a deeper analysis of how the film works on its own terms. For example, those claiming that it denies God’s mercy are the prime example of this. Within the world of the film, God does not speak in clear ways. This is an assumption that obviously does not fit with the Biblical worldview, but it drives the conflict in the film. Noah, as an imperfect human interpreter of God’s unclear signs assumes that God is unrelenting in judgment and has no room for mercy, which drives him toward his attempt to kill the child (which, on an unrelated note, I can’t help but think was meant to echo Abraham – especially given the whole barren womb being healed thing). But Noah’s attempt to kill the child is set up as ironic within the context of the film’s focus on the Cain and how since him man has killed man throughout history. Quite likely what the film is trying to convey is how religious people, thinking that they have a clear sign from God, end up doing the very thing that God hates: kill others. That Noah is mislead is made even more evident by 1) how others on the Ark read the signs from God differently than he does, as pointing to God’s mercy (the girl points to how God stopped the rain when the child came, the wife points to how the choice was put in his hands, you could also point to the boat crashing, the flower earlier in the film, the waters residing once they decide to keep it, etc.) 2) the rainbow at the end shows that God affirms the baby being spared. Also, on an unrelated note, has anyone else considered the possibility that the snake skin being related to the passing on of the blessing of the line of Seth as pointing to the protoevangelion?

  4. Derek says:

    Thanks Trevin, this is handy.

    When I published my review the reactions where strong (“no evangelical would give this movie a positive endorsement” were the criticism’s I received).

    I think this movie raises questions about what it means to “get the Bible right” and to “be biblical”. These are questions I think evangelicals need to reflect on very carefully.

    For example, does a movie have to be “word for word” to get the Bible right and be biblical? Or does it just need to have “every exact element, nothing more and nothing less” to get the Bible right and be biblical? This evangelical doesn’t think so.

    The question I have is, is the story of Noah there? Is the message for which God inspired it there? After watching the movie (embellishments and all), I was blown away with how biblical it is in that sense. The fall, the call, the corruption, the extent of human depravity (the movie even implies Augustinian original sin since Noah feels that not even he and his family are worthy to survive the flood). I read one early reviewer who suggested that the movie had a “global warming” agenda. If that was so I’d suggest that the movie was not being “faithful to the Bible” because global warming is not the message in the text. Fortunately the final cut did not have a global warming agenda. So in my opinion this movie does “get the Bible right” – embellishments and all.

    Obviously I find myself sitting on the fringe for some reason (which isn’t a comfortable place for a fellow evangelical to be.)

    What are your thoughts about all of that? What does it take for a movie “based on the Bible” to “get the Bible right?”

    Here’s my review if anybody is interested: Is Noah Biblical?

  5. Melody says:

    I never bend over backwords to make a movie seem worth 8 bucks. I find it embarrassing that any of you are willing to do that for any reason. It’s dishonest.

    1. Kevin Keating says:

      Is it really loving (or even constructive) to impute dishonesty and shamefulness to those with whom one simply disagrees? – especially without giving a counter-analysis or a rebuttal to the argument. I know that you probably don’t intend to offend, but these kinds of comments do little more than that.

      1. The truth is supposed to be offensive Kevin. I fully hope and pray I offend somebody every time I touch his keyboard in public. As long as it’s for the right reasons.

        I saw this movie. Squirmed through the whole thing and left with my hands trembling and tears in eyes. Not because a God hating pagan had made a God hating pagan film. I expect that. Most of em are. But because I knew that there I would have to endure watching the name and reputation of My God and His Christ reproached by those calling themselves His. :(

        Like for instance:
        Ben: “Over the top much, Greg? I thought the movie was brilliant and respectful of the Genesis narrative. The evangelical freakout over the film is simply embarrassing.”
        I will heroically resist giving the only possible explanations for a simply outrageous alleged Christian response like this to the mangling of God’s holy word.

        Trevin. Ya gotta go see it brother.

        1. Kevin Keating says:

          Greg – I’m not denying that truth will often be offensive (I don’t know if I would say “supposed to be”) but I am questioning whether it’s for the right reasons in this case. If you want to point out how specific things I say that are blasphemous, I welcome it, because that helps me grow. But if you want to say that simply because I am trying to understand a film and sift out good and bad in it that I am dishonoring God, that is unfair – it fails to extend the same trust to your Christian brother that you would desire for yourself. In the same way, if I had responded to your response derisively by claiming that you were a judgmental person (I’m not saying that, but if I did), it would be unfair – I don’t have the evidence to prove that. It is better for me to extend the same trust to you that I desire by assuming that you are sincerely concerned for the health of your Christian brothers and just disagree with me on how clear an issue this is.

          1. No matter how I say this it will sound wrong in today’s feminized church so I’ll just say it. Call me what you want Kevin. Reading your comments on this page I don’t trust anything about you. I have been in almost constant conflict with your clones for months on end now on these very topics. I don’t actually care at all what you think about anything and neither do you care what I think. I am learning to be more choosy about my battles. Nothing anybody will say from the scriptures will make a bit of difference to you. Yes, I know that’s assumption and yes you WILL absolutely prove me right if I were to get into this with you. But I won’t. Not here for sure.

            Trevin won’t allow it anyway. and I don’t blame him. There are plenty of people who will be impressed with your tie dyed, peace and love routine. I will not be among them. Click the link next to my name. If you want to engage about something I haven’t already addressed 15 times in those comments then do it there please. (Yes folks, I know how arrogant you think I am. Thank you)

          2. Kevin Keating says:

            I agree with you Greg that this conversation probably won’t do anything for the sake of God’s glory, and so it would be best not to continue it. I hope that your assessment of me is not accurate, but in the case that I am as closed to the Scriptures as you say, I ask that you would forgive me and pray for God’s Word to shatter my stony heart. May the God of truth, righteousness, grace, and peace be with you and your opponents in your other conflicts, that you may display his glory.

          3. Kevin Keating says:

            As I have reflected back, I have realized that I probably spoke too quickly in heat and probably would have done better to not give so much weight to this matter and to have thus let it cause division. I have also spoken with self-righteousness and pride. I am sorry.

      2. Melody says:

        The offensive part? Truly offensive is that you assumed that I was speaking to you when I didn’t even read what you wrote in the first place. It was a play on words of someone further up though you did seem to go to great lengths to make it seem like some kind of God honoring thing.

        1) It’s God’s story, His covenant and if you are a believer your loyalty should be to that before all else. It’s not a “God-inspired story about Noah”. It’s about God’s covenant, His faithfulness, His wrath in the face of sin which tells us that we can also count on His promises. Adding or taking away from what God has given to us about Himself is okay how?

        2) Lumping Christians together to speak against if you are a believer is just wrong just because they (under Romans 14)see a secular film differently than you do. What if you convince someone weaker to go? Do you feel any responsibility for their spiritual health?

        3)A partial truth is a lie. So no little nuggets of truth can change the fact that the movie does not portray our God factually and completely. Job had to present sacrifices for his foolish friends who actually believed in the living God but spoke wrongly about Him. Should we be making excuses for something that defiantly does the same thing?

        4)A poorly made movie is a poorly made movie. People are not making that part up. If we were talking about 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow no one would be calling us intolerant, yada yada yada

  6. Flyaway says:

    I will not be wasting my money. From what this blogger says it is a poorly made move with a lot of hype.
    http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/29/im-a-christian-and-i-think-noah-deserves-a-four-star-review/

  7. I have not gotten to write my own review yet, but I would say this is a movie to engage people with. Is it good? The acting is and it’s production is beautiful, but is it a good movie, I would say 6 out of 10. Does it get anything right, a few things, but for the most part all the drama comes from cutting out the fact that God was crystal clear what he wanted from Noah. By cutting that out you are left with an ambiguous “creator” who leaves choice in the hands of an admittedly sinful man. Noah becomes the hero not the covenant keeping God who saved him. I’d wait till blu ray.

    1. Kevin Keating says:

      Obviously the choice of the filmmaker to make God’s communication with Noah unclear is not accurate to the biblical text, but I don’t think this should be the only criteria for evaluating the choice to do so, especially given that the film clearly does not present itself as fitting into the historical genre. It’s doing something more along the lines of 300* – imaginative historical revisioning – as the rock giants, fantastical creatures, and magic golden rocks make clear. If we allow that the movie can make deviations from the biblical narrative because its not trying to be history, then we can ask ourselves the more interesting question – what does God’s unclear communication do for the story and themes of the film? From the perspective of making an interesting narrative, the choice to make God’s communication unclear adds tension and internal conflict within Noah that would not have been otherwise possible. From the perspective of character, leaving Noah without direct revelation from God makes him much more relatable for modern audiences who are in a similar position. From the perspective of theme, Noah’s lack of clear revelation almost leads him into major hypocrisy – the destruction an innocent child, when all along he believes that destroying the innocent is what God is judging the world for. As I noted above, this seems to be an indictment of religious people who fail to see the hypocrisy of destroying what is innocent in the name of God, all because he assumes he has clearer revelation from God than he actually does. This leaves the viewer asking himself “Are there things that I am taking as signs from God that really might not be? Could I, in the name of religion, be doing something horrible that God actually despises?” The unclarity also serves to drive further home how deeply murderous humanity is – that we will find ways to destroy regardless of what line we are descended from or whether or not we worship God. This indicts the self-righteous viewer who thinks that because he is of a particular family or because he is religious that he knows what way is best and everyone else is misguided. These are very interesting themes, and they are very powerfully communicated, but when we rush immediately to doing book to movie comparisons without instead doing thoughtful analysis of the film on its own terms, we miss out.

      *Another parallel between how Noah and 300 work would be how each film re-contextualizes the story it is based on by giving the characters concerns that would be anachronistic in order to give them a motivation relatable to a modern audience. Thus the Spartans (who in reality were notorious enslavers) are all about Freedom! and Noah becomes concerned with the environment. Note, although we trust that, unlike these examples, the Scriptures are not making something up from thin air but merely emphasizing details that could have otherwise been left out, still we see something similar going on in the actual Genesis narrative itself where details such as there being 7 pairs of clean animals for sacrifice and the prohibition on eating animals with blood in them seems to be included/emphasized to make the Noah account relatable to the original Israelite audience.

      1. cherylu says:

        I have not seen this movie. But I have read multiple reviews of it. Some of which are very detailed accounts of the plot.

        You know what? If someone had made up a totally fictional account where the hero was mistaken in what he believed God told him, there would not likely be much if any uproar about it.

        But when a movie names itself after a famous biblical narrative and even calls itself a biblical movie (even if Aronofsky said it was an unbiblical biblical movie) and then proceeds to turn the facts of that narrative into total fiction in many ways, then you are going to have many Christians up in arms.

        Making a mockery out of the biblical narrative is not something that a lot of us will take well. This IS God’s written word that we are talking about here. I don’t think God has taken mocking his word lightly either.

  8. tobi says:

    i did not see it yet, but i think it is probably been very misunderstood. maybe it’s impossible to really ‘get’ the movie without reading this comment: http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/3/31/sympathy-for-the-devil

  9. Brian Gass says:

    Here’s my simple scale to find out how people felt about the final script or movie. It’ll generate less buzz than a TULIP scale for sure. ;-)

    My Noah scale: 1=Blasphemy to see! 2=Annoyed they mocked Scripture 3=Whatever; it’s a movie 4=Happy a Bible movie was made 5=People will be saved!

  10. steve windon says:

    I resolve never to get my theology from a movie, I know that movies are intended as entertainment, not necessarily worship events (though an argument could be made), and I don’t expect the director, star, or cinematographer to be my pastor. That said, I probably won’t spend the money to this film in the theatre, just too many brothers and sisters warning me against it!

  11. Steve Potts says:

    I saw it last Friday. Went with low expectations because of the controversy. My take: not as bad as some who criticize it; not as good as some who laud it. It’s basically Aronofsky channeling Tolkein via Genesis, or something. The casting and performances are excellent. The special effects are mostly superb (especially the ark, animals and flood). The Watchers and Noah’s torment about his granddaughter(s)were the most problematic to me. One thing that was brilliant: by generating some controversy, the film surely increased its box office numbers.

  12. Scott Youngman says:

    Brian Mattson has an insightful analysis of the movie as an expression of Kabbalah (Jewish Gnosticism)
    http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/3/31/sympathy-for-the-devil

    1. Scott Youngman says:

      After posting my comment, I see that Flyaway had already linked to the same blog post. But it’s worthwhile to highlight here Mattson’s analysis and specifically the heavy emphasis on Kabbalah in the movie. I don’t see how we can say this movie is a wonderful depiction of the Bible story; really, it’s somebody else’s story, and a totally different philosophy.

  13. Carlcan says:

    Saw the movie yesterday, how can any christian see any positive things about this movie??
    It’s a blasphemy against Our God

  14. sharon says:

    One of the best reviews I have read is Mattson’s review. It gives us the why of this movie. This movie is NOT the story of a Biblical Noah Mattson says it’s a “form of Jewish Gnosticism. I dusted off (No, really: I had to dust it) my copy of Adolphe Franck’s 19th century work, The Kabbalah, and quickly confirmed my suspicions”

    According to Mattson any Christian leader who has been to bible college, or seminary should have easily picked this up…if this is true then why are so many leaders suggesting we should see ?

    Here is the link to the full review. http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/3/31/sympathy-for-the-devil

  15. linda says:

    I was disappointed the movie wasn’t more scriptually based and those UGLY rock type crreatures who helped him build the ark –what exactly were they supposed to be–i just didn’t get it.

  16. David Westrum says:

    I was thuroughly awed by the movie. Yes there are some departures from the biblical narrative. But I think there are two themes that are so fundamentally Biblical that they can not be overlooked. I have never see anything that has so well decpicted the sinful nature and the depravity of man. It is so bad that it truly deserves wrath of God as depicted. Second there is the conflict between father and son – “where is my wife” and Noah’s wife answers. God will provide! If Christians don’t pick up on this God will provide train of thought: Woe be to us. Let’s not get side tracked in all the things that don’t “seem” right. Did not God indeed provide a “cure” for the sin nature in Jesus??? Do we want the movies to do our evangelism for us or does God want us to personally interact with our fellow brothers and sisters in Adam and personally let them know that God indeed does provide.

  17. emrys says:

    im not a christian and dont know the biblical story of noah and i thought the movie was weird and boring. the story was confusing and i dont understand why noah wasnt trying to get people to believe in a creator instead he thought everyone should die and didnt give anyone a chance. honestly what i got from the movie was anthony hopkins was evil, russell crowe was confused and emma waston cried. i didnt understand the watcher angel things and i didnt get why cain was still involved seeing as noah was generations after him. the movie wasnt made well and the animals were portrayed weirdly and man was blamed for all. i mean you had weird watcher angels and cain descendants why wasnt lucifer part of it too. i didnt get the story and it Noah seemed just as bad and possibly even worse than the people he destroyed. it wasnt just one bad decision and then he saw his faults. no. i dont know how this movie was good and Logan Lerman as Ham was actually my favourite character and he was the evil son. i expected it to be better and i wanted to understand the biblical story of noah and that didnt happen. it just left me confused because i dont know what was going on and did the people have some sort of magic because the “grandfather” healed the girl and i think that made man seem like god it wouldve been better if if the twins were a miracle from god instead of some healing magic from an old man i did get some bibal references though like the whole universe created in six days and man was created in the image of god. i expected better.

  18. Eso says:

    I went to see the movie because I read that it had been endorsed by Christian leaders whom I respect. I was disappointed to say the least but I was glad that I had gone with a fellow adult christian as I didn’t want to be left with the task of untangling the mumbo jumbo presented by Aronofsky (please do not take your kids to see this movie if you have been sharing Scripture with them and bringing them up in the way of the Lord, anyway its too violent for kids)

    I don’t expect faith based or faith inspiring movies from Hollywood but selling this film to Christians on the back of some shady endorsements just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The story is not inspired by the Bible I read; it presents God in the worst possible light and romanticizes the devil and his fallen angels. Aronofsky borrowed some names from the Bible to make a film in the hope of luring an audience that would ordinarily not pay to watch his movies.

  19. Rixter says:

    From 1 to 10, I give this a 7 for special effects and action, and a 1 for biblical accuracy. Because I was hoping it would be more like a 7+ for accuracy, I’m overall disappointed.

    This movie had me disliking Noah and thinking he was mad and capable of violence, nowhere near the non-violent “righteous man” of Genesis.

    And what is up with the missing wives, or the stowaway bad guy?

    What really had me shaking my head was those “watchers”, walking stone creatures. These are supposed to be the ‘angel’s that came down to the form of men, take wives, bear big bad children? Instead, they are rock creatures that are doing the actual ark building??? And then they are protecting the ark???

    Other than his 2 minute story of the “7 days” of creation and the original sin (the glowing adam and eve was creepy-odd) that had some connection to the actual account, the rest of this movie is PURE fiction.

  20. Stephen Pierce says:

    Did anyone catch that the director wrote a graphic novel .. Comic book first ….and based his script on multiple sources not just the Biblical narrative ….did anyone catch that? He used the Book of Enoch …to flesh out the story and fill in the gaps so why do you hold him to creating a Biblical documentary when this was not his stated intention ?, after all is said and done, the final cut of the film is much closer to the Biblical than it was to start , and it was never about Noah of the Bible any way .. But it was more about us as those devoted to Our creator wanting to get it right , but we get either off and wrong … It is a beautiful movie in so many ways , and to many people have missed the boat completely

  21. Hayley Marjolin says:

    You might see this as mocking but I think from my personal view it is brilliant. I am a Catholic and I have had a major problem with the children disregarding children who are adopted and not focusing on it like the way they concentrate on homosexuality, women in the church and the disabled. This film has emphasised this theme for people who are Christian and gives children or adults who have been adopted like myself, a purpose because Ila has the purpose of procreation which she receives as a gift to replenish the earth. Who knows if Noah’s ark even happened but the themes of family and what it means to be one resonates with the Christian concept of Love.

  22. mary says:

    I do believe in God, I read the bible and you’re exactly right. The film was totally confusing! It is nothing like the story in the bible and they could have made it so much better. Firstly getting rid of the stone transformers, and Noah’s urge to murder twin granddaughters. None of which is in the bible! Nor his grandfather in a cave. Or flares! I couldn’t believe my eyes! The bible says noah was a righteousness man and that why he and his family were saved! Oh! And guess what! all Noah’s sons had wives. So all that about Hams wife is codswallop! This film has totally twisted the word in the bible. And you’re comment has exactly hit the nail on the head. How on earth are people who don’t know the bible supposed to get an idea of what its about when its been twisted to this extent! Take no notice of this film. Read the story yourself. Its in genesis and you can read the bible online. Its nothing like this film, except there’s a flood and an ark! I don’t believe in religion but i love God and believe in Jesus . In the bible God asks us to prove him and see. You don’t need to go to church and you can pray from your heart and ask him to show you he’s there. I did and he has. Good luck, and good comments! Better than a lot of people who have read the bible and say the film is good! The mind boggles! … Mary

  23. Stephen Pierce says:

    So many people have asked , where is Jesus in this movie , do you not know that Christ is the ark of our salvation? And that Noah’s ark was a symbol of that for us today ? So the second star in this movie was the Ark itself . I wish to say , how blind so many of you are , and that you wanted a movie to mend your theologies for you and tell you more about The Bible Noah you did not bother to study on your own . Noah belongs to the whole world , not just Christians , even though I am one , Noah is recorded in the memories of many cultures perhaps because there really was a world wide flood that gave us all a second chance . How simple minded are we , to not consider that Satan does not have fallen Angels at his comand working in the spirit world to keep Christians from being effective or to attain a certain level of maturity that could ascertain the purpose of this movie . This movie is a gift for conversation , I can and have had long conversations about it with Atheists , with those of Islam… With men and women who deeply believe in evolution …. Everyone is open to talking about this film and the reality of God . You want a fast food gospel message that does all the work for you ? I humblely suggest that Christains take full advantage of this Gift from Paramont , and help build the Ark of Jesus Salvation in the minds and hearts of the not yet saved instead of putting holes in the boat . You can now talk to Jews with this film as an opener , comic book fans , and Newagers … Too ! What is your problem , are you mad because it makes you think or pour over the scriptures you thought you had a Handle on? Here is a flash , we know very little about what it was like in Noah’s day , Noah preached repentance for 100 years while he built the Ark . In the Graphic Novel I baught at Walmart that the film was based on … Noah goes to the evil city and preaches to them , but they reject him and toss him in a ditch …. We know very little about the everyday life of any early Bible characters . Moses had to update these stories so we could have them .. So when you claim Noah must be absolutely gospel derived and only what is from the Bible to make an action movie .. You have a 600 year old man who builds a boat because God told him to . You know that already I hope , and not much action there , unless you want God to be the Action hero , loading the Ark by His gient Hand while Old Noah and his old wife watch .. Not very interesting and it has been done before…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trevin Wax


​Trevin Wax is managing editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay Christian Resources, husband to Corina, father to Timothy, Julia, and David. You can follow him on Twitter. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books