Noah And The Whale

"When a director with religious views makes a movie for a political view, the audience is the one who suffers."  - Rueuhy (just now said that)

*************   Spoiler Alerts   **************

1.  Lot's of water.
2.  Noah is a killer
3.  Emma Watson is British.  Sort of....

Slow down, take a deep breath, and let that one sink in a bit.  I'm talking about the all new, blockbusting, epic, world event/movie called Noah.  Feel the excitement as you remember the first time you heard the story and then scratch your head as Mr. Darren Aronofsky, a proclaimed atheist, takes a well-known biblical story and virtually rapes it.  Within minutes I was confused as this director takes his artistic driver's license and commits cinematic homicide.

Now, what does one expect watching a biblical story from the Hollywood point of view?  I can honestly say I went into the movie with that knowledge.  I understood that there would be some embellishment on a story that takes less than a page or two from the bible.  I understood that.  What I saw was a tribute to Mother Nature and rock like creatures who just happened to be called "watchers" and looked like poor imitations of transformers. Please note ** spoiler alert - there are scenes stolen from Roland Emmerich's blockbuster 2012 - World gets flooded and most of mankind gets wiped out except for the fortunate few who survived on a ark.  I will tell you this - if you're in the mood for an apocalyptic tale, rent the movie 2012.  It's actually more enjoyable and closer to the source material.  On the previous matter of an atheist instructing us on the ills of man destroying creation and mistreating it and then making an anti-believer's film using one of their best known stories taught in most bible schools for infants and toddlers, than this movie is for you.  If you like the climate change/earth cooling/global warming/greenhouse gas/cattle flatulence is killing us/get rid of coal, oil, and gas and plug your car in type of stories than this is still a sad piece of cinematic story telling.  I'll be honest - towards the end I understood how the inhabitants of the world came to have different accents. Between Emma Watson's character, who happens to give birth to twin girls fathered by her brother, having that unique British accent but was actually born in Paris, France to Russell Crowe portraying a loving father/loving botanist/and homicidal maniac having that unique Irish/welch accent, it was all evidently clear.   I could have sworn I heard a flower child sitting in the back of the theater laughing hysterically to herself. This was a blatant attempt to promote a pagan view of the story of Noah and cast it in a light of humanity's evil towards the planet "creation" and not the actual basis of the story of man turning from God.  Throughout the movie, references are made of God leaving the world and letting man play out his role alone.  It is not one of God's love but rather of God's indifference to his creation from the angels to the lowest of shrubs. In other words God is a God of indifference to a creation he took time to make but just left it like an abandoned after school science project.  That is, until the end when the rainbow (sort of) shows up and we get a collective "awwwwweeeeee" from the audience.  The movie is hypocritical to itself on many levels.  Which is the beauty of using a biblical tale in re-enforcing a non-believer's political agenda.  Mother Earth would be better off without that old religious creation of God's creation of man. Mankind should hate itself for hurting what obviously holds higher esteem in God's eyes.  Which is hypocritical from the point of "What's the point, God?"  If the director would have continued reading after the story of Noah he might have been enlightened on God's actual point of creation.  My personal opinion is Man came last as a culmination of God's love.  Creation, light, angels, water, plants, birds, mammals, and then His image.  Creation was created in anticipation of God's greatest creation - man.  In the movie, without actually saying it, man becomes little less than a glorified farmhand in the creation.  And then man, because he is senseless and directionless without God's presence, (he's been silent to man and rock-like angelic beings as well", so poor creation becomes a barren wasteland because man is inherently inherent.  It's God's fault for not paying closer attention.  Creation, once this beautiful, wondrous, paradise is laid waste to a directionless, evil mankind.  And, from the director's point of view, we are at that point again.  Man killing man and beast.  Man destroying the creation (again) with his pollution and greenhouse gases.  My question is - should we take out the cattle first?  Flatulence is far more evil in the greentology ethics of this dear director's political anthology.  If another cow never farted, or another car ever driven, would this suffice?

To summarize - I didn't like this movie from the political, religious, or entertainment quality angle of this movie.  There were moments in the movie I was just looking around at the light fixtures in the theater.  There were also moments when I thought "Should I get some Milk Dud's or would that ruin the popcorn taste?"  There were other moments when I was yawning a lot.  Then there were moments I wanted to yell "Hey, what's Hannibal Lector doing performing miracles?" but I didn't.  Because I'm not like the director.  I have a little common decency and I actually like good movies.  Note to director - Just because you hate doesn't mean you have to disrespect the 88% of people in Cyprus who believe in God.  Or what about the 92% in Romania?  My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog.  For your pagan or atheistic viewpoints, please email me at rueuhy@gmail.com