• Djornad

    A very well written piece Caleb. But I couldn’t help but notice that there was very little about how the film actually was. Acting, directing, writing, cinematography and such. As someone who is not a Christian and does not believe the story to be true, I was hoping for a bit more about how the film actually was as a film.

    • sontaran17

      Just Clarifying most Christians believe The Old Testament to be written Metaphorically, not as factual historic events :)

      • Djornad

        I knooow, I don’t lump various religious groups into catagories like that :’)

    • Calebxy

      I know. Sorry.

  • TardisBoy

    I’m going to give my honest opinion of this review, and I hope I don’t come across as harsh here. I just want to offer my own constructive feedback. To me, this doesn’t read as a review (well except from the last paragraph which does actually review the film) but instead it reads as a series of complaints as to why this film isn’t accurate, and how it doesn’t adhere to the original source material. Whilst that may be true, I have to ask, what did you expect? It was never going to be a complete recreation of the biblical text, no adaptation is a complete recreation; and it was never marketed as such. If you go into a film expecting this then frankly that’s your own problem, not the film or the film-makers. It was always marketed as a RE-IMAGINING of the biblical text, and there’s nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So overall, I do think you’ve written a great piece of writing exploring the similarities and differences between the film and the source material. However I do feel the “review” aspect is what’s missing, and perhaps if you’d focussed on that when watching it, instead of trying to compare it (when it was never meant to be compared) then you may have enjoyed it more.

  • sontaran17

    I’m sorry if I come across as aggresive, but there is a difference between a Bible Based Hollywood Film and a Documentary Based Drama. Instead of reviewing the film this article comes across as a “Case Against” article – focusing how the Hollywood Fictional Film inspired by a Classic Metaphoric story from the Old Testament isn’t a completely accurate Documentary Drama.

  • ShalkaDoctor

    I have to agree with the others, this review is really just a long religious rant complaining that a fictional Hollywood story isn’t living up to the fiction is based on. Mostly you’re just comparing the two and not judging the film on its own merits and elements that make a film.

    • Calebxy

      There are nicer, less offensive ways you could have said that (“…the fiction it’s based on.'” Really? You had to say that?).

      • ShalkaDoctor

        Well, yes. Noah’s Ark is a work of fiction – that’s my opinion. I find the whole story rather silly and in no way plausible or grounded in reality. It’s a nice story to tell kids, and as a story for a Hollywood blockbuster it’s ideal, but I refuse to take it as any sort of factual history. It offends my scientific beliefs. Therefore you finding fault with the accuracy of a work of fiction that is based off what I view as a work of fiction, well maybe you can see why I said that. Sorry.

        • Calebxy

          I respect that that’s your opinion, but you stated it as a fact in your initial comment, which is insulting to people who do believe it.

          • ShalkaDoctor

            Comments are just someone’s opinions, are they not? Should I have to point out every time that what I’m saying is a “fact” or not?

          • Djornad

            Alright now, c’mon Shalka. This is getting hostile. This is no way to state ones dissatisfaction in a constructive way. This is getting petty.

          • ShalkaDoctor

            “This is getting hostile?”Wait, what? Please tell me where have I have been hostile?

          • Djornad

            The condescending tone Shalka. In your above comment. It was fine, if getting a little off course, before that. We’ve made our point – no further discussion is needed.

          • ShalkaDoctor

            I’m impressed you can read my so-called tone off mere text. Before you poked your nose in I was having a debate that was in no way heated. Seems like you’re trying to stir up trouble where there was none if anything.

          • Ethdhelwen

            The world is more than 4004 years old, and the story of Noah as written is not real. Other elements of the Biblical texts, including the Flood itself, have historical relevance, but rarely in the exact form espoused by believers. Noone has to apologise for stating what is empirical fact and what is not. Nor do we have to treat opposing beliefs as if they are of equal merit, when they rest upon no evidence, and certainly not when they demand our meek acceptance and apology for contradicting them, calling it ‘offense’ and ‘condescension’. It is the foolish man who hears wise words but continues to build his house on sand.

  • The Administrator

    I have to agree with the other comments. While this is very well written, it’s more a complaint of how the film doesn’t match the source material. The two are very different mediums and what works on the page (or in this case in the Bible) won’t work on screen. And I gathered that the film was as much an adaptation of the story as The Hobbit was of JRR Tolkien’s book IE, being a loose interpretation of the story and updating it for a new audience.

    • Calebxy

      But the story is dramatic enough as it is. They didn’t need Rock Monsters smashing an army to smithereens. They could have simply had the water take care of them (and they could have had scenes of towns being washed away while people try to run to safety). That would have been extremely dramatic and exciting, and it would have had a greater impact due to a higher level of realism.

      • The Administrator

        I admit, it sounds as if it could have been done better (I haven’t seen it yet), but remember that today’s audiences are used to seeing a massive Dragon voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch chase Martin Freeman in furry feet and giant robots punching each other across the screen. I imagine they were going for something of similar spectacle. Fantasy is a huge Genre so they’re probably trying to pull some of that audience in.

        • Calebxy

          True, but a film based on the story of Noah’s Ark has the potential to be one of the most visually stunning films ever, purely by sticking to the original. It would have been utterly incredible to have a long, maybe 10 minute scene of the world being flooded. But this film missed that opportunity completely, which is immensely disappointing.

          • The Administrator

            Hollywood has a history of adding things that aren’t needed. I haven’t seen the film so I can’t really judge these additions to the story yet. Noah’s Ark was never my favourite Bible story as a Kid (I was raised in a pretty Christian environment) but I would like to see this film at some point. Mainly because I like Darren Affronsky’s films.

  • Calebxy

    Sorry guys. I know this isn’t really much of a review. Cult Fix, maybe you could change the title to ‘Analysis’ or something along those lines, rather than ‘Review’?

    • Gustaff

      Hey, u saved me a couple of bucks. Sounds too painful to watch. I kept wondering if this was a parody or a historical.

  • http://blahblahblahyackitysmackity.blogspot.com/ DAVID WALSTON

    Sounds horrid. Thanks for the heads up.

    • Calebxy

      Glad I could help.

  • Mark M

    I’ve seen the film and agree that it wasn’t the greatest. Your rating is probably spot on. I went to see it with my friends and none of us were impressed. Regardless of how it compares to source it’s still pretty bad. The bad CGI was really noticeable in places.