|
This movie has some of the most beautiful imagery I've seen since The Tree of Life.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
All of those meth PSA's he directed are better than Requiem for a Dream. The two incredible things about Requiem are Ellen Burstyn's performance and the realization that Jennifer Connelly is in her late thirties playing a nineteen year old.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Noah's story of creation blew my mind. Loved seeing creation and evolution coming together with such fluidity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:All of those meth PSA's he directed are better than Requiem for a Dream. The two incredible things about Requiem are Ellen Burstyn's performance and the realization that Jennifer Connelly is in her late thirties playing a nineteen year old. I think she had just turned 30 but yeah. Honestly I really like Requiem for a Dream. I think "Trainspotting did it better" is kind of missing the point (Danny Boyle is my favourite director, so I'm tempted to side with that view) as they're about different sides of drug use. I don't think there needs to be one "canon" movie about it. It's not a subtle movie (are any of Aronofsky's films) but it's totally visually and emotionally compelling, and there isn't much else like it. The claim that "Aronofsky's never made a great movie" is interesting. He seems to be a rare case where literally every movie he's made has a sizeable number of people who would argue that it's his greatest film. There aren't many directors you can say that about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:When all the giant animals came on the ark, I think it was right after the snakes, I was really hoping those were going to be dinosaurs and I was disappointed when they weren't The movie doesn't have dinosaurs; it's actually one of the more subtle diversions from fundamentalism: during the creation story, Noah says that there were many animals that we no longer see today. The whole sequence implies that the Garden of Eve postdates primate evolution, which keeps things on a scientific timeline and which keeps Eden as a civilization allegory." It was a good movie, but not a great one. I probably went in expecting too much from the same early cut rumors everyone else did. On the other hand, Aronofsky got Russell Crowe to look like he gives a poo poo again, so he's basically the Actor Whisperer as far as I'm concerned. I also think it will be controversial across the board -- not for the plot, but because the whole arc undermines the central tenet of the flood story It's nothing to do with a covenant between God and man. The flood's for the sake of the animals - I accept that the original plan was for humanity to die out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
I didn't find the movie boring at all. It seemed like every 5 minutes there was some new amazing imagary to blow me away. I tend to gravitate more toward visually strong movies, but that's not to say the script or acting were weak. They just aren't as notable as the insane deluge of visual art the film presents you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Suggesting Trainspotting and Requiem shouldn't both exist was a bit of a silly thing to say, but I do still feel like they explore similar themes through similar subject matter and one manages to be much more whimsical and yet still very grounded in the reality of the subject matter while the other projects this sort or gritty realism that is almost farcically exaggerated and I just don't feel it works unless you are extremely naive about drugs or can stretch your suspension of disbelief. Like I feel Requiem almost approaches Reefer Madness levels of absurdity but that is very clearly not the tone it is going for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Suggesting Trainspotting and Requiem shouldn't both exist was a bit of a silly thing to say, but I do still feel like they explore similar themes through similar subject matter and one manages to be much more whimsical and yet still very grounded in the reality of the subject matter while the other projects this sort or gritty realism that is almost farcically exaggerated and I just don't feel it works unless you are extremely naive about drugs or can stretch your suspension of disbelief. Like I feel Requiem almost approaches Reefer Madness levels of absurdity but that is very clearly not the tone it is going for. I love Trainspotting too, but where you found Requiem absurd, I guess I'm enough of a Hubert Selby Jr. fan to be down with it (it sort of reminds me of A Scanner Darkly, which I don't really discredit for being bizarre and nightmarish and absurd and I guess maybe I mentally put Requiem for a Dream in the same fantastical realm where it's over the top and nightmarish and not realistic but still potent to me in some way). I mean, maybe I am just naive or something, but I would say (without getting into detail) that I'm pretty well-versed and experienced when it comes to drugs/addiction and their ill-effects (both personally and witnessing others) and somehow Requiem never felt silly or preachy or forced like Reefer Madness or Crash to me. *shrug* Maybe it's just nostalgia, as that's the first Aronofsky film I ever saw and I saw it at a younger age. Anyway, a lot of the reviews and talk of Noah are pretty disappointing to me especially since I was one of the people who'd been reading the posts from the goon who was revealing crazy surreal stuff about the film in that other thread...but obviously I'm still gonna have to see this for myself. Aronofsky is just one of those names where I'm gonna see the film anyway because he's built up enough credit with me (along the same lines as P.T. Anderson, though P.T.'s "line of credit" with me is way stronger). Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:...especially since I was one of the people who'd been reading the posts from the goon who was revealing crazy surreal stuff about the film in that other thread... This was me. I've not seen the film since it was released yet but a lot of the stuff mentioned so far from the third act doesn't align with the cut I saw, and bits sound shifted around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:This was me. I've not seen the film since it was released yet but a lot of the stuff mentioned so far from the third act doesn't align with the cut I saw, and bits sound shifted around. Could you give a detailed account in spoilers of what you remember of the 3rd act?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Scissorfighter posted:Could you give a detailed account in spoilers of what you remember of the 3rd act? It's late here (UK) so I'll do a quick summary and answer any questions tomorrow but basically; Noah and the fallen angels defend the Ark and believe they have been successful but Ham has secretly allowed his girlfriend, Ray Winstone and a handful of others onto it. They capture Noah and his family and Ray Winstone is about to execute them with his pistol when Ham begs him to stop, instead they end up using some of the herb/magic that put the animals to sleep on them and lock them away, to awaken when the storm has passed. Noah, while in this state has a vision from God that explains he used to be a soldier, and we see a trippy montage of wars in which Noah has fought, culminating in him as a modern American soldier. He wakes up in his pen, along with his family and the rest of the animals and breaks free. Then he proceeds to slaughter everyone who snuck aboard. He does this with a combination of his bare hands and the predators on the ark. Ila and the family meanwhile go into hiding and Ham and a few others try to find them; they are hiding in the storage room/deck where the stow away survivors have brought massive amounts of oil. Ila kills Ham by drowning him in one of the barrels. Noah meanwhile gets into a final fight with Ray Winstone, ending up on the same storage deck. Noah and Ray Winstone struggle, the latter ending up covered in oil and Noah grabs his gun, shoots him, and sets him alight with it. As Ray Winstone burns he becomes a vessel for God, like a gory burning bush, and God tells Noah that the storm will pass and Noah has earned the right to continue on humanity. Then all of the animals fall asleep, Noah and his family throw the dead overboard and watch the rainbow appear over the water. The film ends with Noah in vaguely futuristic looking post-apocalyptic clothing walking the wasteland with his family where they come upon a single seed growing in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
So this movie had the highest grossing first weekend for both Aranofsky and Crowe with $44 million. Also, oddly enough it was released in 3D outside of America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It's late here (UK) so I'll do a quick summary and answer any questions tomorrow but basically; I liked the theatrical third act alright but that sounds infinitely better. I hope it's released in some form. Theatrical spoilers: It sounds like the only thing I'd miss is Noah leaving Ham's innocent girlfriend to be trampled by the mob. It was the first moment that we're shown God's morality and man's cannot coincide. Scissorfighter fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It's late here (UK) so I'll do a quick summary and answer any questions tomorrow but basically; That sounds...interesting. The theatrical ending sways more towards the bible ending though. I think I like the family conflict in the theatrical ending more than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
I have to be more than a little bit skeptical about that description, as it's not just a different third act with some shuffled editing, but an entirely different film with millions of dollars in reshoots and alternate vfx. But reshoots didn't occur, the post timeline wouldn't really account for the changes in vfx, and by all accounts the distributed film is Aronofsky's cut, which is also said to match the pitched screenplay precisely. Your description doesn't match any other early screening descriptions I've heard either. Honestly, it sounds like a story based on some vague descriptions of some iconic sequences, with a lot of creative filling in the gaps. If it is true, then the eventual descriptions of the production process will be fascinating, but I can't really see how it would be possible. vvvv Certainly vfx wouldn't be finished for a screening that far back, but he's still talking late game changes to the post-production that seem unlikely given the production timeline. That said, if it is true, it will be interesting to hear how two such drastically different versions of the films were shot and just what was going on behind the scenes to cause it. vvvv Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
He mentioned in a previous thread that a lot of the stuff that would be vfx were storyboards and or people just standing around reacting to nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I have to be more than a little bit skeptical about that description, as it's not just a different third act with some shuffled editing, but an entirely different film with millions of dollars in reshoots and alternate vfx. But reshoots didn't occur, the post timeline wouldn't really account for the changes in vfx, and by all accounts the distributed film is Aronofsky's cut, which is also said to match the pitched screenplay precisely. Your description doesn't match any other early screening descriptions I've heard either. I figure at this point the dude has no reason to lie, so he must've seen VFX fillers or storyboards or something PriorMarcus posted:It's late here (UK) so I'll do a quick summary and answer any questions tomorrow but basically; Holy poo poo that is massively, massively different from the theatrical cut, and sounds way cooler You should see the theatrical; in it: - There aren't really guns, per se, the only thing like one we see is something Ray Winstone has that shoots the explodey chemical thing - Ham's girl gets trampled by the crowd rushing the arc because she gets caught in a bear trap and Noah refuses to save her - Winstone gets aboard the arc and Ham keeps him hidden away until all four grown men on the Ark end up fighting and Winstone gets killed by the rock the Ark crashes into - The animals are put to sleep almost right away, like when the birds show up; there's lingering shots of them walking around spreading the chemical smoke like incense--the animals never wake up - God isn't voiced, and never "speaks". Noah is only "spoken to" by visions. - There's absolutely no mention of oil. Instead, the resource that's dug up is something made up that's combustable with a smack. Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:- The animals are put to sleep almost right away, like when the birds show up; there's lingering shots of them walking around spreading the chemical smoke like incense--the animals never wake up He means Ham and the survivors he snuck on board use the chemical to put Noah and the rest of his family to sleep. During which Noah has a dream which reveals he was once a soldier, with a montage of himself throughout time leading up to a modern American soldier. Assuming the account is real, I wonder if this dream wasn't just the original location of the Genesis and Cain and Abel as a History of War sequence, and he misinterpreted the placeholder animatics/storyboards as being about Noah himself. If you assume much of his account was possibly misunderstandings of unclear placeholders for vfx, then the account becomes a bit more plausible. It still requires two versions of the film to have been shot simultaneously though, which runs contrary to everything else I've heard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:He means Ham and the survivors he snuck on board use the chemical to put Noah and the rest of his family to sleep. During which Noah has a dream which reveals he was once a soldier, with a montage of himself throughout time leading up to a modern American soldier. Assuming the account is real, I wonder if this dream wasn't just the original location of the Genesis and Cain and Abel as a History of War sequence, and he misinterpreted the placeholder animatics/storyboards as being about Noah himself. If you assume much of his account was possibly misunderstandings of unclear placeholders for vfx, then the account becomes a bit more plausible. It still requires two versions of the film to have been shot simultaneously though, which runs contrary to everything else I've heard. ooooh that actually makes perfect sense Come to think, it did seem at least a bit like the creation sequence came a bit...not exactly out of nowhere, but where it was seemed like kind of a strange little interlude. It being another god vision would've made it a bit more interesting as a sort of "this is human nature; tale as old as time" sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:So this movie had the highest grossing first weekend for both Aranofsky and Crowe with $44 million. Also, oddly enough it was released in 3D outside of America. Yeah, it's made up most of its  production costs so it's not going to be a flop, per se. Who knows if it actually makes money edit: Another biblical in-joke: Tubal-Cain is either meant to be a "metalworker" or a "miner". So in the film he's a metalworking king whose nation mines the planet dry. algebra testes fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It's late here (UK) so I'll do a quick summary and answer any questions tomorrow but basically; Whoa, if you're telling the truth (and I don't know why you'd make this up, although memory failing and misunderstandings can happen) the third act is very very different. To be honest, as batshit crazy as that sounds it doesn't necessarily seem "better" than what we got. Although everything after they get off the boat in the released version is a bit too hunky dory. edit: and yeah i agree with the guy above who said Ham's girlfriend getting trampled is really important to the film. That's one of the more disturbing deaths I can think of in in recent cinema, despite not being particularly gory. BOAT SHOWBOAT fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
I loved this movie. I love watching everyone on Facebook hate it more. "That never happened in the bible!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I figure at this point the dude has no reason to lie, so he must've seen VFX fillers or storyboards or something - The rock doesn't kill him. You're missing the part where Noah goes to finish him, but Shem gets in the way. Ham kills the king, which is how he becomes [a] "man"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
So... Did anyone else have a disproportionate number of kids at their screening? Some people brought babies, which is more rude than anything, but a TON of people brought their 4 / 5 / 6 year-olds. Which is really hosed up because that's the age where kids are capable of comprehending and remembering what they're seeing in a movie. I kept thinking about all of the kiddies in the audience whenever someone got brutally murdered or like discovered a pile of corpses or whatever. A little girl (not older than 4) was audibly freaking out when it appears that Noah is going to murder the babies. I don't know if people automatically thought bible = kid appropriate or what. I just love kids in general and especially my nieces, who are 3 and 6, and the idea of taking them to a gruesome biblical epic is just beyond comprehension to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:So... Did anyone else have a disproportionate number of kids at their screening? Some people brought babies, which is more rude than anything, but a TON of people brought their 4 / 5 / 6 year-olds. People did it for the uncut version of The Passion of the Christ, so it's not surprising.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:People did it for the uncut version of The Passion of the Christ, so it's not surprising. There was a lot of children in the theater when I saw The Passion of Christ on opening night. Thankfully, a lady had the good sense to grab her three kids and get the gently caress out halfway trough the flogging scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:So this movie had the highest grossing first weekend for both Aranofsky and Crowe with $44 million. Also, oddly enough it was released in 3D outside of America. If that opening weekend is right, then I'd imagine we'll see a 3D version soon. I wasn't even away there was a 3D version of Noah until you mentioned it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:People did it for the uncut version of The Passion of the Christ, so it's not surprising. Yeah, and even then instead of "story of Jesus = kid appropriate", you would have parents saying poo poo like "You need to see this so you know how Jesus suffered for you" when the kids are freaking out in the theater and begging to go home. Crappy Jack fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
This alleged 'third act' sounds absolutely nonsensical and made up. The whole thing about Noah having a vision of him fighting in wars culminating in him being an American soldier is a total ripoff of that unproduced Gladiator 2 script in which Maximus ends up fighting in all these wars and ends with him being in the Pentagon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Why did the serpent in the Garden of Eden look so terrible? Most of the cgi was good but that looked like it should be hucking insurance for Geico. It took me out of the movie every time it was on screen. The weird dog thing in the beginning looked awful too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
It was kind of weird because for all of the gorgeous special effects there were some that just plain sucked. Like when they are approaching Methuselah's mountain there's a shot that was just terrible green screening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Just got back seeing this: 1. An older couple after like the first 20 min and said "this is blasphemous" out loud and left. 2. This could be one of the greatest freak out reviews and this is coming from a dude who is literally building a $73 Million loving ark quote: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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:This alleged 'third act' sounds absolutely nonsensical and made up. The whole thing about Noah having a vision of him fighting in wars culminating in him being an American soldier is a total ripoff of that unproduced Gladiator 2 script in which Maximus ends up fighting in all these wars and ends with him being in the Pentagon. I'm pretty sure that part of it is just a misunderstanding of what's already in the film. The silhouettes of war throughout history, including modern soldiers. The 2 time-lapse sequences were my favorite parts, by a mile. Just utterly fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwrxBUlqgM Watching "Creationists" and Masters Degrees in Biblical History and "Scientists" talk about the evils of the movie and the REAL story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwrxBUlqgM Around 16 minutes they try to attack the movie's "agenda" to portray God as a child killer, but their defense is "we have all sinned so we all deserve to die." Doesn't really work against God's baby killing. Edit: Godwin's law violation at 23 minutes. Scissorfighter fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Scissorfighter posted:Around 16 minutes they try to attack the movie's "agenda" to portray God as a child killer, but their defense is "we have all sinned so we all deserve to die." Doesn't really work against God's baby killing. Yeah that came out of nowhere. I like them comparing the film to pornography and how Christians should not say "Well I will just look for the good in it" Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Not all Christian media are destroying it. I think the truly "offended" reviews are simply click bait bullshit. http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/noah-2014.aspx There is some offensive sexual material to be found though: "Naameh's draped top reveals quite a lot of cleavage in one scene. In a town, girls and women are traded for food."
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Yeah, and even then instead of "story of Jesus = kid appropriate", you would have parents saying poo poo like "You need to see this so you know how Jesus suffered for you" when the kids are freaking out in the theater and begging to go home. I'd rather kids see this than be exposed to the bloodless violence without consequences of the Marvel superhero films. That's a lot more misleading and psychologically damaging.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Well I'm happy as a clam. I got to meet Aronofsky tonight and chat about the film a bit. The guy really knows his Bible, I think he could probably recite Genesis verbatim if he had to. He said he sees this and The Fountain as loose siblings, each dealing with a tree in the Garden of Eden, one with the Tree of Life and the other with the Tree of Knowledge. There's a nod towards the supernovae in The Fountain in the 'Big Bang' Creation bit and the trees have identical seed pods. He's pretty drat serious about his environmentalism too, going off on quite an impassioned tangent about dams being constructed in Iceland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:It was kind of weird because for all of the gorgeous special effects there were some that just plain sucked. Like when they are approaching Methuselah's mountain there's a shot that was just terrible green screening. Which shot? I'm pretty sure everything with the mountain was just shot on location in Iceland, and according to Matthew Libatique they didn't use green/blue screens on this production. (Not saying there weren't several shots, mostly of creatures, that felt clearly fake. Which is surprising given how jaw-dropping things like the creation sequence are. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:46
|
|