I Live Tweeted the Noah Movie Yesterday [Film Review]

Finally got around to watching the controversial Noah movie. I live tweeted it for lack of anything constructive to do. Besides the theological hilarity, I found it hokey, ridiculous, badly acted, badly scripted, beautiful to look at, but otherwise awful. Russell Crowe is just Russell Crowe. Jennifer Connelly is underwhelming. Logan Lerman did a good job at being someone other than himself, but he wasn’t given much to work with. Emma Watson shone, but that’s because her character was supposed to. My overall verdict, stupid movie that looks beautiful and Emma Watson is awesome. Here’s the tweets, for your possible amusement.

It was not “artsy,” just fartsy.

At this early part of the movie, there were at least four “Sons of Ham” foreshadowings. I meant to say “eat the DVD” but my autocorrect made it even more ironic. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the etymology of Ham:

According to the Hebrew Bible, Ham was one of the sons of Noah and the father of Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan, who are interpreted as having populated Africa and adjoining parts of Asia. The Bible refers to Egypt as “the land of Ham” in Psalms 78:51; 105:23,27; 106:22; 1Ch 4:40. Since the 17th century a number of suggestions have been made that relate the name Ham to a Hebrew word for burnt, black or hot, to an Egyptian word for servant or the Egyptian word Kmt for Egypt.[4] A review of David Goldenberg’s The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam states that Goldenberg “argues persuasively that the biblical name Ham bears no relationship at all to the notion of blackness and as of now is of unknown etymology.”[5]

Here’s another tweet:

snakes

Look, I’m not opposed to “liberal Christianity.” I believe that Christianity more than anything has a duty to care about social justice. But this movie seems to have taken a stereotype of “liberal Christianity” and used it to make a point. This masquerades as a movie about Christian themes. Really, it’s a conservationist film. And that’s fine. But all the way through it was like the damn thing couldn’t decide what it cared more about: saving the environment or sucking up to the Christians it wanted to buy tickets. Either way, it misunderstands both conservationism and Christianity and makes a hash of both.

I can’t quite remember what prompted this tweet, but Noah gets pretty dickish towards the middle and end. He basically leaves a young woman to die, sabotages his own son’s attempts to save his unborn children, promises to kill any girl children, takes a knife to those kids but doesn’t kill them at the last minute and then, blames it all on God. Literally. He looks at the sky after he “fails” to kill too newborn babies and says, “I can’t do it.” Did God tell you to do that? No. You decided to do it, then when you didn’t you blamed God for your initial decision. Dick move, Noah. Dick. Move.

See that thing on his head?! It’s a bloody welder’s mask! It looks like a modern welder’s mask. And seriously, there are people carrying corrugated iron sheets in certain scenes! And there are chains! THIS IS THE STONE AGE! WHERE THE HELL DID THEY GET IRON AND STEEL?! [end rant]

One of the big myths about vegetarians is that we don’t get enough iron. We’re sick of hearing it.

Here’s another look at the whole Ham thing, from Wikipedia:

The Curse of Ham is a misnomer[1] for the curse upon Canaan that was imposed by the biblical patriarch Noah. The narrative occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah’s drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:20–27).[2] The controversies raised by this story regarding the nature of Ham’s transgression, and the question of why Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned, have been debated for over two thousand years.[3]

The story’s original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites,[4] but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Muslims, Jews and Christians as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery.[5] Nevertheless, most Christian denominations and all Jewish denominations strongly disagree with such interpretations due to the fact that in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed and race or skin color is never mentioned.[6]

Okay. Enough of that.

Seriously! At the end, Noah’s wife is all happy to see him and reconcile and start making out again. Like, why is it okay that he made sure innocent people died and then tried to kill a pair of babies? Cuz GOD TOLD ME TO! No. Sorry. That is the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard. Way to pass the buck. Way to not take responsibility for your own actions. But then, there’s a streak of that in this movie. The supposed bad guy makes a big deal about man making his own way (albeit in pretty unethical terms). The dichotomy is clear. Good guy blames God for everything. Bad guy believes man determines his own destiny. Neither side actually looks good in this film. Both suck.

Yep. This movie was pretty bad. So this is my conclusion and it’s really all you need to know:

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s