The first one I read was a short one from Ken Ham’s blog. He said the movie “is disgusting and evil — paganism.” Ham said the movie “portrays Noah as a psychopath who says that if his daughter-in-law’s baby is a girl then he will kill her as soon as she’s born,” and that “Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people.” Ham said the movie was boring and the worst movie he’d ever seen.
“Except for some of the names in the movie, like Noah, his sons’ names, and Methuselah, hardly any remnant of the Bible’s account of the Flood in Genesis 6-9 is recognizable. Yes, there is an Ark in the film that is true to the massive biblical proportions, but it did not look like a seaworthy vessel. There were many animals that came to Noah and went on board the Ark, but there were far too many creatures crammed inside and certainly many more than were needed. Also, while the extreme wickedness of man was depicted, the real sin displayed in the film was the people’s destruction of the earth. Lost within the film’s extreme environmentalist message is that the actual sins of the pre-Flood people were a rebellion against God and also man’s inhumanity to man. . . . Ultimately, there is barely a hint of biblical fidelity in this film. It is an unbiblical, pagan film from its start. It opens with: ‘In the beginning there was nothing.’ The Bible opens with, ‘In the beginning God.’ That difference helps sum up the problem I have with the film.”
You really need to read his whole rebuttal.
The next review was by Debbie Schlussel. Debbie is a practicing Jew, and she found the film to be abhorrent. She starts her review with, “Hollywood committed Noahcide. They killed the Biblical story in favor of a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, soap opera, action film version of what bears little resemblance to the Bible version. The new movie, ‘Noah,’ in theaters today, would be better called a host of other things: ‘Game of Thrones Noah,’ ‘The Noah-dashians,’ ‘Dysfunctional Family Noah.’ Or just plain, ‘NOT Noah.’”
I finally read Glenn Beck’s review. [Link gone by Sep 2020] Of course I know Beck is a Mormon, but even Mormons have a quasi-biblical worldview and agree with a lot of the Bible’s teachings. Beck said of “Noah,” “It’s more take ‘Sinbad the Sailor’ meets ‘The Shining’ and ‘Friday the 13th,’ with a sprinkle of ‘Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.’” He further stated that,“If you are looking for a biblical movie, this is definitely not it … It’s not the story of Noah that I was hoping for. If you are going for that, you will be horribly disappointed. . . . . I always thought of Noah as more of a nice, gentle guy, prophet of God … and less of the homicidal maniac that Paramount found in the Bible. More of the man [that] loves God, and less of him trying to break down the doors inside the ark to kill his whole family.”
Arch-heretic and political darling Jim Wallis proved he is not a Christian, and that he has no idea what the Bible says. He was all twitter-pated about it: “in my opinion Aronofksy’s Noah is a beautiful, powerful, difficult film worthy of the ‘epic’ label. A vivid, visually spectacular reimagining of an ancient story held as sacred by all three Abrahamic religious traditions, it also is the most spiritually nuanced, exquisitely articulated exploration of the ideas of justice and mercy I’ve ever seen on a movie screen. … And despite what you may have heard elsewhere, Noah is deeply, passionately biblical. Nothing in the film contradicts the Bible’s account of Noah and the Great Flood, either in spirit or detail.”
Wallis must have see a different movie than these other people saw.
And, by the way, this isn’t the last Hollywood religious garbage film to come out this year. Elizabeth Prata has a good article about the problem with this type of entertainment, as well as examples of up-coming religious movies.
23 comments:
I would recommend seeing "God's Not Dead" instead of this messed up movie if it's showing in your area. It has some great acting by Kevin Sorbo and a great message.
Hi Diane,
I've heard many people, including my sister, say what a good movie "God's Not Dead" is. I've read the premise and decided it wasn't something that interested me, because I knew it was going to be contrived. I'm not into contrived stories.
This morning I read an interesting paragraph about the movie (the article wasn't about the movie) and saw that it pretty much was what I thought it would be. The article is at:
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2014/03/in-strange-land.html
The particular paragraph is this:
"Just as an example, take the latest "good for our side" movie, God's Not Dead. Christians are raving about it. The Christian Film Database raves, "An overwhelmingly, powerful, thought provoking film. We wish everyone in the world would go see this film." Check your Facebook for the reviews of other Christians who have seen it and loved it. Still, even The Hollywood Reporter notices "it sometimes stacks the deck shamelessly in defense of its credo." So why is it that no one seems to notice that it's a poorly structured set of arguments played against a poorly stereotyped set of opponents? In the movie, the main character is a Christian required to engage in a "contest" with a virulent atheist professor in order to get a passing grade. So he has to prove the existence of God in three lectures and convince the class. The necessary biblical fact that humans are not convinced in favor of God based on argument, but by the Spirit, is ignored and the disappointingly weak arguments are passed off as compelling. The movie argues from the Big Bang and from theistic evolution for the existence of God rather than for any biblical version of God. This character's arguments have been often and skillfully refuted by skeptics while many much more reasonable and sound arguments are available, but Christians are delighted that the film argued for God even if it simply set up a soft pitch to a skeptical world ready to knock it out of the park."
Stan, the blog's owner, is pretty hardline Calvinist, so you have to be ready for that if you follow his blog. However, he has some outstanding commentaries if you chose to follow him.
Everything I've read about Noah from the secular and quasi-Christian press/bloggers has been good. Everything I've read about Noah from people who know Christ has been that it is dismal.
I think I will join you in not spending my money on it.
Thanks for the link to the "Winging It" blog. Good stuff.
Hi Glenn,
The Noah movie = abysmal.
The God's Not Dead movie - I agree with the Calvinist blogger you mentioned on his discernment about the movie. Creation Ministries Int'l said the same thing, that in the movie, they wrongly argued from the "big bang" and "theistic evolution" for the existence of God, instead of using Scripture and relying on the Holy Spirit.
http://creation.com/gods-not-dead-review
(And of course the "Son of God" movie - ugh.)
So in the end, my thoughts on this trifecta of so-called Christian movies:
1. God's Not Dead movie - denies the truth, and the sufficiency of Scripture about God's literal 6 day creation, by pandering to evolutionary compromise, and as you said, using a contrived plot with 2 dimensional characters. (Versus Romans 1 which says ALL people already know God is real, they just suppress the truth in unrighteousness; and 1 Corinthians 1, which says the message of cross of Christ is emptied of its power by using human wisdom.)
2. Noah movie - denies the truth, and the sufficiency of Scripture about the global flood, by completely reinventing the story, resulting in a plethora of errors, and by weaving in an undercurrent of environmentalism. (Versus Genesis 6-9 as written.)
3. Son of God movie - denies the truth, and the sufficiency of Scripture about Christ and the Gospel, by adding to, subtracting from, and utterly misrepresenting a host of NT Scriptures.
And yet, these movies show the world is exactly as God said it would be at the end of the age... 2 Peter 3.
-Carolyn
The movie "better than the book." Rofl
Good Fight did a pretty good short video expose on Noah movie: http://vimeo.com/goodfightmin/noahmoviedeception
-Sarah
I shared Good Fight Ministry's review of and response to Noah on my facebook page
http://youtu.be/-36Cs-B5iG4
The best response was from a friend who said "Instead of wasting money on "Noah", rent "Evan Almighty"-it's more accurate"
Doug and Sarah,
Thanks much for that link. I will be including it with some others with my next RA&H post.
Hello Glenn,
May I re-print your numbered "list" on my blog? (with credit back here) I want to include some reviews of the movie too, and point people to Ray Comfort's Noah movie. Thanks either way
Elizabeth,
Well of course you can!
:oD
Well, the producers wanted to make a darker story of Noah. They did do that but they did not keep to God's word accurately at all. If they were serious about making the story riveting and dark it should have been rated R or X, for the incest that took place, the debauchery, and immorality was far greater than just a simple PG-13. It was dark and I do not think our imaginations can handle what it really was like being in a world that had completely turned their backs on God. Noah and his family are the only ones who had chosen God in all the Earth. Noah would have appeared like and angel of God before man kind in light of how dark it was. This is what I expected to see but didn't. God did not choose to destroy people because they were just bad people, they had chosen to rebel intentionally and directly against God knowing the truth of His love and power. I think they were thinking along the same lines as we find ourselves thinking today, God's not going to really do anything that we couldn't survive from. How bad could it be, He's not going to destroy all the people on Earth. Well, we find that biblical prophecy tells us that He is going to destroy this Earth, not be water, but He will do so. Are we this blind?
Hi Anonymous,
Actually, I think the society we are living in now is pretty close to what Noah was living in.
I also don't think Noah was the only one who followed God. After all, his three sons and wives did also. The passage doesn't say ONLY Noah was a God-follower, only that he and his family were chosen to be the origin of the repopulation of the world. I think we often read too much into the passage.
I have only seen previews and I new it was trash before I even read this blog. My mom thought it looked good until I started to break it down. MY dad made a good point, in the movie I believe it is Noah that shuts the door to the ark, not sure though, but in the Bible it is God who closes the ark for the purpose that no one he didn't want to would get on the ark. Since God shut the ark then there would be no need to defend the ark like they make it out to be in the movie. I love your break down of the movie and found it to be very helpful. I personally want to see it still, not for the content, for the cinematic effects. I think it is very good in that way. I feel like just because it goes against the Bible that doesnt mean I can't spend my my money to enjoy a cinematic enjoyable movie.
Josiah,
I look at it this way; would you pay for a gun for a murderer?
These movie makers are trying to murder the spirit - kill the Christian faith. When you pay to see the movie, you help them make more, and really become an accessory after the fact. That, to me, is the logical consequence of you filling their coffers just to see their cinematic effects. I sincerely doubt that they will have special effects you haven't seen in some other movie, so why would you want to put garbage into your mind? Just sayin'
Certainly not accurate, but I didn't find it as bad as many claim. (Incidentally, you cite Noah's daughter-in-law having twin girls as an "error". How so? We are not informed in the Bible about such details.)
JM1999,
Firstly, I wrote that the issue of twin daughters was "unbiblical," which it is. It is adding to Scripture that which is not told to us, pure speculation.
Secondly, with all the horrid stuff I just listed as being in the movie, I find it odd that a Christian would say the movie wasn't all that bad.
(Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on that question.)
Given all I'd heard, I watched & judged it as a piece of fiction, and as such, thought a thought-provoking faith-based fantasy. (The director DID warn beforehand that it wasn't a Biblical film.)
As such, I didn't find most of the points on your list "horrible" - simply artistic license that made a good story in its own right.
(Apart from the implied evolution - I found that annoying, although it was a minor part.)
And unlike many, I found the film to be anti-environmentalist (or at least, anti-extreme-environmentalist). (The anti-extreme-environmentalism is made clear & expounded on in the latter half of the movie.)
https://jmshistorycorner.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/noah/
JM1999
Artistic license is not acceptable if you are trying to prevent a story supposedly based on the Bible. Not acceptable at all, period. It is false teaching, period. No defense is acceptable, period.
In your personal opinion.
As opposed to YOUR personal opinion which allows the abuse of Scripture.
Glenn, could you please make a response article to Jesse Albhrect on creationism which is here: https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2024/10/from-chaos-to-order-exegetical-and.html
Could you answer his old earth assumptions in an article format? i am not trying to start any problems. i do not have the skill to deal with someone like him. He is teaching dangerous theology here.
Samuel,
Could you please enlighten me as to what is "dangerous theology" in that article. And when you say, "someone like him," explain what you mean.
Post a Comment