I shan't have anyone badmouth Emma Watson. And anyway I don't really look for a performance when I go and see Emma Watson in a movie
Also who doesn't love Russell Crowe? We all need a bit of Russell Crowe in our lives at some point, I mean just look at him here in all his charming glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuqgFIpOGMw
Just watched a trailer, and Emma Watson is beyond posh, it just daft, can she not act and at least try a old world type accent! We already got Keira, who can't act and does posh in everything, we don't need another one.
What exactly is an "old world type accent"?
What kind of accent did people have in "Old Testament Biblical Times"?
I shan't have anyone badmouth Emma Watson. And anyway I don't really look for a performance when I go and see Emma Watson in a movie
Also who doesn't love Russell Crowe? We all need a bit of Russell Crowe in our lives at some point, I mean just look at him here in all his charming glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuqgFIpOGMw
Great actor btw.
but thats the thing - she isn't much to look at either .
150 days of continuous rain caused the whole planet to be covered to a depth of at least 29,000 feet and killed everyone and everything except for some people and animals in a boat? No, not fictional at all.
i can't believe they have emma watson in that role talking in her posh private school accent, so out of place in the role its not even funny, they were a poor family living off the land, where would they learn to talk like that
Just watched a trailer, and Emma Watson is beyond posh, it just daft, can she not act and at least try a old world type accent! We already got Keira, who can't act and does posh in everything, we don't need another one.
People do seem to have certain expectations when it comes to portraying the ancient world, don't they? The Yanks and Aussies generally try to suppress their accents in an apparent belief that everybody spoke with a neutral British accent. See Troy, with the exception of Sean Bean who, if anything, exaggerates his Northern accent, clearly believing that a hero like Odysseus was obviously a Yorkshireman.:D
At the other end of the scale, you've got sci-fi films where, once again, all regional accents seem to have become extinct. Who can forget the obvious disappointment of David Prowse, who having spoke all Darth Vadar's lines in his West Country brogue in Star Wars, found the lot inexplicably cut. Just why is it so difficult to imagine that an all-powerful evil Jedi knight could have come from Somerset?:D
but thats the thing - she isn't much to look at either .
.
You blaspheme! I think she's pretty hot but hey, we all have different tastes.
As for her performance in Noah, she does do a lot of crying and screaming which for those like you who aren't a fan might find annoying. Me, I thought she was great
I don't care about religion. I am going to see this for Logan Lerman. He is better than God.
YES And Douglas Booth is pretty fine as well. In fact majorly fine As for the film I actually thoroughly enjoyed it! One of the best films I've seen this year so far. The wife - Jennifer Connelly is it? - was the star in my books, she was incredible!
I have just been to see Noah. Being an atheist I have always enjoyed watching Biblical epics ever since the 1950s because for me they were just stories. Most of them have transferred well to the big screen, but in this case, I was a little disappointed. It lacked something, and being an oldie movie goer I think it was because most of the cast lacked sparkle. Of course, I am going back to the days of Richard Burton, Jeffrey Hunter, Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner and so many others like them. And it must be remembered also that CGI did not exist then, and today there is a heavy reliance on CGI for the effects. But, the lack of charisma and sparkle from the cast in this movie was a let down, although I have to agree that all of them are fine actors in their own right, but they just did not transfer well to this type of story. In other words, they were miscast. Perhaps using unknowns might have worked better. I wonder what others think?
I have just been to see Noah. Being an atheist I have always enjoyed watching Biblical epics ever since the 1950s because for me they were just stories. Most of them have transferred well to the big screen, but in this case, I was a little disappointed. It lacked something, and being an oldie movie goer I think it was because most of the cast lacked sparkle. Of course, I am going back to the days of Richard Burton, Jeffrey Hunter, Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner and so many others like them. And it must be remembered also that CGI did not exist then, and today there is a heavy reliance on CGI for the effects. But, the lack of charisma and sparkle from the cast in this movie was a let down, although I have to agree that all of them are fine actors in their own right, but they just did not transfer well to this type of story. In other words, they were miscast. Perhaps using unknowns might have worked better. I wonder what others think?
I think what Aronofsky has done is take a nonsensical idea from the Bible and made it into a po-faced summer blockbuster (similar to what Christopher Nolan did with Batman). I think it works. If there's just one criticism I have with some of the biblical films of the golden age, they were a bit stagey at least in terms of acting (I suppose that's where the charm you mentioned comes from). Aronofsky wanted a different take on the bible, a more personal story with grit. It's a sign of the times I suppose that everything has to be straight-faced.
It's not a perfect film by any means. The fallen angels rock monsters don't work and I didn't understand the deal with the golden stones. Overall though I thoroughly enjoyed it and IMO even the most ardent critics of religion can enjoy it for what it is.
Considering rain is evaporated water from the oceans,lakes ect how the hell does 150 days of rain flood the earth as its clear there would have to be a massive amount of evaporation from the oceans ect just for 150 days of rain alone.it would just be running back into the oceans ect as most of the rain would indeed fall on water.
In general it's received pretty decent reviews, 76% positive on Rotten Tomatoes. From a spectacle point of view, it's worth seeing IMO.
I think what Aronofsky has done is take a nonsensical idea from the Bible and made it into a po-faced summer blockbuster (similar to what Christopher Nolan did with Batman). I think it works. If there's just one criticism I have with some of the biblical films of the golden age, they were a bit stagey at least in terms of acting (I suppose that's where the charm you mentioned comes from). Aronofsky wanted a different take on the bible, a more personal story with grit. It's a sign of the times I suppose that everything has to be straight-faced.
It's not a perfect film by any means. The fallen angels rock monsters don't work and I didn't understand the deal with the golden stones. Overall though I thoroughly enjoyed it and IMO even the most ardent critics of religion can enjoy it for what it is.
Batman was in the Bible? The nuns never told us that back in my schooldays.
What kind of accent did people have in "Old Testament Biblical Times"?
They should cast foreign actors speaking English. Topol was good at this kind of thing.
If they use native English speakers they should put on vaguely foreign accents - "I gonna bilda da ark!" "My vaif iss viz chaiild..." etc.
In general it's received pretty decent reviews, 76% positive on Rotten Tomatoes. From a spectacle point of view, it's worth seeing IMO.
I think what Aronofsky has done is take a nonsensical idea from the Bible and made it into a po-faced summer blockbuster (similar to what Christopher Nolan did with Batman). I think it works. If there's just one criticism I have with some of the biblical films of the golden age, they were a bit stagey at least in terms of acting (I suppose that's where the charm you mentioned comes from). Aronofsky wanted a different take on the bible, a more personal story with grit. It's a sign of the times I suppose that everything has to be straight-faced.
It's not a perfect film by any means. The fallen angels rock monsters don't work and I didn't understand the deal with the golden stones. Overall though I thoroughly enjoyed it and IMO even the most ardent critics of religion can enjoy it for what it is.
They should cast foreign actors speaking English. Topol was good at this kind of thing.
If they use native English speakers they should put on vaguely foreign accents - "I gonna bilda da ark!" "My vaif iss viz chaiild..." etc.
People do seem to have certain expectations when it comes to portraying the ancient world, don't they? The Yanks and Aussies generally try to suppress their accents in an apparent belief that everybody spoke with a neutral British accent. See Troy, with the exception of Sean Bean who, if anything, exaggerates his Northern accent, clearly believing that a hero like Odysseus was obviously a Yorkshireman.:D
At the other end of the scale, you've got sci-fi films where, once again, all regional accents seem to have become extinct. Who can forget the obvious disappointment of David Prowse, who having spoke all Darth Vadar's lines in his West Country brogue in Star Wars, found the lot inexplicably cut. Just why is it so difficult to imagine that an all-powerful evil Jedi knight could have come from Somerset?:D
Oh...I don't think it's that difficult to imagine...
I have just been to see Noah. Being an atheist I have always enjoyed watching Biblical epics ever since the 1950s because for me they were just stories. Most of them have transferred well to the big screen, but in this case, I was a little disappointed.
I'm not having a go at you specifically here but I really don't know why some people feel the need to insert a reference to their 'atheism' when talking about a film loosely based on a religious tale.
You don't get people talking about evolution when they're reviewing a dinosaur flick or about the likelihood of intergalactic travel or the impossible physics of light sabres when they're talking about Star Wars.
Do non-believers really think that Christians are sitting there watching Noah and saying to themselves 'Well, they got that bit wrong - there were no stone monsters there when it happened in real life'?:D
Comments
Can't be doing with Russell Crowe either.
From being in Harry Potter.
Casting couch or blackmail is my guess
Utter abortion of a movie, free tickets ensured my attendance otherwise i would not touch this with a staff.
Also who doesn't love Russell Crowe? We all need a bit of Russell Crowe in our lives at some point, I mean just look at him here in all his charming glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuqgFIpOGMw
Great actor btw.
What exactly is an "old world type accent"?
What kind of accent did people have in "Old Testament Biblical Times"?
but thats the thing - she isn't much to look at either .
.
Have you never been to Wales ?
People do seem to have certain expectations when it comes to portraying the ancient world, don't they? The Yanks and Aussies generally try to suppress their accents in an apparent belief that everybody spoke with a neutral British accent. See Troy, with the exception of Sean Bean who, if anything, exaggerates his Northern accent, clearly believing that a hero like Odysseus was obviously a Yorkshireman.:D
At the other end of the scale, you've got sci-fi films where, once again, all regional accents seem to have become extinct. Who can forget the obvious disappointment of David Prowse, who having spoke all Darth Vadar's lines in his West Country brogue in Star Wars, found the lot inexplicably cut. Just why is it so difficult to imagine that an all-powerful evil Jedi knight could have come from Somerset?:D
No, but I do live in Scotland. :-(
You blaspheme! I think she's pretty hot but hey, we all have different tastes.
As for her performance in Noah, she does do a lot of crying and screaming which for those like you who aren't a fan might find annoying. Me, I thought she was great
YES
In general it's received pretty decent reviews, 76% positive on Rotten Tomatoes. From a spectacle point of view, it's worth seeing IMO.
I think what Aronofsky has done is take a nonsensical idea from the Bible and made it into a po-faced summer blockbuster (similar to what Christopher Nolan did with Batman). I think it works. If there's just one criticism I have with some of the biblical films of the golden age, they were a bit stagey at least in terms of acting (I suppose that's where the charm you mentioned comes from). Aronofsky wanted a different take on the bible, a more personal story with grit. It's a sign of the times I suppose that everything has to be straight-faced.
It's not a perfect film by any means. The fallen angels rock monsters don't work and I didn't understand the deal with the golden stones. Overall though I thoroughly enjoyed it and IMO even the most ardent critics of religion can enjoy it for what it is.
Batman was in the Bible?
They should cast foreign actors speaking English. Topol was good at this kind of thing.
If they use native English speakers they should put on vaguely foreign accents - "I gonna bilda da ark!" "My vaif iss viz chaiild..." etc.
What, you mean a bit like Allo Allo?
and the Bible got the story from the Sumerian's
Sounds a bit like early Scharzenegger...
Oh...I don't think it's that difficult to imagine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQFho0_G1VI
I'm not having a go at you specifically here but I really don't know why some people feel the need to insert a reference to their 'atheism' when talking about a film loosely based on a religious tale.
You don't get people talking about evolution when they're reviewing a dinosaur flick or about the likelihood of intergalactic travel or the impossible physics of light sabres when they're talking about Star Wars.
Do non-believers really think that Christians are sitting there watching Noah and saying to themselves 'Well, they got that bit wrong - there were no stone monsters there when it happened in real life'?:D