Among them, the ones related to the biblical stories can be regarded as the most special. At that time, the biblical stories were no different to me than myths and legends, and the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Mesopotamia, and the mysterious ruins on Mount Ararat wandered on the edge of reality and fantasy. , which adds to its charm. A picture book "Bible Stories" that has never been started is also the regret of the young man's heart.
The real contact with the Bible was in high school. There is a pocket-style soft leather version at home, and the font size is even smaller. Perhaps because of this reason, so far I have only flipped through it, but haven't really studied it. Of course, my favorite is the classic stories of "Genesis": the inheritance and continuation of life, the destruction and establishment of order, the manifestation and concealment of miracles, all of which are the essence of this charming world-class work.
And now, as a "loyal Marxist warrior", a brick of China's highest scientific research institution, this time of youth is not only precious, but also a wonderful foundation. At a time when the Internet was not yet developed, these convoluted stories really enriched a teenager's inner world, and also avoided the erosion of stereotyped idols and inferior online games.
Fast-forward the timeline to March of this year. History Channel's bold attempt on a TV series has received considerable applause and ratings. That's a 10-episode set of The Bible. In terms of the viewing quality of the episode itself, there are still many areas that need to be processed. The style of the episode fluctuates between documentary and interpretation, and the rhythm needs to be strengthened. However, the added value and social topics it brings are beyond the reach of ordinary dramas. This drama even re-edited and put it on the big screen, giving up the producer's desire for the box office, which is indeed an interesting thing. After that, the success of several religious-themed films (in fact, they are more or less missionary gospel films) cannot be said to have nothing to do with them at the box office.
And then there's "Noah" by Comrade Darren Aronofsky.
Before this film, I think the most successful religious film in recent years was not Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", but DreamWorks' early World War I famous "Prince of Egypt". Whether it is in character creation, story adaptation, or the era-oriented treatment of its spiritual core, it is a rare and excellent work. Of course, if I were lucky enough to see Charlton Heston's "The Ten Commandments" in the early days, this first place might have changed hands (by the way, Ridley Scott's "Exodus" at the end of the year "Remember" is about to be released, Bell children's shoes don't know if there will be any unexpected performance "although basically there is no...").
After this film, the status of "Prince of Egypt" was not affected at all.
As a very traditional religious country, America's tolerance for religious films is actually not bad. Don't you see "The Magic Star of All Ages", "Angry Crimes in Heaven" (PS film title Dogma, the common word Baidu, turns out to be very trivial things...)" and "The Last Temptation of Christ". The above-mentioned films are chaotic in the name of religion, but they have also received a lot of negative reviews. At the same time, between the traditional journalism and the pro-entertainment talk show, and in the battle of the old enemies for many years, they took time out of their busy schedules to take this as the topic and threw two whips at each other.
This time, the film itself really went too far. Ninety percent of the people's protests against the film were because of the bad story. It is estimated that only the masses who really know nothing about the "Bible" and the biblical story can get a little experience from this inexplicable film.
As for Darren Aronofsky, I have only watched one Black Swan and half of The Wrestling King. Based on these two films, the story of small characters and small patterns may be more suitable for him. There may be no other reason than personal insistence to put a foot in the story of "Noah".
This passage of the story in the Bible is concise and clear, with a beginning and an end, and there is no pressure to stand alone, which is different from the book of Exodus. The latter is longer and has a high degree of richness of the story, while the former is a joke that can be told in three sentences. It relies on the sense of picture to win, and when it comes to the movie, many new elements have to be added to complement it. To be honest, the new elements added to this film are terrible.
It is easy to find from the finished film that the filming of this film is basically in one place without moving the nest. Perhaps the cost is limited, because the film has a lot of special effects shots. But the richness of special effects did not give the audience a good viewing experience.
The beginning of this film makes it clear: our film has a tall background. The creator (it's Creator, not God, I don't know why the film is using Creator from beginning to end, it's awkward to hide one's ears and steal the bell) to create Adam and Eve, and then the two are lured by snakes and driven out of the Garden of Eden. The two then had three children: Cain Abel and Seth. In this work, the protagonist is Noah, the descendant of Seth, and the villain is Tuba Cain, the descendant of Cain.
The film introduces the setting of guardian angels (or is the Son of God more appropriate?). For some reason, the guardian angel looks like a stone giant (it's not wrong to say that it is a giant, but no matter how you think about it, it should be the descendants of guardian angels and humans who are giants). The guardian angel was first used to take care of the Cain family in this film, helping to build a huge city that was only shown in the film. It was later driven away by the humans themselves and perished. Then it reappears, helping Noah build the ark.
Although the original intention of the introduction of guardian angels is to make this kind of idiot move mountains also have surreal helpers like the second son of Kua'e's family, so that this legend has a little bit of rationality. But in the film, the stone giants have no personality at all. They have no other use except construction workers. The three-dimensional level is not as good as that of the tree people in "The Lord of the Rings".
The most terrifying thing is that Noah's father Lamech was killed at the beginning of the film. And was murdered. Completely deviant.
Of course, ignoring the incredible reasons of old age in the "Bible", it is somewhat inappropriate to let the old monsters of tens and hundreds of years old jump around.
Then the story tells us that although Noah's father, who is bitter and grieving, has long since died, his grandfather Methuselah is still alive... Not only is he a good grandfather who specializes in giving seeds, but also an old doctor who specializes in infertility , reached out and solved the problem of Emma Watson's uterine injury in children's shoes. Considering the role of Ark as a global seed bank, you should be a shipbuilder, Grandpa.
Then Comrade Noah is an absolute vegetarian, and does not destroy flowers and plants. Of course, being the only complete person is understandable, but the effect of the film is very hypocritical and unnatural. And the more it develops in the later stage, the more Noah himself has a symptom of falling into his own constraints, which is not only understandable. In the later period, he frantically persecuted his twin granddaughters. Although he pursued righteousness and intended to prove himself, the murderousness displayed by Mr. Russell Crowe was just another "The Shining".
Speaking of opposition. The villain that didn't appear in the original story at all fell on Ravenston's Tuba Cain. With a long beard on his face, he was dressed in the same style as Sharp Brother, and brought a family to smash the field. Not only did he kill a bunch of self-exploding stone giants (then the stone giants grew wings and returned to the sky), but also hid on the ark to rebel against Noah's second son. Stealing the spotlight against the original story is unparalleled.
The reason why I emphasize the original story so many times is precisely because of the inviolability of this story. This is a story about self-redemption, a story about the manifestation of divinity in the world. As a result, Director Darren showed us a farce about a dark and oppressive NGO saving the world. As for who is saved and why, sorry, that's not the purpose of this film, let alone telling everyone that Noah is a vegetarian.
On the one hand, the film wants to integrate the insurmountable gap between religion and science. So we saw the forest made by the stone giant from a seed and built the ship honestly, saw the small animals spontaneously boarded the ship and were at peace with each other, saw the whole earth was covered with many super storms in the style of "The Day After Tomorrow", and then Overwhelmed, and even saw evolution in Noah's 7-day creation story.
On the other hand, they want to seduce those traditional people to appreciate their own. So we saw a perfect man who didn't eat meat or pick flowers, although he had a paranoid desire to control children, saw a bunch of wicked people who were really doing evil things like homeless people, and saw murder, betrayal, and fate.
So in the end, such a strange thing came out. The two sides are not flattering, the lack of depth of the display makes people unable to leave any deep impression, and the memory of the film is not as deep and believable as the original story.
In the film, the Ark finally hits a mountain top that didn't exist in the original version (because it was completely submerged). It's exactly the same as what happened to the movie itself.
Arrogant and arrogant.
http://i.mtime.com/cydenylau/blog/7778945/
View more about Noah reviews
