Noah (2014)

Jolin calls the film an inventive, ambitious mythological epic, while noting that its harshness and revisions to the biblical story may infuriate as much as inspire. He especially praises Aronofsky’s striking creation sequence, which compresses billions of years of evolution into minutes.

The critic calls the film an audacious, uncompromising epic and praises its ambitious execution. They single out the flood sequence for its impressive orchestration and the emotional force of Crowe’s performance.

Turan finds the film grandiose and often overwrought, but says its cinematic energy makes it riveting. He praises Aronofsky’s bold, highly personal retelling of the biblical story and its willingness to blend the expected with the unexpected.

Romney finds the film flawed but substantial, praising its audacious, visionary ambition. He particularly admires Russell Crowe’s grounded portrayal, which gives the film’s strangeness a human center.

McCarthy finds the film arresting and audacious, though its environmental messaging can be heavy-handed and parts of its ending feel off-kilter. He especially praises Russell Crowe’s grounded performance and the film’s technical achievements.

Denby finds Noah wildly excessive and uneven, but ultimately a daring work of art. He especially praises its apocalyptic imagery and Icelandic landscapes, which make the end of the world visually magnificent.

Foundas calls the film uneven but undeniably bold, finding it fascinating despite its competing ambitions. He praises its visually dazzling spectacle, especially the Watchers and the flood sequence.

Edelstein finds the film compromised by conventional studio spectacle, but ultimately likes it for grounding biblical apocalypse in contemporary concerns while retaining religious awe. He praises its vivid dreams and visions as the moments that best convey Aronofsky’s personal vision.

The page identifies this as a review, but the critic’s verdict is inaccessible. No praise or complaint can be verified from the visible text.

Staunton finds the film a bold but uneven biblical epic. He praises the grandeur of its effects, while noting stretches of existential navel-gazing.

Kermode finds the film preposterous and exasperating, yet ultimately endearing in its unhinged ambition. He singles out Jennifer Connelly for grounding the spectacle in credible human emotion.

Scott finds the film an unwieldy but ambitious biblical epic. He singles out Aronofsky’s visual imagination while noting that the film’s ideas do not always cohere.

Kohn calls the film an epic misfire, despite its fascinating unease and ambition. He praises its striking visual sequences, while faulting the muddled plot and shallow treatment of its ideas.

Henderson finds the film’s ambitious scriptural interpretation compelling at first, but says it ultimately retreats into conventionality. He praises its vivid, sacred-and-profane imagery, especially the creation montage.

Fairclough finds the film dour, emotionally barren and ultimately boring, despite its spectacular moments. He praises the flood sequence’s depiction of people facing death, but says it cannot rescue the film’s missed opportunity.

The review gives the film a low rating. Its description singles out Russell Crowe’s overly serious performance.

Sexton finds the film an unconvincing action epic, despite Aronofsky’s effort to make it accessible to believers and non-believers alike. He singles out Russell Crowe’s commanding presence for praise, saying it holds the film together and makes Noah’s moral dilemma feel genuine.

Phelan finds the film underwhelming and frequently silly, with an implausible, low-stakes world. He praises Russell Crowe’s brooding performance and the domestic conflict that emerges later.

The review finds the adaptation fascinating, praising its religious ambiguity and ecological commentary. It also singles out Aronofsky’s stylised visuals and provocative treatment of faith and humanity.

Sciretta finds the film a powerful, imaginative, and ambitious reimagining, while noting its challenging structure may not work for everyone. He especially praises the visually told Genesis sequence for blending biblical text with scientific ideas.

The review finds Noah psychologically gripping and visually stunning despite some structural and cohesion problems. It especially praises the emotionally powerful family drama between Crowe and Connelly.

Goldberg finds Noah a flawed but intriguing work whose moral complexity is often buried under awkward explanations and uneven storytelling. He praises Matthew Libatique’s cinematography and Clint Mansell’s score, along with the film’s environmental and ethical ideas.

Kaye finds the film unique, entertaining, and at times profoundly moving, despite flaws in its execution. He singles out Russell Crowe’s complex performance and praises the striking visual and musical design.

The page is blocked by anti-crawler protection, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. The text provides no details about what the review praises or criticizes.

Pape finds the film overelaborate and convoluted, despite admiring its ambition and scope. He praises the striking storybook-like interludes, while faulting Russell Crowe’s emotionally detached performance.

The critic finds the film overblown, underwritten, and a soggy slog caught between a conventional biblical epic and Aronofsky’s stranger style. They praise the flood as impressive, but fault the characters for being too thinly drawn to give the actors room to develop them.

The critic finds the film painfully bland and heavy-handed. She singles out the end-credits song as its most intriguing element.