Was I disappointed in the movie, you ask? No. Thanks to Matt Walsh’s excellent and entertaining review I knew exactly what I was in for and my expectations were mercifully low.
Please understand: “Noah” does not take artistic license with the biblical story. Artistic license is always to be expected. In fact, a movie-length treatment of the biblical account would require such license because scripture’s script is scant on the details. But “Noah” isn’t in the least concerned with Noah.
I do not consider “Noah” to be based—not even loosely based—on the biblical narrative. Yes, “Noah” has a big boat and lots of animals and water, but that’s about the extent of any correlation to scripture.
As was suggested on The O’Reilly Factor: Why not call the movie something other than “Noah”? Why not name Russell Crowe’s character “Jim”? Or how about titling the flick after the “Harry Potter” girl’s character? She’s sort of the real “hero” anyway. Or should I say “heroine”? (One doesn’t want to make feminists angrier than they already are. But it’s just so hard to tell with these gals.)
Anyway, the point is a flood of confusion and controversy could have been avoided here. Then again, when it comes to faith and the Bible, when has Hollywood ever wished to avoid such things?
Perhaps good can come from this: The movie is generating discussion. Maybe Christians can navigate from “Noah” to Jesus Christ.