Category Archives: Religious

2024 Films, Political Thriller, Religious, Thriller

Conclave-2024

Leave a comment

Conclave-2024

Director Edward Berger

Starring Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow

Scott’s Review #1,447

Reviewed October 17, 2024

Grade: A

I was fortunate to see the Conclave (2024) premiere at our local art theater before most public audiences had. I anticipate those who talk about the ‘twist’ at the end will be stunned. Initially, I was told there was a ‘twist,’ but I did not know what it was, so I wondered.

I’ll say nothing more about the ‘twist’.

Admittedly, the premise didn’t wow me, and I only saw Conclave because of the acclaim and awards season buzz surrounding it.

Heavyweight actors like Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, and Isabella Rossellini didn’t hurt.

The end product is well-written, well-acted, and well-produced. Its tinge of push-pull between liberalism and conservativism feels timely and relevant.

It’s based on a 2016 novel written by Robert Harris.

The story is fictional and follows one of the world’s most secretive and ancient events: selecting the new Pope. Fiennes expertly plays Cardinal Lawrence, who manages this complex process after the unexpected death of the beloved current Pope.

Once the Catholic Church’s most powerful leaders, most eager to be elected the next Pope, have gathered from around the world, Lawrence uncovers a trail of secrets involving the dead Pope, secrets that could shake the foundations of the Church.

They are locked in the Vatican, protected from the outside world until the majority chooses the new Pope.

Edward Berger did a phenomenal job bringing the 1930 epic All Quiet on the Western Front (2022) to legions of audiences and a slew of Oscar nominations. All bets are that he does it again with Conclave.

The screenplay is written by Peter Straughan, primarily a British playwright. The action immediately begins with the Pope’s death, and the rest of the film is a slow buildup, sometimes even a crawl.

Halfway through, I wondered why Conclave was receiving so much notice. After the conclusion, I could not stop thinking about it for days.

Berger and Straughan play their cards close to their pockets throughout the play, toying with audiences who expect a traditional, mainstream affair before the rug is yanked from beneath them.

Dramas or thrillers with a religious theme, mainly centering around questioning the Catholic Church, usually risk dismissal or ridicule. I’m anxious to see how this plays out with Conclave.

In hindsight, more than the obvious, make Conclave worth talking about after the upside-down ride that results.

Lawrence is character-driven. He questions his faith and devotion and doesn’t want to be the new Pope. We’re not exactly sure why he wants to leave the Church. Is he involved in a secret scandal? Could he be in a relationship?

One intelligent scene mentions that a Pope should not be sure of his faith and should question it. Traditions can be tweaked for the times. A conservative leader mocks the Pope for ruining the Catholic Church with whimsical decisions, embracing the current times. Another liberal leader doesn’t think he went far enough.

It’s easy to see that Berger/Straughan/Harris have Pope Francis, who was elected in 2013, in mind. Having strongly brought more progressive thought to the Catholic Church, it’s easy to see the representation.

Fiennes gives a powerful performance as a decent man who tries to do the right thing without favoritism or conflict. He is subdued but strong-willed, and the performance is understated. He gives so much to a role that could be mistaken for too little.

Volker Bertelmann composes the score, which is reminiscent of All Quiet on the Western Front. It has a soft tone, is not bombastic, and slowly increases intensity during scenes. The buildup is tense and magnificent.

Conclave (2024) is a human story about humanity and imperfection. It’s also about human complexities, mistakes, and kindness. It magnifies the scope of the Catholic Church and reminds audiences that those shrouded within its wall are not without imperfections.

It also reminds us that even the Catholic Church has corruption.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Ralph Fiennes, Best Supporting Actress-Isabella Rossellini, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score

1971 Films, British, Drama, Horror, Religious

The Devils-1971

Leave a comment

The Devils-1971

Director Ken Russell

Starring Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave

Scott’s Review #1,403

Reviewed October 4, 2023

Grade: A

Ken Russell, best known for directing the outstanding Women in Love (1970) and The Who’s Tommy (1975), creates a disturbing opus about perversion and scandal within the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times.

The film’s graphic portrayal of violence, sexuality, and religious blasphemy ignited shocked reactions from censors, and it initially received an X rating in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

It was banned in several countries and heavily edited for exhibition in others. This alone will pique the interest of open-minded, curious viewers.

It sure did mine.

The film is ironically entitled The Devils (1971) and stars Russell regular Oliver Reed, who also appeared in the aforementioned films.

Reed leads the charge as a sexy, rugged man who beds many women and is the center of a convent full of nuns’ nasty and naughty thoughts.

Vanessa Redgrave also appears as a lustful and evil nun with a hunchback.

During the period of seventeenth-century France, Father Grandier (Reed) was a priest whose unorthodox views on sex and religion influenced a passionate following of nuns, including the sexually obsessed Sister Jeanne (Redgrave).

When the power-hungry Cardinal Richelieu (Christopher Logue) realizes he must eliminate Grandier to gain control of France, Richelieu vows to destroy the man. He portrays Grandier as a Satanist and spearheads a public outcry to destroy the once-loved priest’s reputation.

The Devils is outrageous and bizarre in the best possible way. Who doesn’t love a healthy dose of nun orgies and simulating fellatio on a large candlestick?

One nun violently masturbates as another looks on, giggling sadistically.

The camera loves Reed and Redgrave, who, interestingly, are not a couple in the film. These British actors were at the height of their careers in 1971, and both portrayed roles that must have been tremendously challenging.

Despite being set in France, the film opens in a naughty way with a nearly nude dance performed by skinny Louis XIII (played with wacky delight by Graham Armitage). Rumored to be gay, the king traipses around in colorful costumes and later shoots protestants dressed as gorillas for sport.

There are themes of exorcising and burning at the stake, and mentions of the warring Catholics and Protestants, so there is a seriousness amid the antics and shenanigans.

It took me a little while to become fully immersed in the chaotic land of Loudon, a town in western France where the film is set. In truth, a second viewing really helped me settle in and have a sense of what was going on.

The best films really are like fine wines.

Russell’s attempts to irritate and incite the overly religious are quite satisfying in a wicked way. As much as he mocks religion by making the traditionally sexually conservative filled with lust and animalistic sexual prowess, there is much more going on.

Beneath the surface, he challenges the ridiculousness of religion, which cinema lovers will embrace and delight in. There are history lessons to be had, though, and the film provides exceptional details of the political upheavals and tyranny that occurred.

The thunderous musical score by Peter Maxwell Davies is fabulous, especially during The Devil’s final act, when a central character endures a broiling on a wooden stake.

Those who own the wonderful Blu-Ray version of the film can enjoy various outtakes, cast interviews, and behind-the-scenes information.

An added delight for knowledgeable film fans is the inclusion of character actor Murray Melvin, famous for playing Reverend Runt in the classic Barry Lyndon (1975). He plays Father Pierre Barre.

The Devils (1971) is a perverse and operatic extravaganza of lunacy. It’s caked with sex and nudity and blasphemy that I loved every bit of.

The dangerous tone can be studied and thought about long after the film ends.

1959 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Best Picture-Drama Golden Globe Winners, Drama, Epic, Religious

Ben-Hur-1959

Leave a comment

Ben-Hur-1959

Director William Wyler

Starring Charlton Heston

Scott’s Review #1,265

Reviewed June 9, 2022

Grade: A

One of the many pleasures of watching Ben-Hur (1959) is marveling at the extensive cinematic brilliance of the entire cast and crew.

Saying it’s a spectacle is not enough; it’s a must-see.

It had the largest budget ($15.175 million) and the most extensive sets built of any film produced at the time, allowing enormous spending to create one of cinema’s most lavish and grand films.

I shudder to think of how powerful it was to see this film on the large screen in a movie theater and the sheer mesmerizing quality it had on audiences.

I’ve anticipated viewing the film for years and finally did. Why I waited so long is beyond me. It does not disappoint, and the extravagance is immeasurable.

I sat in awe at the many aspects of the film created before CGI, making it as impressive in 2022 as it was over sixty years ago.

Charlton Heston plays Judah, a Palestinian Jew who fought the Roman Empire during Christ’s time. He becomes involved in a vicious feud with his ambitious boyhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd).

Their hatred culminates in an exciting yet vicious chariot race.

Condemned to life as an enslaved person, Judah swears vengeance against Messala. He escapes, later crossing paths with a gentle prophet named Jesus, who helps Judah save his family despite his death.

The film made a household name out of Heston and, other than its big budget, is legendary for its use of homoeroticism and an unspoken love story between two men who are at first the best of friends and who later become bitter rivals.

The film had several screenwriters, and if looking closely, some uneven storytelling is largely overlooked by the enormous spectacle of the finished product.

Gore Vidal, who was openly gay, insisted on a homosexual interlude, conspicuously, of course, between Judah and Messala.

Giggle-worthy to those in the know is that Boyd played his character as a spurned gay lover of Heston’s, with Heston unaware of the underlying romantic angle. This is rumored to be because Heston couldn’t handle it had he known.

This knowledge made me enjoy the subtext of the scenes between the two men even more than I should have.

To prove the above point, the written romance between Judah and Esther (Haya Harareet) lacks much chemistry, and I didn’t view them as brothers and sisters or good friends.

Other scenes of shimmering, muscular men sitting around in towels are further proof of Ben-Hur’s homoeroticism.

These juicy intrigue tidbits provide tingles, but the main draw is the famous chariot scene, which is as exciting as an action scene in a movie.

The outdoor arena, packed with thousands of onlookers, provides a perfect setup for the round-and-round racetrack, as dozens of horses are whipped into a dizzying frenzy and go faster and faster.

The peril is prominent as numerous riders drop to their death, mangled into pieces from being stampeded by the horses.

Other sequences, like the leper colony and the crucifixion of Jesus, are beautiful and astounding.

Director William Wyler, a heavy hitter at the time with gems like Mrs. Miniver (1942) and The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), easily usurps those excellent films with Ben-Hur.

It won eleven of its twelve Oscar nominations and employed ten thousand extras!

Ben-Hur (1959) is the definition of an epic film. Expensive and expansive, the breathtaking chariot scene is one of the best I’ve ever seen in a film.

Not feeling dated, it’s a marvel of exquisiteness and magnificence.

Oscar Nominations: 11 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-William Wyler (won), Best Actor in a Leading Role-Charlton Heston (won), Best Actor in a Supporting Role-Hugh Griffith (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction-Set Direction-Color (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Costume Design-Color (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Sound Recording (won), Best Music-Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won), Best Special Effects (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: 4 wins-Best Motion Picture-Drama (won), Best Director-Motion Picture-William Wyler (won), Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture-Drama-Charlton Heston, Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in any Motion Picture-Stephen Boyd (won), Special Achievement Award-Andrew Marton (won)

2006 Films, Crime Thriller, Religious, Thriller

The Da Vinci Code-2006

Leave a comment

The Da Vinci Code-2006

Director Ron Howard

Starring Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #1,223

Reviewed January 23, 2022

Grade: B+

Based on the best-selling 2003 novel written by Dan Brown, Ron Howard directs the film version of The Da Vinci Code (2006).

Since I haven’t read the novel at this writing, I cannot give a fully fair assessment from a comparative perspective, but my hunch is that the book is superior to the film.

Isn’t it usually?

The film is entertainment personified, and Howard wisely casts a big name like Tom Hanks to draw audiences to the theaters.

It’s a slick and adventurous thrill ride, which is all well and good, but it’s also a type of film you can see once, enjoy for what it is, and never need to see again.

The most fun is the controversy the film, like the book, encountered.

It was met with especially harsh criticism by the Catholic Church for the accusation that it is behind a two-thousand-year-old cover-up concerning what the Holy Grail is, the concept that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married, and that the union produced a daughter.

So, those who are sensitive or uptight about religion may want to skip the film and the novel.

But this is Hollywood, after all, and Howard and Hanks do what they do best. They create and produce a fun, solid, blockbuster flick.

When the curator of the Louvre is found murdered in the famed museum’s hallowed halls, Harvard professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and cryptographer Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) must untangle a deadly web of deceit involving the works of Leonardo da Vinci.

The most enjoyable parts are the locales and the focus on art.

The famous Louvre in Paris, France, permitted filming of relevant scenes at its premises. Still, only a replica of the Mona Lisa was used during filming, as the crew was not allowed to illuminate the original work with their lighting.

The Westminster Abbey scenes were instead filmed at Lincoln and Winchester cathedrals.

The Parisian nightlife is gorgeous and murky in its depiction, and a generous number of sequences are shot throughout the United Kingdom, with Scotland and England receiving the most representation.

So, while strict limitations were harbored, there is an international flavor to The Da Vinci Code that works wonderfully, especially for those who have traveled to those locations.

For art lovers, particularly of da Vinci himself, there is a satisfying respect for the art. I always try to improve my art knowledge, so this film is helpful for me and for novice art fans to educate themselves and learn more about the subject.

Hanks, as usual, carries the film in his steady-Freddy approach.

While not as compelling as his roles in either Philadelphia (1993) or Forrest Gump (1994), the actor can convey his suspicious plight and the need and desire to solve the complex puzzle.

Audiences will follow suit.

The Da Vinci Code (2006) was riddled with bad reviews and jests mostly at its ridiculous plot and absurd story. While there is a grain of truth to this, I found the film enjoyable entertainment, and that’s all I expected out of it.

The film pleases and satisfies if not taken too seriously.

1966 Films, Drama, Epic, Religious

The Bible: In the Beginning-1966

Leave a comment

The Bible: In the Beginning-1966

Director John Huston

Starring George C. Scott, Ava Gardner, Richard Harris

Scott’s Review #1,139

Reviewed May 5, 2021

Grade: A-

An epic of grand proportions that nearly rivals the magic cinematography of Lawrence of Arabia (1963), The Bible: In The Beginning (1966) embraces its definition of majestic, magnificent, and sweeping.

The story follows the chronological telling of The Bible book, beginning with Adam & Eve.

It is important to remember that one need not be Catholic, Christian, or of any religious persuasion to enjoy the film’s rapturous beauty.

The pious and non-believers alike can enjoy the experience. There is a hint of the unbelievable and suspension of disbelief in some of the stories gracing director John Huston’s “Good Book.”

He also narrates some of the stories and appears as Noah.

Nobody is mocked for their beliefs, and the film is a straight-ahead interpretation of the first twenty-two chapters of the Book of Genesis, covering the stories from Creation and Adam and Eve to Isaac’s binding.

Abraham (George C. Scott) and Sarah (Ava Gardner) are heavily featured.

The film focuses on five main sections: Creation, Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, Noah’s Ark, and Abraham’s story. Some other stories are given less screen time and attention but are featured.

Speaking of Adam and Eve (Michael Parks and Ulla Bergyrd), they kick off the action with the fateful decision to pick and taste the luscious fruits dangling before their eyes as the Serpent fiendishly looks on. God punishes Adam and Eve for their temptations, setting off a common theme throughout the film and, indeed, the excellent book: resisting pleasures of the flesh and being penalized for caving into desires.

Aod is happy when people are unfulfilled and joyless. Sadly, some have taken this too seriously.

We could debate religion until the cows come home, and many have, but I became aware of a hint of ridicule or at least intense questioning on the part of Huston.

He creates scenes that most would deem ridiculous if not written in the words of the Bible. Again, Huston is careful not to mock anyone, shrouding any antics in good, stylized 1960s film, but a woman being turned into a pillar of salt for looking at the sky could be found amusing.

Admittedly, some chapters are better than others.

The trials and tribulations of Abraham and Sarah get off to a slow start when Abraham and company traverse miles and miles of the lonely desert so much that I was left wondering if they were on the road to nowhere.

Finally, the action takes off as Sarah realizes she is barren, which makes her maid conceive a child with Abraham. I never knew this saga had so much in common with the Hulu hit The Handmaid’s Tale, but the similarities are eerie and uncanny.

Noah and his Ark is also an excellent sequence and brings more humor than necessary, but I guess this is to counterbalance more severe stories. Noah adores animals, especially cats and lions, and treats them beautifully, choosing to save and live harmoniously with the creatures. They love him. The flooding scenes related to this chapter are exquisite and adventurous.

The film depicts God as a bit of a son of a bitch as he calls Abraham to lead his only son to a high mountain and sacrifice him. This tests Abraham’s will and is thoughtful.

If many of the actors look Italian, it’s because they do. Pupella Maggio, famous for her role in Fellini’s Amarcord (1973), plays Noah’s wife.

Much of the film was shot in and around the Italian city of Rome.

Huston not only narrates some of the sections but appears as Noah himself!

The Bible: In the Beginning (1966) is exquisite and pleasing cinematically. Many fans of religious cinema will prefer the more conventional The Ten Commandments (1956) to this one. While slow at times, by the conclusion, the film has aged like a fine wine and had me enthralled and appreciative of its achievements.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Music Score

2004 Films, Comedy, Drama, Independent, Independent Comedy, Independent Drama, Religious, Tearjerkers

Saint Ralph-2004

Leave a comment

Saint Ralph-2004

Director Michael McGowan

Starring Adam Butcher, Campbell Scott

Scott’s Review #1,118

Reviewed March 3, 2021

Grade: C

Saint Ralph (2004) is an indie drama that is overly sentimental and includes too many standard plot points.

This makes the film ho-hum and extremely cliched.

It feels like the attempt was to create a major studio film in independent clothes, but without the grit afforded most indies.

There are plenty of standard setups and by-the-numbers follow-through, rather than anything different or fresh.

The film is too charming, safe, and feel-good for my tastes. Maybe there are just too many similar movies made, so it doesn’t stand out very well.

And since it’s an indie, shouldn’t it strive for more edginess?

The message is meant to inspire, and in a way it does, but that only goes so far.

Saint Ralph is a story of a young man triumphing over insurmountable odds- wonderful but unrealistic.

The religious elements of faith, miracles, and the Catholic high school are lost on me, but some may champion those elements better.

I did enjoy the 1950s time period and its share of decade trimmings and set pieces, yet too often they feel stagey, and any authenticity doesn’t feel fresh.

Rather, like actors clad in period clothing.

The lead kid who plays Ralph (Adam Butcher) isn’t impressive enough, though Campbell Scott, who plays a priest with more wisdom than he probably should have, is the best thing about Saint Ralph.

If I’m being harsh, it’s unintentional, but Saint Ralph is a film I’ve forgotten about a day or so after seeing it. I like a film that sticks with me and makes me think about, and Saint Ralph just ain’t it.

It’s classified as a tear-jerker, and I didn’t shed one.

Ralph is a troubled kid. His father died in World War II, and his mother lies ill in a coma. He smokes and masturbates, resulting in adult intervention by way of strict Father Fitzpatrick (Gordon Pinsent) and kindly Father Hibbert (Campbell Scott).

He is encouraged to run in the upcoming Boston Marathon, and he trains mightily with the right encouragement.

He feels that if he trains hard and wins the marathon, his mother will be granted a miracle by God, wake up from her coma, and live happily ever after.

I won’t spoil the ending, but the conclusion will satisfy pious audiences.

I embrace films that feature a character championing certain hardships, and Saint Ralph does contain a youthful innocence and earnestness that holds some appeal.

I felt myself rooting for him to overcome his problems. No kid deserves those hardships.

The weakness is that I felt manipulated. Since the intention was to root for Ralph, it was clear where the film was headed, and the predictability was at an all-time high.

The training sequences are reminiscent of any sports film. Think of a young Rocky Balboa training for an upcoming fight. And the saccharine ending is riddled with predictability.

Saint Ralph (2004) will ruffle no feathers and only appeal to mainstream audiences seeking safe cinema. Most people will not remember it very well.

2003 Films, Comedy, Drama, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, LGBTQ+ Romance, Religious, Romantic Comedy, Romantic Drama

Latter Days-2003

Leave a comment

Latter Days-2003

Director C. Jay Cox

Starring Steve Sandvoss, Wes Ramsey

Scott’s Review #679

Reviewed September 7, 2017

Grade: B

In the now-saturated genre of LGBT film, a novel little more than a decade old, Latter Days, released in 2003, tells a story with an interesting religious spin and is, to my knowledge, the first LGBT film to depict a clash of religious values, which deserves kudos.

The film was popular among film festivalgoers, yet critically, it received only mixed reviews

There are both positives and negatives to this film.

When rigid Mormon innocence meets plastic Los Angeles Playboy, anything is bound to happen as a surprisingly sweet romance develops between them.

While the overall feeling of the film is rather “cute”- not exactly a rallying cry of cinematic excellence- Latter Days suffers mostly from some sophomoric acting and an odd combination of a soft-core porn film and a wholesome Hallmark channel television movie quality.

This, in turn, allows the film to achieve only a slightly above-average final score.

Young Mormon missionary, Aaron Davis, just out of Idaho, is sent to Los Angeles with three fellow missionaries to spread the word of faith.

Soon, he meets an openly gay waiter, Christian, promiscuous, brazen, and proud of it.

After a silly bet with friends predicting how long it will take Christian to “deflower” Aaron, the young men become enamored with each other as Aaron’s secret desires for men are exposed.

This leads to a test of faith for Aaron, especially with his religious and rigid parents, waiting with fangs drawn as he is banished back to small-town Mormon territory.

The romance and chemistry between the lead actors are the best part of Latter Days. Though Aaron and Christian could not be more opposite, there is warm chemistry that actors Sandvoss and Ramsey successfully bring to the screen.

Sandvoss’s “aww shucks” handsome, innocent looks complement Ramsey’s extroverted, pretty-boy confidence, and the film succeeds during scenes containing only the two actors.

Much is gained from a throwaway laundry scene as the young men chat and get to know one another’s backgrounds, as well as during the brilliant soft-porn scene as the nude men thrash around a hotel bed making love.

Though admittedly, neither actor is the best in the acting department.

The nudity in the film is handled well- explicit, yes, but never filmed for a cheap or trashy effect. While the nudity is sometimes sexual, the men also lounge around nude in bed while chatting about life and their various ideals.

Also positive is the casting of Jacqueline Bisset as the motherly Lila.

Suffering from her drama (an unseen, gravely ill romantic partner, and admittedly an unnecessary add-on to the story), she is the sensible, liberal-minded owner of Lila’s restaurant, where Christian and his friends work and socialize.

The film creates a “family unit” in this rather nice way. Bisset and her British sophistication add much to the film.

In contrast to Bisset’s character, the fine casting of Mary Kay Place as Gladys, Aaron’s rigid mother, stands out.

Hoping to “pray the gay away”, she and her husband banish Aaron to a garish rehabilitation facility to turn him straight after a suicide attempt.

The character does show unconditional love for her son, but refuses to accept his sexual preferences.

There is no question that director C. Jay Cox slants the film in a clear direction, portraying the Mormon characters as stodgy and bland.

Latter Days slips when the focus is on the other supporting characters.

I tend to champion large casts and neat, small roles, but Christian’s friends are largely self-centered, bantering about either their sexual escapades or their career aspirations as they wait tables, hoping to get a big break.

Worse yet, a silly side story is introduced focusing on a misunderstanding between Christian and his best friend Julie.

I could have done well without many of these secondary characters.

In the final act, the film goes the safe route with a brief red herring about a character’s death, only to quickly wrap up with a nice, happy ending featuring a Thanksgiving dinner at Lila’s restaurant.

Latter Days (2003) contains a good romantic story between two men that does fine without the added trimmings that occasionally bring the film down.

All in all, a decent effort.

2014 Films, Adventure, Drama, Epic, Religious

Noah-2014

Leave a comment

Noah-2014

Director Darren Aronofsky

Starring Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly

Scott’s Review #3

70295061

Reviewed June 16, 2014

Grade: B+

Learning that Darren Aronofsky, a very dark director (Black Swan-2011, Requiem for a Dream-2000, and The Wrestler-2008), would be tackling a religious film piqued my curiosity.

Those expecting an uplifting, happy film about “god” will be disappointed.

This film is generating controversy from the religious folks, which I find interesting, but nobody wants me to go off on a tangent.

The film tells the tale of the biblical figure, Noah, and his quest to do God’s will through the signs he is given.

It takes incredible talent to make a film like this not seem silly and Aronofsky, Russell Crowe, and Jennifer Connelly succeed.

The film is quite dark and at times Noah comes off as more of a madman than a savior.

The visual effects and the musical score are wonderfully effective.

Noah (2014) has a few plot holes but is a nice fantasy/apocalypse-type film.