Saw "Noah", the new film by Darren Aronofsky. In a word (pun) the book is way better. Those Hebrews really knew to leave space for imagination, to leave it nowhere to go but into fleshing out the story.
As for Aronofsky, he has a big imagination for sure, one that requires flooding his tale of The Flood with creatures most everyone independently winds up comparing to a hybrid of Ents and Transformers. The "Book of Noah", as stated, is way better than Aronofsky's "Noah", as are both the Lord of the Rings films (not to mention books) and the Transformer films.
Give me real Ents, genuine Transformers, anytime.
As for The New Yorker, which recently featured a profile of Aronofsky that marveled at his wunderkind ways, well, maybe that magazine ought to keep its profiles from becoming as bloated as the works produced by some of those being profiled. Maybe those profiled would actually benefit from a bit of criticism mixed in with all that adulation.
How much did I dislike — was bored or dispirited by —"Noah"? Enough to make me want to go back and reconsider what I have liked by Aronofsky, which, when it comes down to it, is mostly "Pi". I have fond memories of "Pi", its weird subject matter and low budget originality. Was I mistaken? Did I somehow fail to detect the seed of the inane gusto that would give rise to the "Noah"?
(When Hollywood corrupts does it corrupt absolutely?)
In any case, no one, including those who manage to enjoy "Noah" — I do not judge or begrudge them since who among us harbors no such guilty pleasures? — will credit it with being low budget or original. It obviously expensive and greedily derivative.
It should be added that there is a reason why so many turn away from such films to cable television and even books.