“It’s a classic case of the book is much better than the movie.”
Oh, man! The book sucks. So...the movie must be horrible!
It’s also escapism from the true story, from what’s in the Bible.”
Ha! If you call a "tail" a "leg," then does a dog have five legs?
“God comes across as this enigmatic, impersonal force that tells you to do crazy things.”
Well, I'll admit that Yahweh does appear to be a bit more personal in the book. But the "tells you to do crazy things" is totally on character.
“[In the movie, Noah] is borderline schizophrenic...The real story is unbelievably inspiring. [Noah] was a great father...”
Well, it's nearly unbelievable how people find that story to be inspiring. Inspiring how? That's a question I'd like to ask as I have doubts I'd get a clear answer. As for Noah being a great father, I wonder what Morrison basis this on. The Bible says pretty much jack about Noah's fathering abilities. There are at best two places. Genesis 6:9 includes a part that says, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time." Does that mean he was a good father? Maybe. But Genesis 9 contains a part where Noah condemns his son, Ham, into slavery for essentially getting a laugh at finding Noah passed out drunk and naked. That's what a "good father" does? Please!
“Just wrong starting point. Didn't start from the point of view of faith.”
This, I think, is where Morrison gets the crazy ideas that Noah was a good father and that the story is inspiring. What Morrison is really saying here, then, is that the movie needed to start from the point of view that the story is actually a good story as opposed to what the story actually says. In other words, the movie needed to start from what Christians imagine the story to be.
Otherwise, I have not seen the movie yet. Not sure if I'm going to anytime soon or not.