Many reviewers seem to have forgotten the visual art side of film.

Rating: 9/10 (4 September 2018)

What Darren Aronofsky has done with this film is create a visually stunning feast for the eyes. In the same manner with which Bryan Fuller (and team) took Hannibal and besieged viewers with some of the most stunning visual sets and scenes ever produced for television, Aronofsky has painted an Old Testament masterpiece with a modernist flare that seems largely misunderstood.
It is a given that any film portrayal of religious subject matter is going to create controversy, and this one is no different. I view it from the artistic side and enjoyed the updated visual ride as opposed to the structured religious paintings that we are used to. Don't think for a second that I am not a fan of the Sistine Chapel Ceiling et al; I merely appreciate that in today's world, Aronofsky didn't require papal approval to produce and display his portrait.
Many of the negative reviews seem to find common ground is accusing Aronofsky of self indulgence. I simply don't understand these opinions. Filmmakers like Aronofsky are artists and whether you are talking about Van Gogh, Goya, Orson Wells or Mozart; their interpretation of the subject they are sharing with the world is by default, self indulgent. These naysayers are entitled to not enjoy the art but accusations of self indulgence on the part of the artists are ridiculous and I suggest they stick to commercial cookie cutter comic book films instead.