When I saw Noah, I was confused about why the Red Tribe in American (social conservatives) hated it so much, and the Blue Tribe (liberals) seemed to like it. This is an attempt to be less confused.
Putting aside the religious angle for now (which may be the dumbest idea ever), it originally seemed to me that this movie espouses strong Red Tribe ideals. The thing that most strikes me about the conditions portrayed in this movie is that Noah's family is rich because they are Good Land Owners. They have their own section of the word, away from the Looters and Takers, and they take very good care of it. They reap the rewards of their superior management accumen in the form of a comfortable life in beautiful surroundings. They are basically the stone age equivalent of an ideal corporate CEO. Or Wise Patriarch.
Then the hordes of lazy, violent outsiders show up. They destroyed their own lands via shortsightedness and greed. Now they're here to take our hero's stuff. The only solution is Strong Borders defended by a superior military force, keeping the barbarians in their blighted lands to suffer the fate they brought upon themselves, and allowing our heroes to continue to profit from their virtues. (When the borders fail, Nuke 'Em All)
Of course I didn't much like Noah's family in this portrayal, as they're kinda elitist bastards. But I could understand them and their position, and the other side was even worse, so it was an enjoyable movie of greys and flawed people trying to survive.
So, proposition #1 - The viewer gets a feeling that Noah and his family are awful 1-percenters, and since the religious folk don't like that feeling about their mythological heroes, they hate the movie.
But I dunno.
Another way of looking at this is by focusing on the cause behind the conflict. The desperate hordes have fallen into the classic Malthusian trap. Their population outstripped the land's capacity to support them, until there was only bare mud left, and they were forced to invade Noah's land or die. This matches the angry rhetoric calling Noah an "extreme environmentalist" or something, because I guess nowadays conservation is no longer a conservative position, which is weird.
Noah's family, OTOH, followed the practice liberals are fond of to avoid the Malthusian Trap - Breed Less! They restricted their reproduction, to a point that I would consider downright dangerous honestly. As far as we can tell, there is no extended family here. Noah's father doesn't have any siblings, and Noah is an only child. Noah's wife doesn't have any relatives anywhere either. There's no aunts, cousins, nephews, or even close friends. In terms of family ("biological wealth" as it's been called), this family is impoverished. But hey, they have a great quality of life--not having to murder and cannibalize their neighbors while living in a grey hellscape. So there's that.
This is anathema to Red Tribe values, which (in my experience) puts a great deal of value on family ties and having large families. A story that portrays the creation of large families as leading to damnation would really irritate these sorts of people. And doing so with a mythological figure they think they have a claim to could enrage quite a few of them. (OMG guys - it's cultural appropriation! I think I'll start asking Regressive Leftists how they feel about the Noah movie.)
So proposition #2 - The movie portrays large-family practices as leading to Malthusian tragedies, which is a direct attack on Red Tribe values.
I feel #2 is stronger, not only because it explains the "enviromentalist" claims, but also because it explains why Blue Tribe people like the movie. In Prop #1 Noah & Co are pretty unlikable, and I wouldn't expect Blue Tribe to enjoy it as much as they did, because if they identify with Noah they should feel slimy and elitist. Under Prop #2 he's more relate-able.
I briefly entertained Prop #3 - that the movie was disliked because ultimately the answer to "What do you do with this problem" is "Kill everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint." Instead of searching for some better sort of solution, technological or otherwise. Portraying one's God and/or heroes as genocidal monsters is bound to make anyone grump. I don't think this proposition has a leg to stand on, partly cuz no one said anything about that aspect, and partly because the entire Old Testament is full of genocides. It's kinda God's thing back then. It's the most scripturally-accurate portion of the movie. To say anything negative about that part would be to admit that God is a genocidal maniac, and I don't see that happening. So prop 3 is discarded.
If anyone hasn't seen the 2014 Noah movie, I enjoyed it quite a bit, and I recommend it. Not as good as Last Temptation of Christ, but certainly an interesting take!