Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

takecarebeware I bought this as part of a boxed set of other Hallmark mini-series. I had just watched In The Beginning which wasn't too bad, it went the same length of time as Noah's Ark and included several story lines from the Old Testament, from Genesis to Exodus. Though the DVD did have a video fault for some of it which distracted. Noah's Ark was one biblical story for about the same length of time so some amount of filler seemed to be expected. The story is basically somewhat of a mess. Though I wouldn't say the acting was bad. I don't know why people associate bad movies with bad acting automatically. I was amused when Mary Steenburgen seemed to change into Kate Bush during the late boredom sequence on the ark. For reasons known only to the makers, though time length was probably a factor, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was added. Our God of this story justifies the destruction as being a warning that went unheeded and so led to the flood. Though I gather these events in the bible occurred much after the flood. Seemingly aware of this odd take on the story, our Noah and wife talk about their mistrust of scribes and how they would probably not include them as being present during the events of Sodom and Gomorrah. The voice of God at times oddly resembles John Huston from the 1966 movie of the bible. Apparently if you are going to do the voice of God, that one seemed like the way to go. Noah gets going on the building of the ark sometime into the story. I don't know if I missed it, but I don't recall God telling him to build the ark when Noah started, just to walk around a field with a stick. Reviewers who called this an attempt at Monty Python were correct. At times it quite obviously seems to evoke Python with almost endless witty dialogue and silly mugging. The other reviewer who said it showed how God worked in mysterious ways by encouraging people to check the real story in the bible was probably correct too. Noah is shown as drinking alcohol quite a lot and this apparently was correct about him. Maybe the cults and debauched behaviour before the flood is meant to show why God means to destroy life on earth, though I didn't see what was funny about the mass killing in the town by water. It seems to go too far with other boats showing up after the flood. Here it seems to evoke Waterworld. It is with some relief that it is confirmed that all life is killed after these episodes. The high point of absurdity is when the human crew of the ark respond to boredom and start acting crazy. I'm sure Noah said something about poisonous mushrooms at some point, which might explain the writing too. It is during this that Mary Steenburgen turns into Kate Bush.I watched this as part of Easter viewing but the disregard for the biblical account is a bit too distracting. Special effects seem crude for the most part but effective enough.The possible reason this was made in Melbourne might have been because of the tank used. A late version of Moby Dick was made there also with Gregory Peck having a part. I was amused by the obviously Australian acting at times in Noah's Ark.

Theo Robertson I did enjoy Aronofsky's NOAH and did go on youtube to relive the cinematic experience by checking a few online clips . By chance I came upon a section that proclaimed " Noah 2014 Hollywood Movie " Hmmm some naughty sinner has uploaded the full movie to YT . They'd better watch they don't cause a great plague to befall humanity . Intrigued I went on to the site and rest assured this wasn't Aronofsky's flawed masterpiece but a 1999 miniseries called NOAH'S ARK . As an amateur critic it's always nice to use the concept of structuralist film theory to contrast and compare films . . Within moments however it's clear that compared to this miniseries NOAH is not only an undisputed masterpiece but the greatest film in the history of cinema everDirector John Irvin started his career by being a war correspondent and did make the brutal and bloody HAMBURGER HILL . This is puzzling because as someone who has seen conflict at the realistic sharp end there's a strange painful bizarre tone in the opening sequence where a pitched battle between two tribes takes place . For a miniseries which I take it is produced for television the battle is exceptionally gory with pools of blood and decapitated heads being waved about on poles . The graphic violence is a sharp dichotomy with the rest of the feel with the scene that borders on high camp . The extras are obviously enjoying themselves as they yell , pull weird faces and try and fail not to burst in to laughter . I'm reminded of that MONTY PYTHON sketch of the military fairys soldiers on parade " Company - camp it up ! " . You can just imagine Irvin shooting the scene shouting through a loud hailer " Try and remember what it was like working for a living and today you're playing bloodthirsty maniacs so go out and enjoy yourselves " and enjoy themselves they do . After surviving the battle two walk on actors then have a competition to see who can give the most over the top hammy performance in the history of acting . One of them might have said " Hey big nose you've got a big nose " but I was too busy laughing to notice And so the miniseries continues in the same way . Everyone in whatever role they're playing tries to out do another with worst performance all time . They shout , they screech , they bawl and even when they're not saying anything they still use body language to put off their colleagues . I lost count of the number of times Jon Voight cocked his eyes every time the camera cut to him . If it's not enough that the cast are over emoting then the constant incidental music tries the same technique . It's loud and intrusive and feels the need to dictate if a scene is trying to be amusing , serious , menacing etc . I've no idea the religious views of John Irvin but one might jump to the conclusion that he's mocking Christianity with a deliberately bad miniseries , a sort of unofficial prequel to THE LIFE OF BRIAN but that would be crediting it with a level of sophistication and nothing on screen indicates any sort of sophistication . There' also scenes of violence which definitely belong in another film entirely and if people are complaining that NOAH is a very bad movie they should take time out and view this travesty Still if you're looking for the true life story of Noah then this might just be the film you're looking for because everything you read in the Bible is undisputed historical fact isn't it ?

ejonconrad Let's make this clear, I'm rating this highly because it's a very entertaining BAD movie. If you like that sort of thing (and you know who you are), this may be the movie for you. If you're looking for a serious Biblical epic or an *intentionally* funny movie, keep looking.I saw some clips on Encore, and assumed it was a parody (think "Monty Python's Life of Noah"). Then I googled it, and realized it was meant to be taken seriously. With that in mind, it's kind of like a horrible car wreck you can't look away from.Where to start...First of all, they combine the stories of Sodom and Gomorra. Since I don't actually believe either one, this didn't bother me so much. God warns Noah that He's going to destroy Sodom, and Lot gets saved because he's Noah's friend, rather than the whole "Please rape my daughters" thing that's in the Bible. In fact, Lot's daughters are left out entirely, which also gets them out of the awkward part where he gets drunk and has sex with them after they leave the city (what, you never learned that part in Sunday school?). The Ark stuff comes later.In order to make appeal to a wider audience, the "punched it up" a bit, with action, cheesy special effects, and attempts at humor, some which are funny - although the funniest bits are unintentional. There's also an incredible amount talent wasted on this film. Oscar winners (!) Jon Voight and F. Murray Abraham play Noah and Lot, with Mary Steenburgen and Carol Kane playing their wives. Even James Coburn makes a couple cameos. Their salaries didn't leave them a lot left over for minor things like decent sets. The battle scenes really do look like Monty Python. In addition to playing Noah, Voight also provides the voice of God, presumably because they couldn't afford James Earl Jones. Also, what is it about made for TV movies and accents? Noah and his wife clearly have American accents, while most other people - including their kids - have strong British accents.The tone is a roller coaster, ranging from sincerely reverent, to bawdy humor (Lot: "Not staying for the orgy, Noah?") to actual slapstick (Lot's wife fall head first into a vat of dye at one point). The music faithfully tracks the tone, transitioning from Cecile B. DeMille to Three Stooges.You may wonder why the flood happens only halfway through the movie. Without giving any spoilers, I'll just say that there's plenty to come. Grab your beer and popcorn, because that's when things get *really* weird.So if you like to watch bad movies and give them the Mystery Science 3000 treatment, keep this one in mind.In the end, I dinged it a couple of points because as a two part miniseries, it's a bit too long, and when it's not really bad, it's merely boring. I'm seriously considering buying the DVD so I can edit down to a 90 minute party cut.

alicia-95 The first piece stupidity in this is the author having Noah living in Sodom with his family and his "nephew" Lot. Second they have Noah living in Sodom a city that did not exist in Noah's day. Third they have the destruction of Sodom occurring BEFORE the flood rather than several millennia later.Noah did not live in Sodom, Sodom did not exist in the time of Noah. Lot was Abraham's nephew and Noah was nothing more than a VERY distant(in time)ancestor.Basically the author has confused the the story of Sodom and Gomorrah with the story of Noah, events that were separated in time by several thousand years. It is a sad commentary on the author's knowledge of the Bible.If you want a huge laugh at the stupidity of the people who made this movie, go ahead and watch it.