User reviews

The biggest miracle in this Bible story is...... just WHERE did Noah get all that wood.... Gopher, or otherwise???

This version is set in a vast desert wilderness - not a sign of a tree for miles and miles; and yet, we see old Noah gallantly struggling home with just one branch. Regardless of where he got it from, it would take him a couple of days just to get that one branch back, let alone the very LARGE pieces we later see he's managed to install. At this rate, I reckon it would have taken him about 20 years to float his boat. Later on, the kids relent and start to help a bit but ????

The cast are excellent but, sadly, the writing and the planning of this one let them down badly.

If you want a traditional Noah's Ark story, stick to 1966's "The Bible....in the Begining.". There you will find John Huston doing a fine DIY job, complete with animals going in, two by two, torrential rain and a proper flood..... not to mention a cracking score by Toshiro. Mayuzumi.

You know the story, but what would your wife say if you told her you were informed by an angel that God had chosen to save you while he drowned the rest of mankind for its sins? You want to build a boat seventy miles from the sea when it hasn't rained for a year? Why don't you lie down on the couch and tell the good doctor all about it? Well, not the last part, but you get the drift. Other family members were not exactly chuffed either, the consensus being that the old man had been out in the sun too long. And of course this view was shared by the crowds who denied even the existence of the Man Upstairs, but weren't our ancestors supposed to be superstitious heathens who believed in all manner of spirits?

Whatever, this special TV adaptation of the story of Noah and his ark is not concerned with anachronisms; the word science did not exist in his time, but it's unlikely he spoke English either.

One serious criticism must be made of it, it is curtailed greatly towards the end. After they enter the ark we see nothing until Noah is back on dry land. Whatever restrictions the film makers were under, they should have extended it for at least another half hour.

Writer Tony Jordan has gone to a back to basics re-telling of the story of Noah. Less of the actual floods and the animals going two by two. After all this is a BBC television movie and the budget was never going to be mega unless Russell Crowe had signed on.

David Threlfall plays Noah and Joanne Whalley plays his loyal wife with their three grown up sons living a hard working life in the desert (it was filmed in Morocco.) Noah is committed to God but a visit to the local market town with his son shows him a life there without belief where violence, faithlessness and cheating is close at hand.

This version has the family in the centre of the drama as well as faith. When Noah gets a visit from God's messenger, family loyalties are put to the test as he goes about building an ark first by himself, then helped by his wife before the rest of the family pitch in which is made to look like hard even bad breaking work.

The film tries to be a modern small scale parable with its comparison to a world of science and bankers although I think it does not entirely carry it off as it comes too close to be rather preachy. The film also disappoints as it strips maybe too much of the familiar traits of the tale such as the animals going to the ark as well as the flooding.

Threlfall is a stern but kind hearted Noah who puts his love of the family first and he does well to be the centre of the film although I guess some viewers would find the northern accents rather off putting and accuse it of being a Shameless in the Desert which is rather unfair.

Not true to the Biblical account. The movie totally missed the main part of the story ( i.e. the epic flood, 40 days of rain etc etc) while rewriting the story to include the saving of many people outside Noah's family. Total disappointment.

The writers did not hold true to the Bible. So disappointed in what they did, and the movie is just not good.

This movie and everyone who participated in its development gets an (F). No star for you.

Disappointed, Angry, Sad, Hurt, Deceived. WARNING If your looking for a religious movie that's TRUE to the Bible DON'T WATCH THIS! its full of lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote of the movie: "What can science do exactly, except marvel at God's work and document it?"

PROS

+ Focus on his family and not on dramatic special effects.

+ The movie is in many parts well made and pleasant to watch (if it would not include serious transgressions).

+ Very great actors.

NEUTRAL

o When Noah kicked around two thieves who wanted to steal from his son, we are at first surprised. But it could have indeed happened in OT times, when the rule was still an eye-for-an-eye. Nevertheless, it was not adequate to include this detail in the movie.

CONS

• The movie depicts the salvation of dozens of other people who just randomly came from far off some days or weeks before the rain, and are actually the first ones to walk into the ark while Noah's family stands on the side line at some distance to the ark. This is a horrible twisting of Scripture.

• The director either sympathizes with Islam or he actually made a movie which is not Christian, although most viewers take it as Christian movie. The inclusion of a fourth son of Noah into the movie cannot simply be an accident.

According to this movie, this fourth son was a habitual fornicator (at least every day "for several weeks") and was so badly trapped in his sin that he even punched his father Noah when the waters came, refused to go on the ark and died being left behind with his girlfriend.

When we investigate the name of this fourth son, we suddenly realize that only Islam includes a fourth son -and surprise- uses the exact same name.

• When the Angel of KYRIOS appears to Noah, he is not even afraid of him, as should be expected by numerous biblical examples. In the movie, they have a nice small talk ...

• Although the movie often provides a good balance including Noah's possible struggles with his family, it goes definitely too far in several aspects. The disrespect by his sons is certainly not something we could imagine to fit into the biblical account.

• Even worse, his wife calls him an idiot, which is definitely to be considered highly probklematic and far outside the creative license of a 'Christian' filmmaker. I quote: "Although you have clearly gone mad and you made the leap from farmer to idiot in one felt swoop, you are my idiot and I love you." No matter how charming she is in this quote, it crosses the red line by far.

• Noah's family is displayed as rather unbelievers, which would be a very, very sad testimony for the godliest family on earth at a given point. This element of the movie is therefore also heretical. No Christian would believe such a thing. They had their struggles after the flood, but this does not reflect pre-flood history.

• The ark displayed in the movie is way too small compared to the biblical specifications.

• Bad movie set. It is highly unlikely that Noah lived in such a setting, where no trees for the ark are seen far and wide. Maybe someone came up one day with the idea that it would be nice to contrast water with a previous desert in order to make it more dramatic, but does the biblical story really require such a dramatization? Is it not much more probable that Noah lived in an area with a vast vegetation?

• Noah's sons are seen watering their large field with hand buckets and hand-by-hand which is truly ridiculous. This is probably based on the extrabiblical myth that it did not rain until the flood. Some facts from my study 'Noah's Flood':

1. The consecration of the element 'rainbow' does not really say anything about the moment of its first appearance. We read too much into the Bible, when we assume that a rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood. THEOS connected it in this moment to a covenant (in the same way a dove did not come into existance at Christ's baptism), but this does not mean he created it in this moment.

2. The existence of springs or mist in the first days of creation does also not imply the absence of rain. Springs are still found today all over the world - active simultaneously with rain.

3. Noah would not have had any building materials for his ark if it would not have rained. He required hundreds of trees and we can hardly assume that he planted and manually watered those for decades, nor did THEOS indicate at any point to plant trees which require years or decades to grow to a size suitable for a gigantic ark.

...is the basic sin of this bizarre film. it is a lesson of a boring teacher, it is a preach from a not brilliant pastor but it is not a real film about Noah and the flood. and, sure, many religious films are made for a precise and small public. but, in this case, more details are different. first, the story. who is just a sketch. second - the too obvious moral message,, mixing contemporary social problems with the period of the flood. not the last, the effort of Joanne Whalley and David Threlfall to save a lost cause. it is not a bad film. only an anonimous one. un convincing. and soulless.

I liked the idea of it. Great cast. But I'm not sure why they did not stick to the original story.

It could have been so powerful.

I mean NOAH had three sons, not four.

In this TV movie there is a younger son Kenan.

Kenan in the Bible according to Genesis 5:9-14, is Kenan was a son of Enosh and a grandson of Seth.

However, I really enjoyed this version for what it was. Making them Northern was fantastic so relatable.

The fact that Noah had such faith to do as he was asked is amazing to me. It's such a great piece of our history. I am proud to believe it and have faith in the same God Noah had faith in. His story is mentioned in the New Testament as a warning to us today. Love it

All the acting was really good. Great casting.

If you're looking for a Godly Bible based movie this isn't it. It would do better as someone heard the story of Noah's Ark and made a movie off the tail end of the grapevine. I'm totally fine with adding plausible scripting for depth, story and/or length of movie, but not this. Consider, Satan in the garden of Eden removed one word and added one word, and that was enough to start the cycle of sin. So what is this?

After watching this, I had to go back and make clarifications, reading from the Bible, with my son so that he wouldn't be confused after watching this. The trailer seemed fair enough to give it a go, but in the end it was a waste of family movie night for us.

How can you not fear God and create such a false image of the biblical message?

If Noah's Biblical family were like in the movie, only Noah would have survived the flood.

Only Noah and his three sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham, and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark.

Before the flood, Noah had only these three sons.

Book of Revelation 22 18. I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.19. And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are written in this book.