kindtxgal Complete waste of four hours of time I'll never regrettably get back. I wish our local library would take it off the shelves. Their "poetic license" goes way beyond the boundaries of that definition. Complete travesty and pile of junk. For starters, Noah's sons AND THEIR WIVES entered the ark. Secondly, mankind remaining and the poor remaining animals were destroyed immediately by this epic point in history. Pirates?? Pirates such as depicted in this film didn't appear until circa 1700s or so.Most of this four hour travesty is spent adding bunk such as Lot gleefully breaking off his wife's salt-pillared finger to show off later in the film; a much too long pirate fight scene, and the mysterious Peddlar for whose presence in the film remains a complete unnecessary sporadic figure. The arguing, shrewish details cast upon Lot's wife, while completely ignoring or barely referencing the Rainbow's first appearance to mankind as a symbol of a covenant between God and Noah. The stupid, manic depictions of the survivors on the boat, which by the way, was SEALED by God until they landed. Ugh. Terrible, terrible movies. Bunk.How the great Jon Voight and Mary Steenburgen managed to get suckered into this adaptation of a beautiful Biblical story pummelled by the idiocy of modern screenwriters is beyond me.

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 ?

gcd70 This one lost me from the very beginning with its "poetic licence" disclaimer. I believe, if you are going to make a movie about God's word, the truth is very important."Noah's Ark" is everything a film like this shouldn't be. It is inaccurate, irresponsible and lacks impact as a result. Director John Irvin is unable to inspire, and the film is thus dull and at times moronic.Jon Voight has been infinitely better, as has Mary Steenburgen. Even the great F. Murray Abraham wastes his time. All the English accents are annoying too. Forget it!Saturday, April 1, 2000 - T.V.

paulandbarbie6 I have wanted to say this since I first saw the movie, I still will not allow any of my children or grandchildren to watch this. At least not until I tell them and they understand that it is completely fiction. The only thing that I saw that was correct was that animals went onto the Ark, everything else was false. Lot and Noah fighting on the ocean like a pirate movie. Make sure you tell your kids the real story before you allow them to watch it, but really, until they are old enough to understand that it is not real they may have a messed up vision of the Bible. This was the worst Bible movie I have ever seen. Bruce and Evan Almighty were much better and had more to teach. Let your children watch those