Kirpianuscus ...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.

Inaxsesable While the film quality of the film was OK this was clearly not the Christian version of the Film. I did not even know that Islam and Hindi faiths had their own version of Noah's ark with some pretty substantial deviations. This is not quite as much of a heresy as Russle Crowe's version but it is still an awfully big departure.

a_baron 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.

Prismark10 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.