Sorry about that. But if you have seen this "epic", you will obviously know of the utter disregard for the actual text of the Bible. Now, I'm not exactly the next in line for sainthood, but I do know the basics. And the basics were this. God wanted to wipe everyone of the face of the Earth because he believed they have been corrupted to the point of no return. He chose Noah, the diamond in the rough, and his family to be spared due to their uncorrupted ways. Noah builds an ark as instructed by God to house he, his family, and two of every creature while he floods the rest of the planet. Those are the basics. In this movie, you have other people roaming around the seas such as peddlers and pirates. But I thought that EVERYONE was wiped out. I guess the executives at NBC have never been to church. There are other inaccuracies, I'm told, but being the average Joe, I have no idea what they are. Sorry. Back to the movie, it was inaccurate, as stated before, the acting stunk, but some of the effects were good, I'll give it that. But as a whole, I've seen a better and more tasteful rendition of the story done as a little scene on The Simpsons. God help the NBC executives come judgement day. 3/10
Add a Review
-
Trespassers Will22 January 2002
-
shakenama7 May 2005Dramatic ? Yes......Historically accurate ? Not Quite !.... This movie twists the Bibles details of the deluge by placing Lot meeting Noah during the building of the Ark. Fascinating time travel for Lot made in part by NBC !....being Lot had not been born until 2136 BCE, 234 years AFTER the floodwater's (2370BCE)....Thats like having George Bush meet with William Shakepeare ! And whats with this guy floating around selling items & nicknack's to Noah ?
You can make a movie based on historical facts dramatic, but don't twist it around placing people where they weren't....especially when it comes to Gods Word. -
mennoa13 January 2002I just wanted to say that I was very disappointed after seeing this movie! I was expecting a Biblical story visualized with great special fx, etc. but during the film I found out that this was an absolute disaster... it wasn't biblical at all... only the boat and the animals were similar to the story... if you want a visual 'translation' of the Bible version of Noah then DON'T go watch this movie!
-
I now know what eternity would be like. This incredible mess occupied four hours I will never get back. My kids wanted to watch it. They liked the animals. I am no Old Testament scholar, but the way the script played fast and loose with the details, was really disappointing. I'm sure all of us remember Lot! He's the guy who left the city of Sodom with his wife. She looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. I never realized he kept her finger in a jar after that. I also didn't know that he later became a pirate and tried to board the ark. If Noah had gone up the mountain to get the Ten Commandments, I wouldn't have been surprised. You can imagine a screenwriter, trying to adapt about two Bible chapters into a four hour mini-series. Still, with imagination and effort, it could have worked. The characters are ridiculous. This has got to be the lowest that Mary Steenbergen has gone. Her character is a mawkish idiot, spouting 1960's June Cleaver dialogue. Noah, played by John Voight, is a buffoon, and then they have these three sons who shovel dung and complain. Except for Japhet, who is the artist. He sits around and ponders. One of them develops a ventriloquist act and talks to an orange for about an hour. The animals are superimposed using computer graphics but not very well. I know it is a mini-series, but visually it is awful.
Most of the film involves the Noah family sitting around being bored. There is this thing about not putting a rudder on the boat so they are floating around, as if they knew where they were going anyway. The Lord was my favorite. He had this silly conversational voice, somewhat indecisive and flippant, sort of like George Burns. The scene where the whole family goes temporarily insane is when I finally gave up. I am as open minded as the next person, but I'd like to hear some sort of justification for this mess. Was it entirely tongue in cheek? Did I miss the whole point because no-one was supposed to be serious. Oh, well, I am interested to see other comments about this thing. -
Chromium_516 August 2005NBC had a chance to make a powerful religious epic along the lines of "The Ten Commandments" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and instead they chose to make some halfhearted cartoon that was more like "Waterworld" than anything else. I don't recall a Bible passage where Lot turns into a pirate and attacks the ark, nor do I remember one where Noah's son develops a serious friendship with an orange, nor do I remember Noah being some crazy old loon who suddenly acts like he's commanding a naval fleet and runs around shouting nautical terms like "hoist the mainstay!" This was possibly the worst marketing decision in history. Obviously the majority of people watching this were going to be Jewish and Christian parents with their kids, so why on earth make the movie so offensive to those people? If they were intentionally trying to offend, why not advertise it that way and at least reel in the right audience?? I hope they make a REAL Noah movie someday, one done seriously and thoughtfully, one that actually appeals to people and makes money. Until then, don't waste your time with this trash.
-
Rachel-203 December 2002This was on the children's shelf at our local video store. BIG mistake; there's enough violence in this to give an adult nightmares, let alone a child, and more sexual references than I'd care to explain to my innocent six year old. We did a lot of fast forwarding in the beginning.
That said, even as an adult movie, this is a completely unredeemable film. The script is stupid, and the story is so twisted and convoluted that it would hardly be recognizable as a Bible story at all if it weren't for the big boat and the pairs of animals. If they wanted to do a Sodom and Gomorrah movie (not that I think that would go over well in today's political climate, but I'd like to see it anyway), they could have done one, and not tried to throw that event (which was a good thousand years, at least, after Noah's Flood) in with the flood. The script is tasteless and stupid, the acting (especially by Mary Steenburgen) is wooden. Even the scene with the animals, which is prettily-enough done, isn't enough to make this a movie worth watching. Give this one a miss, and definitely DO NOT get it for your kids. -
...only to unleash an abomination upon the earth. Jon Voight stars as Noah, who as we know is instructed by God to build an ark to save his family and all of the animals of the world when God floods the planet. Also featuring Mary Steenburgen as Noah's wife, F. Murray Abraham as Lot, Carol Kane as Lot's wife, and James Coburn as a traveling peddler.
As that cast list may have indicated, the producers play fast and loose with the biblical tale, awkwardly shoehorning the story of Lot into the Noah narrative. The tone is heavily comedic at times, so much so that one wonders if this was meant as a complete parody. The acting is terrible, even by the seasoned pros, but no one could save the awful dialogue. By the time the story gets to the bad CGI animals effects, and an eye-patch wearing Lot shows up leading a fleet of pirates who attempt to take the ark (!!!), this interminable mess has become an almost hallucinatory example of bad storytelling. -
aschachte15 April 2005I'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it.
If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent "The Bible" (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called "Noah's Ark" (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060164/
I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.
Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good.
Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.
People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie "The Ten Commandments" was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.
God works in mysterious ways. -
tim_lillich20 October 2005Recently I borrowed a copy of this mess of a movie, which took me three sessions over three days to get through. That's another comment in the making.
But what I wanted to comment on first was the carelessness on the special features of the DVD. It included a game of memory, which asks the player/viewer to match up pairs of animals in order for them to board the ark. However, every time it reveals the chosen animal, the screen prompts the player to find (or congratulates the player on finding)"it's mate." This is a spelling error since it should be "its mate" as possessive pronoun, not a contraction for "it is." It is an annoying error to keep repeating 16 or more times to finish a game. Of course, it's a kid's activity really, but teaches kids incorrect spelling.
And, oh yeah, the game never changes. It is the same game with the same locations of the same animals each time. Plus it doesn't keep score, like the number of moves it took to solve the game. So there is no lasting value or challenge to it. It's just a feature to list on the packaging.
Simply put, there could have been more thought and care put into this "special" feature, just like there could have been more thought and care put into this muddled film. -
denise-simon319 May 2013This movie was hilarious! It took way too many liberties and was funny! If people were thinking this was going to be a real movie about the Ark, they were very disappointed. I knew 10 minutes into the start that it was a drama comedy. The acting was pretty good for the most part. There were several catch phrases I think I might use. I never caught this movie from the beginning and we didn't have the technology we have today 14 years ago. When I saw it was coming on again, I taped it so I could watch it from the beginning. If you are looking for a light-hearted story, this is it. People shouldn't be so serious. Watch the movie and have a good laugh!
-
unbend_544027 July 2001I've spent quite a while going through all the reviews for this film. I'm in total agreement with almost every reviewer in saying that Noah's Ark is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap! Don't the executives at NBC have any class? I feel sick to my stomach for actually watching both parts of this mini-series. The script is so dumb, so pointless, and yes, TOTALLY INACCURATE! I can understand making a few changes for dramatic purposes, but this film changed just about everything in the story. God himself is going to go through the trouble to kill off the entire Earth's population, but he somehow misses one guy that's sailing around trying to sell stuff to Noah. Give me a break! And what was up with Noah's sons acting like Indiana Jones, saving girls in distress? If all that isn't bad enough, there's the part where God apologizes to Noah and says "I'm sorry Noah, I was wrong". Newsflash NBC, GOD CAN NOT BE WRONG! This film is the most tasteless and disgraceful Biblical film ever made.
-
ariadnek24 September 2006I know the bible inside out and from the onset, it was obvious this movie was not meant to be taken seriously. The variations to the truth were crazy. eg. It was Abraham, not Noah who was advised by 3 angels Sodom was to be destroyed but it was good cinema photography to see the fire and brimstone falling out of the sky in the same movie as the flood. The most hilarious scene was Noahs wife trying to throw out spiders in glass jars out of the arks window. Also how some of the wicked survived the flood and came after Noah in Viking ships only to be destroyed by a sudden sea tornado! I laughed through out and recommend this movie to anyone who needs a laugh and isn't expecting an exact biblical account. If you want that, read the bible!
-
usenet696 April 2007When are the Christians world wide going to realise that they do NOT own the monopoly on God and that their years of rule over the destiny of nations is OVER.
This was a comical movie made about one of the biggest fairy tales in the bible. It is just that. A movie built on a legend. Nothing more than King Athur etc.
Science has proved that there was no world wide flood and that the flood of the bible was regional, most probably caused by the flooding from the Black Sea at about the same time in history.
If you are stupid enough to believe the biblical story had world wide repercussions, please explain how noah went about loading off each species unique to its country i.e. kangaroos in Australia, off at each continent while floating around without a rudder.
If he could manage that he deserved the BLUE RIBBON because the old fart's boat had to be flying.
Every time a old legend or story gets turned into movie you do not hear the whole world or even the authors bitching.
Christians should stop the moaning and complaining. If you don't like the movie, don't watch it and leave the rest of the world to entertain themselves with your silly myths and legends. -
This is one of the worst mini-series I have ever seen on TV. I sat through the first half hoping it would improve but it only went from bad to worse. Needless to say I could not bring myself to sit through the torture of a second nights viewing. What was Jon Voight thinking when he made this?????
-
I know that many others have already complained about the Biblical inaccuracies in this movie, but I might as well add my two cents worth, too. :)
As the title of this review says, "Noah's Ark" is a great movie, but a pathetic retelling of Biblical history. Altho very dramatic and heavy (and quite entertaining), it completely shreds any amount of accuracy. For example...
1) Lot was a descendant of Noah's, not his best friend. They lived hundreds of years apart and never even saw each other.
2) It was Abraham who bargained with God to find 10 righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah, not Noah.
3) The movie also slaps the divine nature of the Bible in the face. The Bible clearly says that "All scripture is inspired by God", meaning that God wrote the Bible through mortal men. However, if you listen to Noah's wife Naamah, "You can't trust scribbling scribes. They change things. When they're done with the story, it will be as if you weren't even there." (loose quote) So first, we're supposed to believe that Noah and family witnessed the destruction of Sodom, and second, we're supposed to believe the Bible lies about it?
4) Shem, Ham, and Japheth took their WIVES on the Ark, not their GIRLFRIENDS.
5) Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, were the only survivors of the Flood. There were no peddlers or pirates.
6) God shut the door to the Ark, not Noah's sons.
7) There was only one window on the Ark, and the odds of them actually being able to move about on deck are slim to none.
8) I read nowhere that it says God assisted with the building of the Ark.
9) I also don't find anything about them going crazy or Noah's sons rebelling.
10) And can someone please show me book, chapter, and verse where God "had to decide" whether or not to drown the Ark?
11) Oh, yes, and God does NOT make mistakes. What is the purpose of having and omniscient being if he's going to make mistakes? This movie has God apologizing to Noah, but in actuality, God did what had to be done and what he KNEW had to be done.
12) And finally, God did not promise Noah that he would never destroy the Earth again, he promised he would never destroy the Earth by WATER again. It says later on in the Bible that when Christ returns to escort us to the Judgement Day, the world will be consumed with fire. So yes, the Earth WILL be destroyed a second time, just not in the same method.
There are many smaller discrepancies, but these are the major ones. I fully understand that some things would have to be "amended" for a film version of the Ark, such as giving first names to Noah's wife and his daughters-in-law, but this movie far exceeds any legitimate speculation. Like I said in the beginning, this is a good movie for someone who just wants to be entertained, but if you're looking for a vast store of Bible knowledge, look somewhere else. -
drdos4311 March 2000This rendition of "Noah's Ark" has set Hallmark's (and Turner's) reputation back about 100 years. However, the production has it's bright side...a learning experience for neophyte movie entrepreneurs in "how not to make a movie"
Where in the annals of Biblical literature and common sense can one find these quotes and situations:
"Ok, boys, let's saddle up." "It's too bad that God created the sun to shine only during the day when we really needed it at night." "We're not kissing...we're only whispering in each others' mouths."
Lumber for building the Ark with "Georgia Pacific" stamped on it. Metal nails. Kids flying kites. A peddler (how can James Coburn sleep after this) selling Chinese hats. Pirates attacking a wooden Ark, which they wished to capture, with flaming tar balls of fire shot from catapults. Glass bottles of wine (Noah was in a continual state of inibriation. It was a miracle that he could see the Ark let alone build it.) Lady Godiva (Mary Steenberg in a blond wig tromping around the Ark on a white horse...still rated G) Warding off Biblical pirates with an iron (teflon-lined?) frying pan. Landing on Mount Ararat after having passed through the Straights of Hercules.
etc., etc., etc.
Special effects...you've got to see them in order not to believe them.
The list goes on. This movie must not be missed; but if you want the full TV version, you must call NBC for the screen version...but only if you agree to absolve NBC of all responsibility of ever having aired the thing in the first place. Only the expurgated version exists in video stores (no pirates, etc.)...that is, those video stores that dare to stock it.
Marvin Cohn -
thao8 September 2000Even though I have great interest in Biblical movies, I was bored to death every minute of the movie. Everything is bad. The movie is too long, the acting is most of the time a Joke and the script is horrible. I did not get the point in mixing the story about Abraham and Noah together. So if you value your time and sanity stay away from this horror.
-
saintsday29 December 2001How can so many blundering decisions can be made. All that waste of resources!Its an idiotic story to begin with but theres no need to make it worse.A loose interpretation? Are you kidding! it diminishes my regard for Voight and Coburn.I hope they were paid well.
-
hoistmypatard3 August 2003I could not believe what i saw...(once) brilliant actors appearing in this dire effort that should never of been made. The plots are dreadful and the dialogue appauling (at first i thought it was a spoof), and the acting abysmal. Everything about it is bad, from the cheap sets to the phony backdrops, a bunch of paintings enlarged. Respectable filmakers struggle to get their vision realised, yet this blasphemous, pathetic attempt at a mini-series makes it to our television's, with 3 oscar winners making appearances. I can only guess everyone involved somehow hurt the writer and director and were forced (maybe at gunpoint)to star in this worthless T.V. trash.
-
roybudhoo2 January 2002This is the most inaccurate and disgraceful biblical film i have ever has the misfortune to watch. I would like to know why anybody on earth could enjoy viewing this. I am so surprised that a big name like Jon Voight would agree to act in this disgraceful piece of garbage. Many people who may not have read the bible will now be mislead by believing this film was accurate and the thought of that really bothers me. I think the makers have a lot to answer for. The worst thing is that, i believe nobody could make such obvious mistakes with a biblical film, since they can research the bible for the truth, so i believe the makers deliberately twisted what the bible says, and that is something nobody has the right to do and i find that very offensive. There are no words strong enough to describe exactly how i feel about this.
-
Sentinel-1522 February 2001This story is a loose adaptation of the story of Noah and his ark as told in the Christian Bible. A very loose adaptation, actually.
Not that it matters much, as the historical validity of the stories depicted in the Bible cannot be verified anyway - something most other reviewers don't seem to realize - and should not be taken as "historical fact" until proved so, etc. etc. Of course, much the same thing could be said about God...
That said, the movie is something of a post-modern, satirical take on biblical events and characters, and is probably only enjoyable if you approach it that way. In their original form, the biblical stories were probably social commentaries and moral lessons appropriate to the society which created them; this (post)modern approach can therefore be seen as a comment on our time. -
battleshades12 February 2003If you are going to make a movie from any book, be sure that the characters are consistant with that book. This movie not only defied the Biblical story that has been told for thousands upon thousands of years to children one way or another, but it clearly took liberties that no adaptation would probably ever try. At least the Lord of the Rings is close enough to the books that people understand the story more if they read the books than this "Noah's Ark" tried to.
-
ejonconrad17 March 2014Let'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 with the story of Noah's Ark. 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. -
writerpatrick16 April 2011It's become popular over the years to consider this a bad film, yet many don't seem to realize the producer's intentions. This film was created as a comedy or light drama. There are many aspects deliberately included for the purpose of humour. However, many of the jokes just don't come across properly and when taken seriously make the film seem bad.
There are many aspects of it that differ from the actual Bible story, however one must realize that the Bible story is only about a paragraph long. So trying to do the story as written would make it difficult to do even a half-hour story.
This film is best enjoyed if you just take it as a creative retelling and don't take it seriously. And it's obvious that it never was meant to be taken seriously. Those elements pointed out as bad writing, such as the pirates, were deliberately added with a tongue-in-cheek approach. If anything is bad about it, it's that the comedy doesn't come across as well as it's suppose to.
When buying this film one has to be careful of the version they get. There are many versions in which scenes have been deleted such as the incident with the pirates. Some versions run 140 minutes while others are 160 minutes for multiple parts. 178 minutes is listed as the full running time, but the mini-series when aired was presented in two parts. Some releases have it in three parts, including end credits. The TV version shortened the end credits and ran about 173-174 minutes long (without ads). So it's hard to tell if the 178 minute version is counting the end credits twice. But it would seem that the full version is 178 minutes long. (I don't have the different versions to compare.) -
duijvenbode9 November 2003This movie could have been an impressing epic, but the makers seem to have done their utmost to make it appear foolish. Even God Himself is not spared in this movie, in that His words are drenched with childish jokes. The result is blasphemous and annoying. Only people who don't care to see a cheap parody on the biblical story may perhaps watch this film without embarrassment. The makers of this tasteless production should see 'Il Vangelo secondo Matteo' (The Gospel according to Mathew), a film of Pier Paolo Pasolini, who shows that it is unnecessary to pervert the words of the Bible to make a good story; the most impressing result is obtained by a sincere rendering of the plain text itself.