Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 28 May 1929 by Warner Brothers Pictures. Talking sequences and music score by Vitaphone. Hollywood premiere: 1 November 1928. U.S. release: 15 June 1929. Silent version released 27 July 1929. 11 reels. 9,507 feet. 105 minutes. (Silent version: 9,058 feet). New York opening at the Winter Garden: 12 March 1929. (Available on a superb Warner Archive DVD that runs an amazing 108 minutes). NOTES: Reportedly three extras drowned in the flood sequence, but these stories may be apocryphal. Certainly cinematographer Hal Mohr so objected to the extras being placed in danger, he walked off the set in protest and was replaced by Barney McGill.Negative cost was around $2 million, only part of which was recovered at the box-office, mainly due to extremely negative reviews.COMMENT: I think it fair to say that "Noah's Ark" is a typical example of the silent film spectacle. Masses of extras are often impressively marshaled in awesomely impressive sets and on the whole the action and "spectacle" scenes still evoke wonder and excitement.Curtiz's direction not only has verve and pace but moments of glory. The movie is by no means the total write-off derided by many contemporary critics. In fact, I wouldn't write it off at all except for the hammy performance of Paul McAllister. He is simply plain awful in the modern story, but as Noah he is not just awful but derisive, insulting and so highly offensive, one wonders how such a deliberately, wickedly inaccurate portrait ever got past even the most liberal-minded censor. The Bible itself presents Noah as a robust, strong-minded, fearless drinking man in the prime of life, not a sanctimonious old goat. Admittedly, the writers got the "fearless" right. And I can understand their reluctance at the height of Prohibition to present Noah as a drinking man, even though the Bible does so. God describes Noah as "righteous", not as sanctimonious. The Bible writers also go out of their way to tell us that Noah and his wife, and their sons and their wives were VEGETERIANS; Noah and his family did not eat any of the animals in the ark. It was only after the flood had subsided and because all vegetation had been destroyed that God relaxed this rule. So the clothes that Noah's sons wear are probably wrong too. They don't look like cotton garments to me.Nonetheless, despite the movie's title, Noah doesn't figure in the picture all that much. Aside from McAllister, I thought the players acquitted themselves well. However, I'm amazed the Warner Brothers were able to get away with their extremely negative view of the U.S. army and the movie's finger-pointing depiction of incompetent army brass not only at the climax but even earlier on in the story. No wonder the movie was soon hidden away and never re-issued in its complete version. REVIEWS from newspapers and magazines of 1929: "An idiotic super- spectacle with parallel Old Testament and Jazz Age sequences — Moses against Scott Fitzgerald... Widely conceded to be the worst picture ever made." — Alva Johnson, The New Yorker."A solid bore, with a very second rate war story in which everything from The Big Parade to date has been shabbily copied." — New York Post."You never saw so much rain in your life... A wet blanket — just plain awful." — Los Angeles Times."Frequently borders on the ridiculous... After sitting through this cumbersome production, one feels that it is a great test of patience." — Mordaunt Hall, New York Times.

Michael_Elliott Noah's Ark (1928) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Big-budget Warner film has parallel stories with the first dealing with an American man (George O'Brien) who falls in love with a woman (Dolores Costello) he saved after a train wreck only to then be separated after WWI breaks out. The second story deals with Noah being asked to build an ark and fill it with two of every creature on Earth in order to survive the great flood. NOAH'S ARK was meant to be an all-silent picture but while in production MGM was raking in cash with THE JAZZ SINGER so Warner went back and added sequences with sound. I've always found these early attempts to throw sound into a silent movie rather distracting and I think that's the case here. At least 80% of the movie is silent and I think the added dialogue sequences really don't add anything and the first talking scene between Costello and O'Brien is rather laughable. Overall, I was pretty disappointed in this film because I found the story to be lacking all around and in the end the only real reason to watch this is for the amazing special effects but more on them in a bit. I found the first portion of the film to be so heavy in terms of going over-the-top to get the religious elements in that they became quite annoying. DeMille is best remembered for doing this but I think he handled it much better than what Michael Curtiz could do here. The film certainly likes to preach but this here is to be expected but at the same time less could have been more. The WWI story isn't all that compelling because we've seen that type of story play out several times in the silent era. Two young people fall in love, war breaks out and they get separated. The subplot of the evil man trying to have the woman killed really didn't add any drama and the entire WWI sequence just seems like something added on and never really hits with any emotion. Once the stuff with Noah finally happens we're treated to some amazing special effects but it should be noted that at least three people were killed and countless others injured. It's said that Curtiz and Warner didn't care about anyone's safety and it's obviously true after you see the effects here. I think it's safe to say that these effects couldn't even be done today without the use of CGI so to see them in 1928 is just jaw-dropping. The flood sequences are among some of the best disaster effects you're ever going to witness and there are other moments like the train derailment that just make you stop in your tracks and take notice. These special effects are so ground-breaking that you can't help but recommend the movie to everyone but at the same time one wishes they had come up with a stronger, less preachy story or perhaps just filmed a Biblical tale about Noah.

Rich Drezen (Drezzilla) One year before Jean Harlow caught the eyes of two war-embittered soldiers in "Hell's Angels" (1930), this gigantic, vivacious, masterfully scored drama hit theaters. It was the most expensive film of the early sound era up to that time. Thanks to TCM and numerous film archives who pitched in for the restoration, we are now able to treasure it further for future generations to behold. Mike Curtiz was a tyranical perfectionist and put everything he had into this picture as he did with every such as "Casablanca" (1942), "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938), "Mystery of The Wax Museum" (1933), etc. There is alwayssomething big in his pictures, whether it cost $2 or $2,000,000 to produce, his imaginative genius and careful observation make his end results all the more astonishing. One of the even greater things about this picture is it's score. God bless Louis Silvers for writing it. Silvers also conducted the same Vitaphone orchestra that scored "The Jazz Singer" (1927) which also sported some pretty awesome tunes. The love theme is definitely one to behold. The cast is very nicely cast. George O'Brien makes a nice talkie transition with his suave and cunning voice that makes him sound 5 years younger. Noah Beery's voice was even better; deep, deceptive, conniving. Dolores Costello?She's alright, nothing eye-candyish about her but, she's alright. Altogether, this picture is one that I believe needs more frequent distribution because of how important it was in it's time as a form of entertainment, but now for a play in modern-day morality. A must for everyone!

George R. Willeman Kudos to all involved for restoring this screen epic, Michael Curtiz's American Directing Debut. He definitely pulls out all the stops on this one! For those familiar with the Biblical account of Noah and the Ark, some extra bits of information are included such as Noah's son Japheth being blinded and forced to push a huge stone mill as punishment for attempting to rescue his lady-friend from being sacrificed. And God appearing to Noah as a burning bush and telling him of the flood via a huge book of stone tablets--a very cool scene, by the way. These parts of the story are only found in the rare "DFZ" version of the Bible. These variances do nothing to hurt the film however, as it's strong anti-war message comes through. How ironic though to see them speak of WWI as the last war, and that the covenant of peace would now shine throughout the world. A wonderful sentiment, one that too few people seem to hold dear.