BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

Nathaniel Fox While I will agree with the other reviews on the page and say that it came to an abrupt end and in that sense did it injustice, and also that there where a few things added that weren't biblical like a fourth son, or like other people getting on the boat, or even in one spot the angel didn't add all the things that the bible said the Lord said that the Ark must have, but to me that wasn't the point of the story.You can say that this movie shouldn't be watched because of the unbiblical characteristics, but I think it gives Noah a great human face and one that we can all really get on board with. (excuse the pun.) The 4th boy is no where in the bible but it allows us Christians to first see how a father should love through Noah, but then how even someone raised in the best possible environment can choose wrongly and even though that person choose wrongly they should be loved and given a second chance. The movie shows in an extreme way that if you truly love them you must let them go and fail for themselves and simply pray that the Lord will mend their heart. That may take a flood in a sense, where they fill like they are drowning. Then also I think it shows a great image of how people can change and there are no singular chosen people, but a collective chosen humanity. When Noah first goes to spread the news that God will flood the Earth they rejected him, but before the flood a few choose to follow God and believe in his Prophet. The bible says nothing about anyone else other then Noah his wife and his sons and their wives getting on the boat, but once again I think this serves greatly as first people can change, but also the path is narrow. If anything I can relate the difference in this movie to the Oratorios of old. Composers would add in a few things, but it still portrayed a beautiful image of Christ and God ( I mean just look at Handels Messiah even that, as biblical as it is, has minor word adaptations to fit.Leaving the unbiblical, over all this movie is a really great movie and almost had me in tears when the Mother talked about how Noah had unquestionably loved all of his sons. It is a really good movie and even with the few not mentioned in the bible things I would completely suggest watching it. I will say the ending is to short for my taste, but honestly how much can you do with a person stuck on a boat for 40 days? I mean I just look at the secular Noah made in 2014 it was completely unbiblical and had me praying for an end to the continuous ocean voyage. Even with out the unbiblicalness I would never suggest that movie to anyone and in fact advise them not to watch it. My point in all that being. Who really wants to see a man and his family on a boat for 40 days keeping up animals? Exactly. I would have liked to see more after the flood but once again that would really just be adding on to the bible. In the end it is a great movie with a great moral behind it and great images of what a Godly family and what a Christian should be in general. Loving.

freezageeza1966 OK first off you may think me daft for adding the "spoiler alert" to this review.After all let's face it.You have to be an alien from the outer reaches of space not to know what happens with this story.But there is a reason for this which will be explained further below.I'll start by saying that almost any drama from the BBC has high expectations.They have an enormous eye for detail,employ quality actors for the roles at hand and the entire production normally screams quality.For the most part The Ark is no exception.David Threlfall and Joanne Whalley played their roles as Noah and his Mrs extremely well and what we are treated to here is more of a story of Noah trying to convince his 4 (shouldn't it be 3?) sons and everyone else that he really has had a message from God,and isn't going bonkers by trying to build a large boat in the middle of the dessert.Three of his sons would rather work the land and carry on as normal hoping their dad would one day regain his sanity,while the forth would rather take trips into the local town (representing the evil of the world that needs to be cleansed) and stay with his girlfriend and smoking the wacky stuff!! Only Noahs wife sees the need to support her man no matter what and only after much boat building and family arguments,do all but the 4th rebellious son join in.And so it goes on for nearly an hour and fifteen minutes,at which point I'm looking at the clock thinking "this is only on for an hour and a half.There is a lot still to cover in this story.There must be a part two".WRONG!!As compelling as this drama was up to this point,it came to rather an abrupt finish. The end when it came was covered in the last ten or fifteen minutes in what I can only describe as a flash flood.Everything from the animals running hell for leather to get to safety (albeit from a distance),to the flood,waters receding (no dove in sight) and everybody getting off the Ark and going forth etc........all rushed in a complete mess of an ending.So much of a great opportunity was missed here by the BBC. Sure there were a few quibbles in the story (everybody speaking with Northern English accents for one)but rushing a great story such as this to such an abrupt ending was unforgivable.A part two was needed to cover all the time on the Ark during the flood and the aftermath. The whole story was not told here and it deserved better than this.Shame on you BBC!!.So hence the spoiler alert because if you are expecting more,you ain't gonna get it.

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.