उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

... was my reaction and my desire when I sat through the painful talking portions of this movie. The dialogue was uninspired if not just plain weird and Delores Costello has never sounded more ridiculous. I'll chalk that up to the dialogue coach, since so many early female vocal performances in films sounded similarly falsely aristocratic. She's supposed to be a singer/dancer in a vaudeville-like troupe and they have her speaking like she's the queen of England? See Ms. Costello in Magnificent Ambersons if you want to know what she really sounded like.

I still give this film an 8/10 though. As a spectacle film in the De Mille tradition done by Warner Brothers before they had truly emerged into the studio big leagues, it is a sight to behold. No special effects here - those are real buildings falling on real extras and real water pouring onto them. I know director Michael Curtiz had a reputation for holding in great disdain actors who required a lunch break, but you'd think that he at least realized they require oxygen.

The silent style of the players is pretty good. In fact, so good there are a dearth of title cards in the silent portion, since everyone is so adept at conveying their feelings through pantomime. The Vitaphone musical score accompanies the action well and the introduction to the film is particularly well done with water swirling around, sound effects, and the rather haunting musical introduction.

There's some historically interesting points of view being shown here too. Filmed in 1928 over a year before the stock market crash there is a rather prescient visual montage at the beginning of the film equating stock brokers and their obsession with money with the worship of the golden calf of biblical times. However, the end of the film has a moral that is not so prescient - basically equating World War I as that wasteful pointless war to end all wars when a much more horrible conflict was a little more than ten years away.

I'd highly recommend this one for two reasons. For the parts that are silent it is quite a work of visual art. For the parts that are talking it is a good example of how studios were so obsessed with sound that art was thrown out the window in the process, at least for a year or two. I'd rate this as one of my favorite although somewhat guilty cinematic pleasures.

The film which cemented versatile director Curtiz' reputation in Hollywood is a part-Talkie spectacular which, despite the title, is not entirely concerned with the famous holocaust depicted in the Old Testament. Rather, it purports to parallel the Deluge with the massive losses in human life incurred during the so-called Great War; in that respect, NOAH'S ARK survives not merely as a solid example of late 1920s film craftsmanship but also as a heartfelt morality play delineating the long-lasting effect of that particular combat upon society – pity that, for all its good intentions, a second (and infinitely harsher) World War would be waged in the space of just 11 years! Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand, I knew the film enjoyed a considerable reputation among epic productions of the Silent era but, aware of the fact that the Biblical tale was only illustrated in the form of a vision (lasting for about 40 of its 100 minutes) embedded within the main plot, I had expected to be disappointed by it. However, we open on a remarkably elaborate prologue (superbly-edited in the contemporary Soviet style) and the WWI sequences themselves are well done (featuring even a spectacular train crash early on) and prove surprisingly absorbing in their own right (especially the interaction between the four protagonists – Noah Beery, Dolores Costello, George O'Brien and Guinn "Big Boy" Williams). Incidentally, all four (and a few others) play additional roles in the Noah story; this section is done on a truly grand scale, in clear imitation of Cecil B. DeMille (with a couple of obvious nods to THE TEN COMMANDMENTS [1923] which, coincidentally, I watched 2 days later!) – with the flood itself still highly impressive after all these years and undoubtedly deserving to be ranked among the finest sequences in all of cinema (though controversy still rages about the apparent disregard for the consideration and safety of those involved – with three extras reportedly drowning and several more getting injured during its shooting)!

The conclusion of the movie leaves a bitter taste in the mouth .In his remake of his classic silent "J'accuse" (1937) ,Abel Gance too proclaimed universal peace.It was not to be the last of all the wars and men are still fighting at my time of writing.And there's another flood "in which we are engulfed which is more treacherous and persistent:the deluge of the mass production (and consummation)moves inexorably forward ,capturing everything that walks in whirlpools" of frozen food,rusted cars,DVDs and CDs,cans ,boxes ,hamburgers ,tons and tons of Bumf (papers) ,growing in an exponential way...

Curtiz's movie was obviously intended to match the scale and quality (and commercial appeal)of De Mille'' "the ten commandments " .The structure is the same:a fine mixture of two stories ,a modern one (WW1,the deluge of blood)and a "biblical story" ,reversing De Mille's order .The connection between the two stories is perhaps tighter than in the 1924 work although in the first part of the movie the viewer may sometimes wonder what Curtiz is driving at.

The biblical story has been " expanded " ,which was necessary for Noah's story is rather short and not particularly eventful if spectacular. Curtiz borrowed a lot from De Mille in the scenes of the deluge and when God "writes" to Noah (using thunderbolt).But his deluge is superior to John Huston's "the animals went in two by two" sequence in "The Bible" (1967)

All in all,this is a very exciting show ,which features talking scenes ,including a whole version of "La Madelon" the Poilus' songs during WW1.The parade on the Champs D'Elysées with a painted Arc De Triomphe in the background and women throwing flowers when Travis sees Al marching on to war is a great moment.Melodrama reaches peaks of kitsch when the same is to execute ...his own wife ,condemned in mistake for spying.

When will we see Noah's dove?

Noah's Ark is an awkward fit of two earth shaking cataclysms ( the legendary animal cruise and the World War ) featuring the same actors in parallel roles and stories in this semi-silent that resembles Griffith's Intolerance. The problem is most of it deals with the contemporary story that never approaches the sublime but does attain the ridiculous with its absurd ending.

Al (Guinn Williams) and Travis (George O'Brien) rescue Mary (Dolores Costello) from a train wreck. Travis and Mary, a German, link up but when the Great War begins Al answers the call while Travis remains conflicted but eventually signs up. Mary meanwhile sings in a revue but is accused of being a spy and sentenced to be shot. The Ark segment has the same lovers in a similar predicament pursued by the same power abusing miscreant (Noah Beery).

O'Brien and Costello make a good pairing in both stories along with Beery's vile villain but the big star of the picture is the flood in which the callous Curtiz more than earned his slave driving reputation by drowning three extras and injuring dozens of others. It is evident from the force and amount of water that extras are struggling not acting in these scenes as they are tossed like rag dolls over the jagged scenery. They are visually astounding to watch but clearly cross the line with the endangerment posed and loss of life.

Ethics aside it is the far fetched contemporary story (handled far better in Ingram's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and Vidor's The Big Parade) that sinks Ark which uses it's plea for universal understanding as a slick excuse to project out of control cinematic mayhem.

In a two-story movie, George O'Brien is in love with Dolores Costello, both as World War One breaks out, and as the evil-doers of olden days incite G*d to smite the world with a flood.

It's clearly inspired by Demille's epics, with modern stories paralleling those of ancient days. The two of them make an inspiring couple, especially in the Biblical sequence when O'Brien is topless. However, this one definitely leans more to the Bibical part, with some spectacular stunt and camera work as the evil-doers try to sacrifice Miss O'Brien to their false god, while the Flood pulls the monumental structures down upon their ears. It should look spectacular, as the reports are that three of the extras were killed outright.

Director Michael Curtiz had a reputation that way. Although there were no more reported human fatalities on his sets -- especially after this resulted in new and stringent safety regulations -- animals kept dying, at least through Curtiz' production of THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE. After that one, they stopped using tripwires to bring horses down.

After God destroys civilization in The Great Flood, biblical patriarch Paul McAllister (as Noah) thanks the Supreme Being for a successful trip. God's chosen captain, some selected wives, and pairs of the planet Earth's animals rode out the storm in "Noah's Ark". Alas, men immediately returned to their wicked ways - and the whole exercise was for naught. Events quickly lead up to The Great War (aka World War I), wherein blood replaces the flood. Jesus Christ notwithstanding, beautiful blonde Dolores Costello (as Marie) is sentenced to die on a cross, as a spy for her German brethren...

Hunky husband George O'Brien (as Travis) must somehow save her!

With Ms. Costello in dire straits, we flashback to tell the story of "Noah's Art" that ended in the film's opening prologue. In the Old Testament past, ever-lovely Costello (as Miriam) is led to be sacrificed as a virgin. While we wonder how a woman resembling Costello managed to remain a virgin, Mr. O'Brien (as Japheth) is blinded and put to work at a treadmill...

Only a miracle will save him!

The juxtaposition of "The Flood" and "The Blood" draws uncomfortable parallels; probably, filmmaker Darryl F. Zanuck didn't intend to imply God caused both. This is another film inspired by D.W. Griffith's colossal "Intolerance" (1916), but executed on the relatively smaller epic scale Cecil B. DeMille used in his original silent version of "The Ten Commandments" (1923). Again, we have "Biblical" and "Modern" stories being told, and not all too well. Still, the production values and close-ups are terrific. Some of the talking parts have been restored, but the color sequences are apparently lost.

******* Noah's Ark (11/1/28) Michael Curtiz ~ Dolores Costello, George O'Brien, Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams, Noah Beery

A young American living in France suffers severe emotional trauma after joining the Army during the First World War. Eventually he gains enormous comfort after listening to a saintly old Minister relate the story of NOAH'S ARK & The Great Deluge, showing that the evils of the present day will also be washed away.

This movie epic is a wonderful viewing experience, with plenty of romance & excitement. Warner Brothers lavished a great deal of money on the film - and it shows. Produced right at the very cusp of the talkie era, this is a mostly silent film with some talkie sequences - which makes it quite fascinating from a technological point of view.

While perhaps it would be easy to laugh at the somewhat gauche vocal efforts of some of the cast, this would be to miss the point. Talking pictures were brand new & the entire society of movie actors were scrambling to learn how to perform in the perplexing new medium. NOAH'S ARK shows the best efforts of these particular actors at that time. Actually, Noah Beery, as the villain, uses his dramatic deep voice to good effect.

It was a favorite convention in lavish film epics of the 1920's to tell two concurrent stories: one modern & moralistic, the other from some far distant -and decadent- past. (DeMille tried this format more than once.) This gave the filmmaker the opportunity to both preach & serve-up generous quantities of sin. It also gave the actors, as here, the chance to play dual roles - each used as a counterpoint to the other.

Rugged George O'Brien & sweet Dolores Costello do fine work as the romantic leads in both stories. Guinn Williams is a stalwart support to O'Brien. Noah Beery is detestable as the wicked villain, and Paul McAllister is memorable as the Minister/Noah. Young Myrna Loy has a small part as a dancer.

Scriptural purity is not entirely adhered to in the Noah scenes; elements from the stories of Moses & Samson are interpolated and far more attention is given to the evil outside the Ark than what went on inside it. The thrilling Deluge scenes are truly epic, however, and were just as dangerous to the extras as they appear.

"The Flood and the War - God Almighty's Parallel of the Ages."

Well, that flood sequence was something. A scene of epic proportions, with a cast of thousands, beautiful costumes, and what looked like some very dangerous moments in the deluge where Michael Curtiz seemed determined to hit these sinners as if he was Jehovah himself (and indeed, it resulted in loss of life and limb for some extras). If you haven't already seen this excerpted, fast forwarding and checking it out wouldn't be a bad way to spend a little time. Unfortunately, nothing else works in this very early (partial) talkie, which was mercifully shortened from 135 minutes to 108 minutes when it was restored.

This film is as heavy-handed and moralizing as can be in drawing the parallel between the Biblical account of the Flood and WW1, its central premise. It's notable that just the year before, for Old San Francisco, Darryl F. Zanuck had written a story likening the Earthquake of 1906 to Sodom and Gomorrah, a punishment for city's sins. Noah's Ark is not saddled with the heavy dose of racism that film had, but it's similarly steeped in fundamentalism, and troubling. Frankly speaking, in addition to its artistic problems and backward views of the world, the narrative it constructs is also very weak, particularly for the story in the modern world. So yeah, this is a slog to get to the parts where you're wondering which one is John Wayne out of all those extras, and which three were killed, and which one lost a leg.

Wanting to save the flood for the big finale, the film awkwardly starts with the Ark already resting on Mt. Ararat, and then flashes forward to the modern era, where it stays until the 65 minute point. It gets its points in likening the worship of the Golden Calf to traders in the stock market, who act ruthlessly towards one another, only caring about money, and then various people on a train in Europe denouncing God:

"The Bible won't work nowadays - science is God!" "There is no God, gentlemen, there is only a Goddess. Her name is woman - and she's a devil!" "Military might is the only God!" "Faith is food for fools and invalids. If there is a God, why doesn't he show himself?"

So let's just follow the logic. As mankind was wicked and worshipped heathen Gods in Genesis, Jehovah wiped out almost every living creature (including women, children, babies, all animals after the first two of each species) if the story adapted from Gilgamesh is taken literally, as it is here. It's viewed by the faithful even today as an enlightened and just act. Similarly, so this film says, as mankind was wicked and rejected God in the modern era, the Great War wiped out millions of men ... so, this scourge, this cleansing in the form of the bloodshed in WW1, is another ... justified act? You know, kind of like how evangelicals likened AIDS to divine retribution for homosexuality right? And just as the rainbow at the end of the deluge was God's covenant to mankind, so the Armistice at the end of the war is a sign that there will be no future wars. Hmm to all of this.

This parallel is one of the reasons the film is so light on the horrors of WW1, in contrast to several other films from the era. After a terrifying train crash (another moment worth checking out), we see rather bizarre scenes in the hotel the passengers take refuge, with fistfights breaking out and then Russian agents arriving when war is declared. It's an odd, uninteresting narrative for a historical drama. Later one American enlists to the backdrop of patriotic music, and the other soon concludes "I'm a traitor not to go!" despite being conflicted by having a German girlfriend (Dolores Costello). While we see a legless veteran at the parade, and a man die in battle, the film steers clear of anything truly dark. We see bravery in the attack on the machine gun nest, and frankly more time spent on leave in Paris watching the showgirls, one of whom is Myrna Loy in a brief appearance.

This seems like a film for those who needed a little patriotism to go with their religion, with conservative messages all around. It's got a cartoon view of the war, lacking any sense of nuance. It's too bad this modern stuff wasn't all shelved in favor of the story out of Genesis, which could then be interpreted by the viewer as divine truth or just an ancient story. As it is, it's only good for the cataclysmic scenes.

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 always

something 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!

Michael Curtiz was not strange to dramas based on Bible texts. Already in 1922 he had made "Sodom and Gomorrah" in Austria, a melodrama that combines the story of a girl who is induced into prostitution by her adoptive mother, with the biblical story of Lot and her family in the corrupt city of Sodom. Upon emigrating to the United States, Curtiz would repeat the strategy with less luck in "Noah's Ark," by integrating the story of two friends that war unites and separates, with the didactic irruption of the biblical story of the universal flood (in the filming of which three extras drowned). But this new foray lacks the passion of the "mise-en-caméra" of the Austrian film. In the end, "Noah's Ark" is a disappointing melodrama that claims to be pacifist, but is pro-war all the way. In the edition I saw, the film contains a score with US marches, and the insufferable Guinn Williams, one more time playing a brute. It is surprising no one mentions the homosexual overtones in his relationship with George O'Brien. Silent expensive, inflated junk.

I remember watching "Noah's Ark" when I was 12 years old in 1962 in Brazil and fell in love with Dolores Costello... what a magnificent movie. I had never watched a Silent Movie... and was flabbergasted by it... by the sheer MAGIG of the images...

Before the movie itself there was a little prologue showing "Noah's Ark"'s preview at the Chinese Theatre in Hollywood with red carpet and all... I think that predisposed me to be in awe with the whole thing.

I loved it... but then NEVER heard of Dolore Costello or anything about the movie until the Internet Age came to the rescue...

Carlus Maximus

So many people were injured in shooting the biblical sequences for this film that star Delores Costello always referred to it as "FLOOD, MUD AND BLOOD"

This film was made in the transitional period between silent and sound film so talking sequences were added to keep the film contemporary.

The biblical deluge serves for a paralleling metaphor for the flood of blood spilled in WW1 in this transitional silent-talkie epic from 1928. The titular story takes great liberties with Genesis, adding a dramatic romantic adventure as Noah's son Japheth (George O'Brien) tries to rescue his betrothed Miriam (Delores Costello) who has been condemned to be sacrificed to a false god, only to be blinded and sentenced to slavery in the attempt. Meanwhile, Noah is given the Moses treatment as the bearded patriarch ascends a foreboding mountain, is spoken to by a Burning Bush, and then sees the command to build a floating zoo appear in fiery letters on great stone tablets. The acting is typical of the silent era: exaggerated, melodramatic, and theatrical but the special effects are very impressive, with some nice miniature work (discounting the tiny puppet Noah who speaks with God) and some excellent biblical images (such as the Tower of Babel and the massive ark) effectively integrated into the live action. The climactic flood scenes are incredible (and lethally realistic at times, see trivia) and are well worth sitting though the film's numerous weaknesses to see. The parallel story of a Yank and a German fräulein (O'Brien and Costello again) in the early days of WW1 is by far the weaker of the diptych: a contrived, dull, cliché-ridden, and maudlin morality tale full of simplistic characters and ridiculous plot-driving coincidences. Like the antediluvian tale, the best parts are the special effects - in this case the battle scenes. Directed by soon-to-be prolific A-list director Michael Curtiz, the film is mostly silent, with some dialogue in the 'modern story' and some odd sound effects thrown in (during a silent exchange between two characters, one 'blows a raspberry' and the flatulent 'pbbbbbt' sound is dubbed in). A must see for film-history buffs, everyone else might as well watch the intro and then skip to the deluge.

This may be the strangest movie you will ever see that was not intended to be strange. It was directed by the fellow who a generation later would make "Casablanca." It was written as a sort of writing masterpiece by a nearly illiterate fellow who would later become a master of the studio system, a real power.

Its strange in so many ways.

It folds a collection of Old Testament stories centered on Noah's flood with a simple morality play set in and about WW I. Its a very, very strange superposition that doesn't in any way make sense. The sheer audacity of someone who thought it would is astonishing. Many people were killed in each, I suppose. Some central characters in both stories are played by the same actors, which makes the supposed similarity between the two threads gobsmackingly puzzling.

Moreover, all the Bible parts are wrong, assuming "right" means that you care about what is actually written. Since virtually no one does — this section of the Bible is hard to make sense of, being itself an unhappy mix of bits from diverse and sometimes contradictory sources.

Its part silent, and part talkie.

And its unhappily wrong in its expectations that the world war depicted would — by virtue of God's grace — be the last war. Its heart wrenching.

A specific irony is that a sort of Jewish queen is played by a woman, who in the modern drama is German. The patriarchs are stereotypically Jewish looking, but the main characters are northern European.

Cinematically, its grand. The modern sequences are clumsy, but the Bible sequences are pretty impressive, simply because of the scale.

There really were thousands of extras. And they really did get deluged, in scenes that have them fighting for their lives. Some of the effects are goofy, but others are clearly done in reality: buildings collapsing on people.

Toward the end of this, you feel that God, having gotten impatient with all the mucking around with grandly confused narrative, has decided to wipe out the whole movie.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.