Perfectly adorable

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Michael Curtiz is a wonderful film maker. Albeit, he's often reputed to be wonderful for "Casablanca" (his magnum opus about Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart, who is abscond and inhabits in Casablanca as his past floods back to him and during these events, we see the brooding war). But he's also done masterpieces like "Angels with Dirty Faces", "Mystery of the Wax Museum", "Mildred Pierce" and many others. I marginally mention this because I just want to say that he wasn't limited in his credentials with great film and to illustrate this point, I'll intersect this point by using this grandiose and technical masterpiece as an example."Noah's Ark" was made just after WW1. It intercuts this event with the other fateful event "Noah's Ark". And I do want to laud this film for a few things; one is Guinn Williams as Al; his performance is spellbinding, as his passion of war and love combine. He's Travis' friend and he doesn't act in formulaic melodrama and embodies the character perfectly. There really is nothing divisive about it that I can say, as he was a stellar for what feels like a short lived and marginal character. He's also quite funny when he says through inter-title "If he's fighting my friend, you better look out for the guy he's fighting". His death scene is not sonorised (perhaps to better effect) and is played out in a solo way. What impressed me most about his sterling performance was that the acting was naturalistic and dialogue utterances are not forced, as if by the script lines. This actor was also in the silent era and he might be one of the best actors to transition into the sound era.Dolores Costello plays Marie, a young woman, who finds love when she boards the same bus as Travis (played by the dazzling George O'Brien, from films that stem from "The Iron Horse" (1924) and "Sunrise" (1927) by F.W. Murneau). There's people on the bus that say things through superfluous inter-titles such as "Science disproves god" and contrariety's by an old man (a man who will be the one-dimensional character and be considered later on). During the bus crash that ensues, it will remind viewers of Noah's Ark, which the film opens up with the construction of and like "The Bridge on the River Kwaii" the sets were getting built during the production, but unlike "The Bridge on the River Kwaii" it's not on location. It's one of WB's best films during that era.Travis and Marie take refuge at a nearby house, where Nickoloff is, and they fight against him due to reasons of love. After this, sequences with the two permeate for a while until Travis is confronted about his place in the army. He then enlists in it leaving by his wife.The modern story is basically WW1 and it isn't done very well. More scenes could have chronicled the disaster, but instead it chronicles around the sentimentality, the dialogue exchanges between Travis and Al and a bomb getting thrown.Much of the latter story is infinitely better and makes up for this last part to the first act. This act is shown through the book of God and it soon becomes biblical as that Old Man returns, as if by divine intervention, to hinder the death of his wife who goes in the breech. She is captive in this story and God (almost a replication of "The Ten Commandments" title sequence) orders that he must kill them by water. And then comes the most famous sequence of the film.It would be a bit higher on my list, after I found it that the way they emulate it, was real. Dummies were in a separate set and the real people with inflections and the lot were where the deluge of blood was played out. It's mind boggling; sets fall and tragedy is completely futile.I don't want to go too deeper into it. This film was the "Ben Hur" of its day. But it's also a pastiche and more coherent version of "Intolerance", influenced by the modernity of its time, whereas Intolerance compared that with various eras before the 20th century. I am interested in its dialogue scenes, as well and how it mainly permeates war songs. The score seems rhythmic as well and it seems picked by the film maker or Warner Brothers. It may disconcert people that many people were injured and at the risk of that, the film may not be one you will pick up. However I recommend watching Hollywood 1980: A Celebration of Silent Film (the first part and the rest are on YouTube) and look at a slight history of the films making and then think about purchasing it. As for me, I was excited to get it. But it's an each to their own film.

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.

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?

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.