I feel some sort of responsibility to view and review films like this one. I’m genuinely pleased that movies are made from real events or myths, because it sparks people’s interest in them. As a historian—someone who has dedicated their life to navigating the intersection of history, geology, and Catholic faith—I can attest that these fields rarely align. They simply don't agree. I don’t really concern myself with how historically accurate movies are, and as a historian, I offer superficial nods to the presumed accuracy of my religion. Similarly, drawing on my understanding of geology, when considering events even five thousand years ago, I give only perfunctory acknowledgement to my own profession. It strikes me as absurd that people are criticizing this film based on religious grounds. "Noah" is largely inaccurate according to the Bible, which is ironic given that every priest I’ve ever known recognizes Noah from the Gilgamesh story. So, objecting to it on religious principles is foolish to begin with...and condemning a film that isn't even faithful to those same religious texts simply because it draws from Abrahamic Holy books is equally nonsensical. Let’s set aside all the religious and historical issues now and focus solely on the movie itself. If you didn't see this in theaters, or if you lack a television screen large enough to resemble an Ark...it might not be worth your time. The film's main appeal lies in witnessing the Great Flood; that’s what draws people like me to it…and we want to experience it on a grand scale—big, huge, enormous. Otherwise, watching it on a smaller screen is comparable to viewing an abrupt "The Bible" miniseries from the History Channel and nothing more. In fact, you might be better off skipping it altogether if you can't watch it on a large screen, because without the flood’s overwhelming presence on a massive display, all that remains is Russell Crowe…and that’s not pleasant. Yes, Russell Crowe. Beyond the flood (which is the film’s centerpiece), what you get is Crowe, an actor so convinced of his own talent that he seems to have forgotten how to act. I don't care about your religious views (as long as you are tolerant of all faiths) and I don't care about your feelings regarding accuracy in films...regardless of those opinions, you’ll have to put up with Crowe. If you can manage that, good for you. Then there’s Jennifer Connelly; yes, you might consider her visually appealing—and you would be correct—but that doesn't change the fact that she struggles to convey emotion. Thankfully, Watson manages to deliver a better performance than both of them...and even Hopkins if he had a role worthy of his abilities. So, if you have the means to watch it on a large screen, the flood is worth the price of admission…but be warned about Crowe.

Source on TMDB