Flood (2007)

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

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Although Tony Mitchell's 2007 film, "Flood," begins well and promises to be a serious warning about the dangers of global warming, this low-budget disaster epic soon descends into a maelstrom of stock characters and Irwin-Allen-inspired clichés. A super storm devastates the Scottish town of Wick, and, after weather "experts" initially dismiss any subsequent danger, the powerful storm hugs the eastern coast of Britain and sends a storm surge up the Thames at high tide. The surge renders the Thames barrier ineffective and floods an area the size of Ireland. Unfortunately, the special effects are low-tech, and the made-for-TV film plods on seemingly forever with evident padding and freeze frames that indicate commercial breaks intact.A decent cast of British actors is largely wasted, although they acquit themselves well and manage to retain straight faces and stiff upper lips, while reciting inane dialog and facing preposterous situations. Tom Courtenay plays the scientist whose initial warnings were dismissed; Robert Carlyle plays his estranged son; Jessalyn Gilsig is the requisite strong female and love interest; David Suchet is the deputy minister, who is supposedly in charge while the Prime Minister is in Australia; Joanne Whalley is a commissioner and the requisite worried mother; and Tom Hardy plays a slightly daft underground worker. Initially, the veteran talent and inter-woven stories hold viewer attention, but, eventually, the characters over-stay their welcome, and the unexpected perils fail to elicit either sympathy or suspense; many watery scenes evoke "Titanic" and "The Poseidon Adventure," but without the suspense or technical skill. Although the seemingly inept government leaders express surprise that any Londoners survived the disaster, viewers will be wondering why everyone did not just climb four stories up and ride out the storm; all the elaborate evacuations could have been avoided, not to mention the superfluous histrionics in underground stations, parking garages, flooded streets, stranded boats, and chaotic hospitals. Many crowd scenes look like footage from unrelated events edited into the storyline.At more than three hours, "Flood" is overlong, often ponderous and self important, and lacking in state-of-the-art special effects that might have raised the film's entertainment quotient. Viewers will wade through a dozen implausible situations and one of the most outlandish and coincidental reunions on film before the end credits roll. Only die-hard fans of Tom Courtenay or Robert Carlyle may enjoy this massive disappointment or possibly Tom Hardy complete-ists, who want to see Mad Max before he donned his mask; others should be-forewarned and, unlike the clueless meteorologists in the film, realize that "Flood" is not a perfect storm.

I accidentally fell on this film on TV while David Suchet was speaking to an audience, so I thought this could be interesting.But I was wrong, because in the face of an extreme emergency, a natural disaster which creates a live or die situation for them, it seems to me that most characters are simply incapable of making even the most basic logical thought or plan. They, even the "professionals", act driven by their emotions and therefore the whole movie makes no sense.One example: what do you do when you, a government employee, are on a dam, and you have foreseen that a great wave is going to hit the dam and the great city behind it in 3 hours or maybe less? You warn your superiors and make sure they understand it is serious, alright, and this is what our hero does. But then she refuses to leave, because "the boys are not leaving, and I am not leaving without them". I am not even sure who the boys were and why they wanted to stay on the dam (to enjoy the show perhaps?), but when after a while the dam is in fact hit, our hero runs and swims desperately for her life. Why? I mean she clearly showed she is not interested in saving herself when she had enough time to do it, why has she changed her mind and what has she accomplished by staying in her position in the meantime? As I said, just one example.

I really wanted to like this movie for a number of reasons. First of all, I really like natural disaster movies; if the scenery or CGI is even adequate, I am satisfied. Secondly, there is always the human element whether it is the "villains" that caused the disaster or refused to admit that there was a problem or the "heroic" people whose stories are told as part of the overall disaster. And finally, it takes place in London - I don't think I have seen another disaster movie that takes place there. Therefore, it would be a refreshing change to the typical destruction of New York, L.A., or Japan.But, no matter how many times I watch it, I always wind up doing something else at the same time. I just can not warm up to this movie. Another review I read finally made me realize why. It is like a low budget, poorly made-for-TV movie. There is so much disjointed editing and so many poorly connected scenes that I eventually just lose interest. The CGI is at times fine, but for the most part unbelievable. That is a shame because great walls of water wiping out structures can be awesome to watch if done competently.And the acting. Robert Carlye chews the scenery every time he is on screen. The other primary actors are equally unbelievable, although Joanne Whalley does seem to be trying. The only performances I actually found credible were the two barrier workers (Tom Hardy and Angus Barnett I believe.) At least I think they were barrier workers. Not being from London I didn't know if they were somewhere in the barrier or in the Underground. There were a few things that weren't explained, taking for granted anyone watching would know exactly where and what was going on.I have watched Haeundae (2009) which is entirely in Korean and kind of goofy at times and felt more interest and connection than I ever did watching Flood, a movie that was entirely in English.

I enjoyed this film because i didn't take it that seriously, good cast, British made, but my problem isn't with the film, the actors, the effects or the script, its with people comparing it to massive budget American crap like the day after tomorrow, we are force fed that crap and expected to accept it as quality film making and when a little film comes out over here then its a copy and therefore crap, what about all the really crap remakes that Hollywood are doing because they are afraid to make something new or original, all films made on blue or greens screens and created in a computer so no real effort is put in, maybe the people who slated Flood should watch it again as they are probably American and 12 years old and know less about film making than Hollywood do, I would rather watch this than transformers which is an insult to anyones intelligence over 17 years old.