not horrible nor great

hyped garbage

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.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

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 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.

This is a review of the 3 hour miniseries version, rather than the heavily edited 100 minute cut. I had originally only planned to watch Part 1 today, but I was sucked in and quickly put on Part 2. That has to say something. The film certainly grabbed me, but I must admit to being a sucker for disaster movies. It had all the twists and turns you would expect. Cruel public officials, broken marriages, scientists deemed crackpots turning out to be right all along. With three hours to get through, it certainly covers all the angles. After a storm hits Scotland, it soon becomes apparent that the storm will sweep along the east coast of England and eventually flood London. The cast is varied from bad roles and bad performances, bad roles but good performances, and passable roles good performances. Carlyle and Gilsig are the usual divorced couple, forced back together by this natural disaster. Courtenay is Carlyle's estranged father, they are also forced back together due to the flood, as they all happen to work within the parameters of the same field. Most notable are smaller performances from Nigel Planer as the head of the MET office who failed to predict the storm. He feels genuine grief over the tragedy he could have helped avoided and an early performance by Tom Hardy. He is the only real person that feels human throughout. He has some completely unrelated dialogue regarding his mates and a dog. It is perhaps the only time we hear somebody talk about something other than the weather. Seeing a big disaster in England is a welcome change and the effects were actually quite good. The film does have many flaws though. It is incredibly predictable and the bulk of dialogue is exposition or corny family feuds. The editing is annoying, as it constantly freezes and shows us the time, or flashes back to something we saw just minutes a go. The music is very repetitive. I had the main 'dramatic' tune down within 3 minutes (no exaggeration). Towards the end of the second part, all the real threat is over with and they spend a good forty minutes unflooding London. This makes for a film that has reached its climax much earlier. However, if you like seeing disaster films just to see how different parts of the government would react, this is mostly competent.

"Global warming is killing us all!". This is of course despite the fact that not a shred of concrete evidence supports this flawed "theory". Lets all face it people, you simply can't take 100 years out of billions of years geological history and come to the conclusion that the climate is changing because of any minor influences. Do people pollute? Sure they do. Are we raping the planet of natural resources? Probably. Are we significantly changing the climate? Probably not, since the geological record shows far greater climate changes than we have experienced in the last 1000 years. A single solar flare has more control over the climate than we do. A meteorite causes more changes in an afternoon than man has caused in his entire time on the planet. A volcano causes more rapid and lasting climate changes in 30 minutes than man causes in 200 years. So why do these liberal idiots keep pushing this asinine idea? So they can get lucrative government grants to "study" this "phenomenon". The real study should be done on the ignorant saps that ACTUALLY believe these fantastical stories. 20,000 years ago the last ice age peaked. I suppose that was due to the major influence of spear chucking savages driving around gas guzzling SUV mastodons? Wake up people. You are sheep who will believe anything.Oh, and the movie sucked.