Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

dglink 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.

tony-wigfall55 I just watched this on a very wet August Bank Holiday in UK 2012 (Movies 24 Channel) and it was not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Admittedly I did wonder why a couple of the actors took the job as they didn't seem that convincing - the money must have been good! You have to be in the mood for every disaster movie cliché from every disaster movie you can think of, and put up with some quite glaring plot holes that cause some why didn't you, or how did..., moments? I'm not going to do spoilers, you can discover those for yourself. It is worth a look for some harmless, wet afternoon entertainment. So suspend your disbelief at one or two points but overall not that bad. I've seen worse.

TheLittleSongbird I really wanted to like this movie, as the concept of a waterlogged London intrigued me and I love a vast majority of the cast. But what a bitter disappointment. Granted the photography and special effects are great and very cleverly done. And the music is decent. Everything else however went down under-water like a sunken ship.The story and concept were really intriguing. But it wasn't told very well. Why? Because the film is very stodgily paced, while the subplots are badly underdeveloped and clichéd and the climax is very badly botched. Then we have flat direction and an awful script. Even the acting was disappointing. Robert Carlyle, Tom Courtenay and David Suchet are truly talented characters, but their characters are not interesting. Neither are everyone else's. In fact all the characters are very cardboard especially Jessalyn Gilsig's and Joanne Whalley's.Overall, a big disappointment, looks great but it is badly told and dull. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Enchorde Recap: A catastrophic and unpredictable storm hits northern Britain causing massive floods. Against all experience, the storm then moves south and finally reaches London where everyone is mostly unprepared for it. Caught in the middle of it is the family Morrison. Father Leonard is the professor that devoted his life to preparing for London and is the only one who recognizes the threat. His devotion has left him and his son Rob estranged, but Rob is still the engineer that knows the Thames Barrier best, the only but hopelessly overwhelmed defenses. And the Barrier is run by Rob's ex Sam.Comments: A good idea in the footsteps of The Day after Tomorrow. However, to make a movie of this kind work you need either massive amounts of water (and allowed to cause massive collateral damage) or massive amounts of CGI. Of course everyone opts for the second, but then you really need enough to make the images plausible. Flood don't quite cut it. Too much of the footage is too clearly fake, too clearly the result of CGI to make it believable. Sure, I know that even if the movie looked good it would be fake footage, but the images need to look real.I think the people responsible realized this and the response was to fill it with subplots focused on the people involved. We have one main one in the Morrison's, but there was many others. Actually too many. In what seems to be an attempt to cover up the fact that they couldn't provide good enough images it is filled with small subplots of either missing family or guilt ridden characters. But they are too many, and too little time are spent to really invest in them, they become rather uninteresting. I got the feeling that they was there to cover up plot holes in the main plot instead of really contributing something. So, this was not so good. OK, for a rainy afternoon when the flood risk is low, but nothing more.5/10