SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

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

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Mariade Nobella Really, just read the book. I cannot even begin to compare it to this film. Bad acting, bad lines, wrong accents, and a thousand things missing in (and different to) the storyline.The book catches the feelings and circumstances of main character Julia so well, you'll actually start feeling the same way she does and will want to pursue her goal of finding her baby even beyond the very end. The true tragedy and injustice of her situation will still hold you in it's grasp for a long time after finishing the book.By the by, also there is more attention to the flooding and it's consequences to the people living there. (Book is called '1953' by Rik Launspach)

jsrobinson132 I am from Australia and had never heard of the great flood of 1953 in Zeeland so this was not only a movie I enjoyed for the content but also made me aware for the first time of such a tragic event for so many people. As a mother and grandmother, the storyline was very heartfelt as I think losing a baby, no matter in what circumstances, would be something you would never recover from fully. Even though several reviews are critical of the movie and its title, I can see where the director and writer were coming from. Not only was it about the infamous storm of 1953, the main character also lived through her own personal storm whilst searching for her baby. This storyline took the viewer inside one story out of thousands from that period and personalised it by showing the event itself, a mother's maternal instinct to protect and do everything to find her baby, as well as the culture and moral expectations of the 1950s which were maintained even through such a catastrophe. I enjoyed the movie - as much as you can enjoy watching such a tragedy - and as the version I saw used sub-titles the dialogue and out-of-sync moments didn't affect my viewing of it.

iebee I've seen this movie on video, and was not impressed at all. The 1953 flood was an unbelievable disaster, 1800 people died in that night. That does not come out at all in the movie. A lot of water, but no drama. Why does Julia not look in the basket when she recognized the crying of the baby ? Why doesn't she even try to pull out her mother or sister ? When she goes under herself in the beginning, you see strands of hair floating as if she is wearing a wig. Her hair is dry when she arrives at the party in the beginning of the movie, although she has been going to the party on a bicycle in a heavy rainstorm, with only a fabric scarf.

evk310 i also saw this movie yesterday , i was impressed , i think it was a great movie ,the big action in the beginning of the movie , didn't make you fall asleep.instead of a boring talking start of the movie , it shows you immediately the big bang , how the water destroyed the helpless people by surprise. it shows very realistic how this all did happen. now finally we all can see and understand what the people had been through in 1953.BUT the movie is not ABOUT the storm , . if people see this movie , they might expect to see a movie about the storm like a disaster movie. there is lots of disaster to see but the storm was not the big subject here .the real story here is about a mother looking for her disappeared baby. the storm disaster itself here is just a part of the movie to show in what time this story did happen.for this reason i think they could have called the movie a different name ,because this movie was all about the young mother , they could have called the movie , The Zeeuws Girl , just an example( Zeeuws because that is the name from the area where she lives) that would have been a more honest name for this movie. because the movie is about HER and her baby . and then when people see the movie they find out it all happened during the storm .Just like in MASTERPIECE The Pianist . they didn't call the movie THE WAR ! because that movie was not ABOUT that war but about that pianist , than watching the movie you find out it happened during that war . a very cool way and honest way for a movie to profile itself. that movie would probably confuse when Polanski would call that movie THE WAR , and then people would see a movie about a pianist , so 10 points for Polanski by the way ... so no confusion creating by wrong chosen name for a moviei understand why they want to call this movie THE STORM , because they want to attract people with this name , but too bad it gives confusion when people will see a film about a mother and her baby . still a great movie . and still a must see . i liked everything about it. would actually be better if her son in the end was meeting his never met younger sister or brother . where are the new kids from the mother ? did she never get new kids again with her new boyfriend ? that would be a nice happy end . maybe i should be a filmmaker ?lucky in this movie they didn't speak in Zeeuws dialect , nobody would probably understand that dialect , except of course the people who speak that dialect in that area. go see the movie and be ready to wipe your tears.