Flood (2007) User Reviews (120)

Part Poseidon, Part Day After Tomorrow

[filmnut1 · 5/10 · 24 August 2007]

Out of nowhere mention of this film came from the media because of topical similarities to recent events here in the UK. Now Flood has hit theatres. Or rather a theatre.

A few weeks after the film's press coverage has ebbed from public memory. Devoid of any marketing presence and unscreened for critics, Flood has appeared at the Apollo Cinema in Piccadily Circus.

Perhaps it was a conscious effort not to appear exploitative. Or perhaps the distributor, Lionsgate, were not particularly confident in the product to give it a wide release. This one print release has all the hallmarks of a token outing. Just a contractual obligation to ensure the film does not get straight-to-DVD status.

Independently made, Flood is as bland as it sounds. An ambitious but wholly routine production which suffers from feeling rather too much like recent TV dramas such as Supervolcano and less like the Hollywood blockbusters it wants to be held in the same regard as.

While the disaster film is hardly the most critically popular genre the special effects vehicles do generally have a little more to offer the viewer than this film does. Generally something we haven't seen before.

The special effects are impressive but clearly copy scenes we've already seen. There is nothing creative in exchanging one set of landmarks for another.

Opening with a sequence styled directly from the Michael Bay play-book, Flood's narrative progresses exactly as one would expect. There are no surprises.

Powers that be struggle to come to terms with the situation and suffer ethical crises. The military attempt to seize power. And the heart of the film lies in a heavy-handed father/son rift that must be healed.

Tom Courtney is miscast as the scientist whom no one believes (ala Dennis Quaid in Day After Tomorrow) while Robert Carlyse is the film's male lead. One can't really describe him as a hero. Both actors deserve better than a routine film which shares it's name with an old Irwin Allen film and a recent TV movie.

In fact Carlyse is wholly ineffectual as a star presence in this film since he serves only to consistently remind those who've seen it of the excellent 28 Weeks Later. A novel, stylish and better made tale of a London apocalypse.

Almost the entire cast seem ill suited to their roles and the film as a whole. Only Joanne Whalley walks away with dignity. An oft overlook actress, she plays her role as well as it demands and shows up the unknown US TV star who is the female lead. Elsewhere Tom Hardy is wasted and Nigel Planer is an unusual face to see on the big screen. But aside from Carlyse it's the casting of David Suchet that's most notable.

The ministerial role he plays demands a high profile Brit. It's an attempt to lend the film an air of respectability. In Transformers Jon Voight was there amid the visual effects to serve a similar function. But as good as Suchet is the casting ploy fails. Just as it did in Executive Decision. Suchet and films have never quite gelled. He's no Rickman or McKellan.

Flood is worth a watch on a wet Sunday afternoon, it's certainly not a bad film. Just an unimaginative and forgettable one.

I like Robert Carlyle, but this movie was bad

[siderite · 5/10 · 17 April 2008]

I only watched the movie because Mr. Carlyle was playing in it. Even he played badly. The entire film felt like someone intended it to be a mini series and they were forced to cut it to pieces in order to make it last only 100 minutes. The scenes are going one after another at what I hoped was an alert pace but turned out to be just bad (or forced) editing.

I was actually looking forward to see a British disaster movie, one that would be a good one, not like those Hollywood violin pieces. It was a disastrous film alright, with every possible cliché taken from all the American movies of the genre, but lacking in the directions where US productions shine: editing.

Bottom line: avoid. It is not funny, it is not emotional, not intelligent and not thrilling. Just plain boring.

Awkward and Disappointing

[gary-444 · 4/10 · 1 January 2008]

The production values for this film make it fall short of Hollywood blockbuster status, and the script makes it fall short of cult status. What is left is a tired formulaic attempt at the disaster movie genre that will disappear with the ebb tide.

A decent cast, are either miss cast, or cannot be bothered.The beautiful Joanne Whalley is unable to bring any gravitas to the role of Police Commissioner Nash who wears the most irritating matching waist clincher above her skirt.

Jessalyn Gilseg plays the heavyweight part of Director of the Thames Barrier with all the conviction of a fairground candy floss. Her Canadian nationality and accent were presumably drafted in to appeal to a transatlantic audience. It, and she, fails.Her initial appearance in a tight fitting pink jogging suit as she arrives at work is risible.

The part of the "Siren old git who was right" is played by Tom Courtenay as though he is acting in his sleep, and the various plot twists that are designed to energise his son, played by Robert Carlyle, struggle to get any response from him.

Nigel Planer looks determined to commit ritual hari kari for his failings as Met Office Director, or for his acting, or both, and only David Suchet emerges with some credit for his role as Deputy PM.

There was enough in the story, and the cast and the effects to have produced a decent effort. Alas that did not happen.

It's raining in my heart

[yorkshire_keith · 2/10 · 5 February 2008]

Oh but this is woeful. One good actor after another turns in lamentable dialogue in half hearted fashion under what must have been incredibly pedestrian direction to consider it acceptable. I like Robert Carlyle and Joanne Whalley is one of my favourite actresses, Tom Courtney can act well when pushed and David Suchet is a professional of the highest integrity but they all wallowed around like fish in a barrel of watery gin. I swear Courtney was inebriated, on painkillers or both.

Was there a good performance in the whole thing? Well yes, David Hood as the junior underground engineer whose mate got washed away looked like he was taking the thing seriously and credit to him for that, it can't be easy when "all around are losing theirs" so to speak, or maybe his scenes came under the direction of the assistant director ( if there was one) I just don't know what these people were doing in a film that was this poor ( other than paying the bills, obviously) I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in them. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!

Any positives other than David Hood the third... yes The aerial shots of London largely submerged were very well done and the effects artists responsible deserved better than to have their fine work punctuated by such a shallow story,if you'll forgive the expression, as those few people that do see them will do so on a far smaller screen than would be to best advantage.

What's going on here? why are British film makers trying to imitate such characterless, spectacle driven, tabloid level genres as the disaster movie and then doing it even worse than the Americans. Gritty realism, character integrity, the capture of real emotion in a way that makes you feel it and care... The Family Way, Spring and Port Wine, Get Carter, The long Good Friday, Trainspotting....Don't get me wrong I like a bit of escapist hokum. The real "Italian Job" , The Adventures of Tom Jones; but oh that it should come to this, there was more realistic drama in Carry On Camping.

CGI and CGS!

[Gewitty · 1/10 · 6 May 2008]

This awful effort just goes to show what happens when you not only use computers to generate the effects, but also let them devise the plot and write the script. Someone somewhere has obviously come up with a new bit of software that asks a few questions then churns out four hours of loosely connected clichés, lousy dialogue and a collection of stock characters that you end up wishing had all drowned in the first five minutes.

Tom Courtney took the prize for worst performance. Saying that he was wooden would be an insult to trees. It's hard to fault Robert Carlyle in almost anything he does, but the odds were stacked against even him in this one, especially since he was for some unaccountable reason required to adopt a gor' blimey London accent.

A complete washout.

Very poor...

[Siamois · 2/10 · 2 November 2007]

There's something intriguing about disaster movies. The simple, primal premise can lead to several great stories. Granted, most disaster movies tend to explore familiar territory instead but I can usually live with that.

Unfortunately, Flood probably marks the low point in the history of this sub-genre. Robert Carlyle is undoubtedly the star of the movie, even though screen time is split between different locations and characters. He gives a barely decent performance. As well, Joanne Whalley is very uneven. Veteran actor Tom Courtenay (he played in Doctor Zhivago for heaven's sake) is particularly bad. I mean, his timing is completely off most of the time and his characterization is extremely poor. What an embarrassing performance for that man. The rest of the cast ranges from decent to really bad with one exception: Jessalyn Gilsig, whom I thought might be there as a plot device/eye candy gives by far the most convincing performance. Doesn't mean much considering how bad everybody else is but still nice to see that she cared.

The script is really bad, confusing and cliché. Some of the worse lines I have heard in quite some time are delivered by the actors one after the other.You've seen this story a thousand times. It employs every dramatic hook and tear-jerkers you've seen in "Outbreak", "Armageddon", the Poseidon movies (original and remake) and many others.

The direction is awful. No sense of timing, nothing inspired. The shots are bland, dialog and action both fail to flow. Editing is bad but how do you edit such a mess? Without a doubt, this movie tried to rely way too much on (rather poor) CGI. The human factor, the drama and struggles of the characters are glossed over. Scenes where the characters must actually face the flood are rare and poorly done. The made-for-TV feel gives nausea. Some guy is supposed to go down a rope from an helicopter? No problem, let's show him inside a helicopter and make a really poor cut/editing job and have the next frame with him safely on the ground, in the most obvious way possible.

The movie score is rather poor. All over the place, no timing.

The ending is probably the worse I have seen in quite some time. Very much like they ran out of ideas. Scrap that, you can't run out of something if you never had it in the first place. Must have ran out of budget.

This is a really amateur job. I give it a 2 for using London as a location, which is a nice change, for Gilsig being actually decent in a key support role and for the few CGI shots that were decent (those of the water closing in on London and the gates).

Do yourself a favor and check out Day After Tomorrow or just about any disaster movie before this one. This includes older classics like The Towering Inferno.

Big budget and FX-filled look at London flooded

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 16 June 2008]

This is a catastrophe movie set in London . Starting multiple hurricane,superstorm and tornadoes on Scotland are displaced towards East , downing England coast and later the South. After several hours of heavy rainful , the London barrier above Thames is short from running over, and it paves the way for disaster. Then a colossal tidal-wave travel relentless down East causing devastation and lives of millions of Londoners are in danger. At the center of the story is a climatologist(Tom Courtenay) a climatologist who tries to save London from the effects of giant wave , trying to convince the authorities that the town dike was unsafe, furthermore a marine engineer (Robert Carlyle) and his ex-wife Samantha(Jessalyn Gilsig) . They are trapped into the barrier and dropped to sea .Meantime the secret government agency HQ ruled by Nash(Joanne Whalley) under direct orders of deputy Minister(David Suchet) attempt to control many displaced and avoid more dead, approximately 200.000. They have a little time to save London from total catastrophe.

Perfectly acceptable drama-disaster with alright acting. Magnificent Tom Courtenay as a climatologist who predicts catastrophe and excellent Robert Carlyle and Jessalyn Gilsig as ex-matrimony rekindling their love. The movie packs impressive flood scenes brought to life by the breathtaking computer generator special effects, better than the classic of the 70s , such as 'Earthquake, Inferno Towering' and similarly to 'Armaguedon and Day after tomorrow'. Although isn't a clear denounce, we know that the flood is caused by the greenhouse effect and global warming which originates the ozone hole. The motion picture is well directed by Tony Mitchell. I would recommend this movie to people who like disaster movies. Another adaptations about floods, are the following : 'Flood(1976)'directed by Earl Bellamy with Robert Culp and Barbara Hershey; 'Hard rain(1998)' directed by Mikael Salomon with Morgan Freeman and Christian Slater; ' Flood : a river's rampage(1979)' directed by Bruce Pittman with Richard Thomas

A good idea squandered on a dreadful script

[Muldwych · 3/10 · 30 June 2008]

'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at a film will do little to compensate for a rubbish script. The basic premise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the sea straight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast that most of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time? It's basically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but that shouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn't there. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. Great British talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but two do their level best with what they've got, but their characters are two-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. and it'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. Not that every actor gets let off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotion throughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.

I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks for a change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on rendering ultra- realistic graphics. However there's no excuse for shonky writing - especially from a country that has produced some of the best science- fiction ever made on next to no budget at all. This is the kind of half- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that's hardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disaster films you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with some friends. Better still; don't bother.

Good disaster movie

[Leon-55 · 7/10 · 25 February 2008]

Excellent special effects make this disaster move very plausible. One can see that the producers went to some trouble to get the displays on the computer screens just right - it all makes it very convincing. The sets are also very authentic looking. A good choice of music rounds off the film nicely.

Acting is good and the presence of David Suchet adds some weight to the cast of course. Compared to other movies of this genre, Flood is right up there with the best of them. Thankfully, the "human drama" aspect has not been overdone, as is often the case with this type of movie. The human suffering is portrayed in perfect balance with the actual flooding scenes.

And of course, the movie confirms what many of us suspect anyway: weather forecasters so often do not get it right! :)

Deja-vu

[BEAR-132 · 2/10 · 5 October 2007]

On the face of it this film looked like it might be really good - it isn't.

The cast is pretty good, but most of them seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. The real disaster in this film is not the flood, but the script. It attempts to include every cliché in the book, all done incredibly poorly. The ending is very abrupt, but this is a blessing in disguise. Congragulations if you make it that far.

All three main male actors (Carlyle, Courtney and Suchet) would surely agree that this is the low point in their careers. I hope they got paid a lot of cash, because none of their reputations come out in tact.

The special effects are quite good, but the same thing was done to much better effect in The Day After Tomorrow.

In short, a pointless exercise. Don't waste your time.

Not as bad as others would have you think!!!

[scootb73 · 8/10 · 2 November 2007]

I recently purchased this on DVD as I hadn't heard of it and like robert carlyle.

Obviously this movie is not going to have Hollywood blockbuster special effects,in saying that though the special effects were decent enough,and the acting was fine also.

I found the movie to be enjoyable and do not regret buying it at all,at almost 2 hours long it is just the right length for this type of movie.

Do not expect thrilling explosive action from beginning to end though,it is a fairly well balanced movie with a decent enough storyline!

Not a bad disaster movie at the start, but became clichéd and contrived

[rlange-3 · 7/10 · 19 October 2008]

I love a good disaster movie and this one had a lot of potential. A massive flood in a major world city, a virtually unique opportunity to demonstrate the Thames Barrier, and decent but not outstanding special effects.

Unfortunately the movie gets bogged down in some very contrived, drawn out, and stultifyingly uninteresting romances and family "crises". These add nothing and detract from the pace of the movie. This is initially an annoyance but by the end of the film, the cheesy subplots completely take over and actual action nearly grinds to a halt.

Taking about 30 minutes out of the film may have turned his from a D grade drama into a B grade disaster movie. Unfortunately it's a bit late for that.

Oh just.....drown already.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 4/10 · 12 January 2019]

When you read the premise, and see the cast list, you think you're going to be in for something quite special. The only thing I can really say is, didn't Ton Hardy develop his looks some years later? No, all joking aside, this really is a mess, the version I have is much longer then the running time suggests. There's nothing wrong with the story, it's quite clever, I have gripes with the acting, script, direction and special effects, all are generated dire, the likes of Robert Carlyle, David Suchet and David Hayman battle with what's basically a woeful script. Some of the worst extras acting you will ever see, mass panic, and they're static, and at one stage grinning. It's 2007, but the effects look at times as if they've come from a 1970's Doctor Who story.

I remembered this quite don't, time has not been kind to it. 4/10

What a waste of time, money and an excellent cast

[curtainup-1 · 1/10 · 23 August 2007]

You would have thought, given how much this overblown pile of rubbish must have cost, that the budget could have stretched to a decent scriptwriter. Instead, they seemed to have opted for a bog standard Hollywood 'Paint by Numbers' disaster movie plot and dialog. The only cliché they seem to have missed was the Cute Kid. But every other one is there. There's the sullen hero, flung together by fate with both his ex wife and estranged father. There's the doting Dad and the rebellious teenager.There's the 'Professor that everyone thought was wrong until it turned out he wasn't'(Played appallingly by the normally excellent Tom Courtney seemingly in the grip of some powerful drugs), plus the comic duo wandering about in the deserted underground railway.

I sat down to watch this full of anticipation. The cast is, as noted, amazing. Yet within minutes it became clear how bad this was going to be. Stuff this useless should come with a warning. Something along the lines of;

'This film may have been made in Britain but was aimed at the American market. It therefore contains tired clichés, stock characters, stilted dialogue and a plot so lame brained and simplistic that even George W Bush could understand it.'

Avoid.

The Pits

[catman29-737-555152 · 1/10 · 15 August 2020]

How any actor could take part in this rubbish. The scrip was of the lowest quality for example the head of the flood barriers after getting on a boat downstream going with a high tide says "I must go back to the barriers" - how was she going to manage this given the strength of the tide she would have to swim against - a person in this position just would not say this ! A girl with her father trapped in a car says " we must get out of here" oh really!! These are just two examples of the poor scrip writing- The film was utter garbage.

Not a spoof

[barspeed · 1/10 · 1 August 2020]

I was a good 15 minutes into this movie before I realised that it was a serious film. The script is awful with dialogue being dreadfully written and acted out. Some of the effects are good, that was until I saw an obviously toy helicopter land. The plot is terribly weak and the use of camera angles and sudden zooming in on characters faces detract from the suspense rather than enhancing it. Avoid watching if you can unless there is absolutely nothing else to waste your time on.

Oh come off it...

[porkchopsjar-1 · 7/10 · 6 February 2008]

Reading some of the reviews unjustly maligning this film...I have to ask you armchair critics: what were you expecting? "Flood" is a DISASTER MOVIE, for Pete's sake, we're not talking high art here. As far as disaster flicks go -I'm a big fan- this one pretty much covered all the bases: clichés (once again, the scientists say "I told you so!" ala "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Earthquake"; estranged relationships that the disaster naturally redeem), terrible over-dramatic dialogue, wooden characters, classic nick-of-time/deux ex machina action, but the effects were impressive. The book it is based on aside, I could definitely see elements of both 9/11 and post-Katrina New Orleans here. Sure, the authorities in "Flood" avoid some of the obvious solutions, but that would sort of defeat the purpose of the film, no? Granted, I wouldn't quite put "Flood" up there with classics in the genre such as "The Towering Inferno" or the original "Poseidon Adventure" (the remake...now THAT was a terrible movie!), but it's a damn sight better than such laughably bad (and tedious) disaster movies such as "The Swarm" and "When Time Ran Out...". Check those ones out, folks, and I'll guarantee you'd have a new appreciation for "Flood".

What can I say? "Flood" was good escapist fun. If you're looking for "Lawrence Of Arabia" type quality, watch "Lawrence Of Arabia". And, for what it's worth, I had to force myself to finish watching that puppy...cinematography aside, I thought it was drier than stale melba toast, but I digress...

What a disaster!

[fox_znqwpv · 1/10 · 2 November 2007]

This movie follows in the tracks of The Riddle for an all star British cast in a downright awful movie! Poor cgi effects, poor editing, poor direction, a cast that i hope were well paid as this will be a nail in many a careers coffin.

Nigel Planer should've donned his Neil wig once more & gone out with a laugh at least!

It was like a particularly long & drawn out episode of "Torchwood" but without the camp fake Canadian doctor fella...it had the same overly dramatic music though, perpetually repeated, in a vain attempt to drum up some tension.

Oh the humanity!

It's ok really

[richard_meadowcroft · 6/10 · 24 December 2019]

Lots of whining and moaning on here but what do they expect? It's a disaster film they are all bad but at least it is not preaching political correctness from self righteous goons blaming man made climate change. it is a feasible idea and my advice to the people that have left poor reviews is, if you don't like disaster movies and are not prepared to enter into the spirit in which they are made don't spoil it for others with your 'dog in a manger' attitude!

this was really a disaster movie..

[smedegaard1977 · 1/10 · 28 November 2007]

I usually like these dumb/no brain activity movies, but this was just too stupid. There were way too many clichés and the plot didn't really make much sense. There were a lot of loose ends and the ending was extremely poor and abrupt. We didn't even get too see if the big master plan worked. We only got too see the main character sob over his dead farther, the professor (that died because of stupidity (see below)).

One scene annoyed me particularly. Why did the professor only have about 5 minutes of oxygen in his container when he went to manually override the dam? And if they only had oxygen containers containing 5 minutes worth of oxygen, why didn't he bring two or three of them? Then he would have survived… that was bloody stupid. The movie is pretty full of such stupid things. I can not recommend it at all.

I liked it

[snowfrogg · 8/10 · 12 February 2012]

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.

Underwhelming

[littlestewart-06716 · 12 November 2020]

Everything is just stupid! The characters are stupid and incredibly irritating, the acting is bad, the dialogue is painful! Don't even bother!!

Actually quite watchable

[raypdaley182 · 7/10 · 23 January 2008]

Firstly, start by ignoring any comparisons people may draw to "The Day After Tomorrow". This film is nothing like that. This is a film set in the UK, it deals with an actual possible event.

The film is set in London and deals with what would happen if a massive tidal wave flooded central London.

Robert Carlysle is an unlikely hero and isn't really suited to the role. He's too quiet and unassuming. David Suchet plays the Deputy Prime Minister who is a very indecisive person. They obviously didn't research what kind of powers the DPM would have when the PM isn't in the country but his constant being on the phone to the PM just would NOT happen.

He'd have all the powers of the PM. The other people running the COBRA group are really rubbish, they fall to pieces as soon as there's the hint of a crisis. My biggest complaint is an Army guy ordering a jet to bomb the flood barrier. Sorry mate but that would be a senior RAF officers job, not yours.

The best things about this movie are the supporting cast who make the film what it is and the excellent effects and visuals of the actual flood itself. The fact that it's inter-cut with shots of real floods in England makes for even more realism.

I agree with people who asked why they didn't tell people to try and find tall buildings to seek shelter in. Trying to evacuate central London at rush hour in less than 2 hours is just a joke.

The fact that the Met Office weren't issuing warnings to London as soon as Wick was flooded was a bit silly but they were just trying to create a scapegoat character which Nigel Planer played very well. So well in fact his character commits suicide out of sheer shame.

The film is exceptionally silly in places (I'd expect the London Underground system to be the first place to fill with water in such an event).

It's certainly not a disaster movie in the same vein as something like "The Day After Tomorrow" which so many people are trying to compare it to. (Why? It's nothing like that! This is the UK, that was the US. This is a flood, that was an Ice Age).

Generally the film is bearable enough to be entertaining, it might not have an all star cast but the supporting cast do a good enough job to make it watchable. Give it a go if your a Brit.

Quite a memorable disaster of a movie

[davidsaxonjones · 1/10 · 5 May 2008]

Oh dear, Oh dear! What were they thinking of? Terrible script, terrible acting. I don't even feel sorry for the actors... they took their cheques to the bank and smiled happily.

Since when did an air shaft from Charing Cross pop out at Bank? Why are vehicles crossing Tower Bridge going in towards the City when the surge hit? Why is Tower Bridge not crowded when the city is being evacuated? How does Carlyle dive into a raging torrent.... and survive? I could go on... and on.

There is no real sense of urgency in the command room. They might just as well be waiting for the England eleven to come back onto the pitch after the tea interval at Lords.

It says something when I await the adsbreaks to learn more about diarrahoea treatment with eager anticipation.

Totally abominable trash!

Great premise, fails oh so badly in the delivery

[spconry · 3/10 · 23 January 2020]

Great "what if" idea with a seriously great cast but they are given absolutely nothing to work with and just phone it in; I recon they should all club together to take out a contract on the writers, producers, and director. The plot is a cliche from beginning to end trotting out EVERY disaster movie trope. The plotting you could pilot the Titanic through and scripted dialogue is absolutely woeful. The characters are embarrassing stereotypes of the genre. Still watched it all, some of the scenes of London flooded are interesting.