IMDb user comments for
Flood (2007) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

53 comments in total

---

53 out of 66 people found the following comment useful :-
Mildly entertaining but ultimately complete RUBBISH, 11 December 2007

Author: rdugrandbois (rdugrandbois@aol.com) from Berlin

A really wonderful cast and very talented technical crew wasted their valuable career time, and our equally valuable leisure time, by bothering to support this utterly predictable and plainly formulaic piece of commercial junk. The movie is based upon a really good and very topical idea but both the producers and the director simply applied the standard Hollywood 'disaster movie' formula and thereby ruined any potential value from the production.

An unusually high tide and very strong gale conditions combine to produce a record high storm surge that overwhelms London and floods most of the Thames Valley. The plot centers around a heroic scientist (Tom Courtenay) who alerts the authorities of the danger and ultimately saves the day, a glamorous female police chief who runs the entire show and an embattled Deputy Prime Minister (David Suchet) who tries to look important.

But it's all so unreal that one feels like an extended tea break after just 30 minutes. The young glamorous female Police Commissioner demands complete authority over the army during a declared State of Emergency and gets it (as if!). The experienced General is just pushed aside like a complete moron who has to lick her boots because of her obviously superior capacity. The trouble is that our female supremo, whilst now responsible for millions of lives, spends most of her time worrying over the fate of her two daughters who have taken a trip to South West London and haven't telephoned to say they were alright. So our mighty woman sets her staff to look for them and decides that the sole priority for all the army and the rescue services must be South West London and not any other quarter of the city. Of course the Minister, the Army and the entire entourage accept her prioritization without question. One can only assume they all had property there. When her children are eventually found after endless reports and efforts by her staff she is told by our male hero, 'Thank God they're safe, that's the main thing'. Never mind about the millions of others or all the other responsibilities she was supposed to control; as long as her own kids were safe everything was alright.

This film is just another excuse to push the same old female chauvinist sexist clap trap that women are the clever, mindful, caring and clearly able leaders whilst men are good for nothing except physical bravery, mindless strength and very specialist knowledge. And yet the one simple instruction that she could have given the populace; namely to go to the nearest tall building and calmly go up to the 4th floor or above and await instructions when the waters recede was never given by this female super hero - or indeed anyone else. The whole problem was so simple to solve and yet millions of people apparently didn't think of simply going upstairs! Pathetic rubbish.

---

50 out of 65 people found the following comment useful :-
Part Poseidon, Part Day After Tomorrow, 24 August 2007

Author: Richard Hawes from Kent, England

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.

---

41 out of 61 people found the following comment useful :-
Very poor..., 2 November 2007

Author: Siamois from Canada

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.

---

20 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
It's raining in my heart, 5 February 2008

Author: yorkshire_keith from United Kingdom

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.

---

33 out of 54 people found the following comment useful :-
Not as bad as others would have you think!!!, 2 November 2007

Author: scootb73 from Scotland

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!

---

15 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Awkward and Disappointing, 1 January 2008

Author: gary-444 from United Kingdom

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.

---

23 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :-
Deja-vu, 5 October 2007

Author: BEAR-132 from Sydney, Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

11 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
I like Robert Carlyle, but this movie was bad, 17 April 2008

Author: siderite from Romania

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.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
What a waste of time, money and an excellent cast, 23 August 2007

Author: curtainup-1 from New Zealand

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
A good idea squandered on a dreadful script, 30 June 2008

Author: Muldwych from South Korea

'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.

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history