Flood

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.

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.

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.

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 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!