Uragano

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.

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 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!

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