Genres

Visitors Review

ledragonquidort 2012-05-19 12:20:12

Life imitating art?

I saw this movie a couple of weeks ago and... wouldn't you know it, onthe 8th of Nov extremely high winds hit the north of Scotland and acouple of days later we hear on the news about it being one of thoserare occasions when a tidal surge has thundered down the Englishchannel threatening to swamp parts of the east coast and the Thamesflood barriers had to be raised, I mean, talk a about deja vu!!Anyway,the film itself was just about watchable, the acting talentavailable was under used, the rather flimsy dialogue was in placesalmost drowned out by an overbearing and irritating action musicsoundtrack and the whole thing smacked of a made for TV productioncomplete with plot holes, unfulfilled side stories and lots of peoplefussing about and getting stroppy about not being able to see thedisaster unfold on their big screens at COBRA headquarters. The openingsequences definitely weren't filmed in Wick. Apart from the fact thatthe accents were way off and the general layout and elevation of muchof the town means that it wouldn't succumb to that level of flooding, Ididn't see one single Wicker on their rooftop with a fishing rod!

primroseann 2012-05-19 05:52:12

Make your mind up

After reading half the comments, I have to say if I was to go by whatthey were all saying I would never have watched this, but What are youall talking about, I enjoyed this movie tremendously. OK I have toadmit I'm not a fan of Robert Carlyle but I enjoyed watching him inthis.To me the only bad bit was at the beginning with the phony woman andher mother, from Wick the accent didn't do it for me.As for no action, poor script, "sexist clap trap", did anyone bother towatch the movie. For I'm pretty sure I seen a lot of it from beginningto end. I'm also pretty sure that there was a mixture of peoplein-charge and not just the commissioner who was a woman. This movie covered different aspects: how people come together and helpothers, to people having to make hard decisions. This movie might notbe for all, but then if you expect too much out of a movie what do youwant! My advice is read what overs say and then make up your mind as we allhave different taste.

michelleeb 2012-05-17 00:53:55

Stunning effects, shame about the characterisation

I must admit, I didn't like the book thinking the charactersone-dimensional and stereotyped, with unnecessary relationships strewnall over the place. The film suffers from the same faults - with theone exception being Commander Raish, played by Joanne Whalley. Shegives an understated but strong performance, full of truth andfascinating to watch. In a film filled with actors of the calibre ofCarlyle and Courtney., she gives the best performance.The script, like the book, is full of clichés - there is nothing anyactor can do with lines like 'we've got to get out of here!', andthere's no real sense of danger to any of the characters - this is thekind of film where the heroes always survive.But the true star of this film is the water - whether is the shots ofthe coastline flooding (and a bit disturbing when you realise thosearen't special effects, but actual news footage) or the amazing shotsof the massive tidal wave sweeping over London, the water shots arebreathtaking, astounding - and worrying when you see your home townflooded so quickly.And finally - well, at least next time I'm stuck in an undergroundstation as it floods, I'll know to head for the map! Given the direbook this was based on, i's better than I expected - and a bit tooclose for possible actual events for comfort.

Victoria Kettner 2012-05-16 17:56:59

Global warming meets B-movie histrionics in this made-for-TV style disaster flick about the drowning of London.

Leon Erasmus 2012-05-10 00:04:04

Good disaster movie

Excellent special effects make this disaster move very plausible. Onecan see that the producers went to some trouble to get the displays onthe computer screens just right - it all makes it very convincing. Thesets are also very authentic looking. A good choice of music rounds offthe film nicely.Acting is good and the presence of David Suchet adds some weight to thecast of course. Compared to other movies of this genre, Flood is rightup there with the best of them. Thankfully, the "human drama" aspecthas not been overdone, as is often the case with this type of movie.The human suffering is portrayed in perfect balance with the actualflooding scenes.And of course, the movie confirms what many of us suspect anyway:weather forecasters so often do not get it right! :)

george-dyson 2012-05-09 12:08:38

Another Flood Movie

I was struck by the awful acting and script for this movie. All thecharacters seem rendered immobile by personal issues - rather like deerin headlights. They dither around whining and moaning about theiremotions when decisive actions need to be taken. I found myself yellingat the TV screen trying to wake them up to their situation and DOSOMETHING! The plot line is implausible. Every time there is a keydecision to be taken by a lead character, one of the other charactershas to bring up all the problems with the obvious decision as though tofurther render the decision more difficult - it is a tried melodramaticploy and just wants to make you groan. Clearly the import of thedecision is obvious - you don't need to treat the audience as idiots.Overall - there is just too much emotional melodrama in the wholemovie.

rlange-3 2012-05-07 02:38:58

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

I love a good disaster movie and this one had a lot of potential. Amassive flood in a major world city, a virtually unique opportunity todemonstrate the Thames Barrier, and decent but not outstanding specialeffects.Unfortunately the movie gets bogged down in some very contrived, drawnout, and stultifyingly uninteresting romances and family "crises".These add nothing and detract from the pace of the movie. This isinitially an annoyance but by the end of the film, the cheesy subplotscompletely take over and actual action nearly grinds to a halt.Taking about 30 minutes out of the film may have turned his from a Dgrade drama into a B grade disaster movie. Unfortunately it's a bitlate for that.

rj_details 2012-05-06 14:38:09

RECORD BREAKING FILM ( I could only watch it for 15 minutes )

I could only bare to watch the first 15 minutes of this really horriblefilm. The filming was very very amateur, the music and sound was awful infact I was the verge of getting an headache. Nearly everything seemed to visualise the awful world of the office andother commercial settings. This film represents just how dull andmundane England as become and it lacks any real artistic creativity,plus the special effects were nasty.I could also see that the film wanted us to try and care about thepeople and there grim relationships especially between father and sonyet having seen all that before I just stopped the film.How ever this film is a great example of how England and its capitalgreed for cash as produced creative monsters. England is desperate to live up to America and it fails with this film. I must also point out that England at the moment is suffering fromproblems with floods and to bring it in as a film disturbs me slightly.

the_mad-scientist 2012-04-30 12:28:22

Had fun predicting what happens next

That was the most fun from watching this on ITV1 over the weekend,predicting the next cliché, and we got them all right. Okay to behonest that is slightly unfair, it's a disaster flick, so you know somany characters will die, face peril, and eventually survive. howeverit was all a bit obvious. The cast on paper look superb, all withexcellent previous work, but they were not given enough meat on thebones of the script. Too many characters being used, Day After Tomorrowfocused on essentially 3 core groups, and you cared about them, andwhat happened. That was not the case here. The effects team, brilliantboth CGI and the sometimes harder physical effects or making water gowhere you want, worth watching for that alone. However two irritatingfactors, or traps really, that other filmmakers have also fallen intorecently (or washed into) First is the haunting choral music eitherjust before or after someone dies, please, silence would have been moreeffective, or hearing the water. Second that freeze frame with blackand white highlights, overused so loses it effectiveness. Overall,watchable, but unfortunately forgettable.

alienworlds 2012-04-30 03:11:41

Actually I thought it was well done

There are not many British disaster movies made, so this film is indeeda rarity. The film is like a simulation of what might happen if a giantsea swell overwhelmed the Thames sea wall barrier created in 1983,tocounteract tidal swells which have increased in size over the years anddo actually pose a threat to the city of London, England, due to itsclose proximity to the ocean waters of the English Channel. Real lifescientists have suggested that under extreme conditions the ocean couldsweep over the Thames barrier and flood London. Hence the film. Theacting is good, and the film has good internal logic, which definitelyhelps since its running time is about three hours. I think people todayexpect a new film to make their bed, make their lunch and give them ameaningful relationship. This film holds your attention and is welldone. Can't ask for more, and if you do, go see a shrink.

2012-04-29 07:03:57

Good special effects

This review is from: Flood (DVD) I enjoy this one, with outstanding special effects, especially the flooding of London. But it stops there. I couldn"t remember what the story was about an hour after watching the disc.I am still waiting for a disaster film that combines good special effects and a good story that remains in one"s mind after watching.

TheLittleSongbird 2012-04-28 15:36:58

Clever special effects, but the rest is like a damp squib

I really wanted to like this movie, as the concept of a waterloggedLondon intrigued me and I love a vast majority of the cast. But what abitter disappointment. Granted the photography and special effects aregreat and very cleverly done. And the music is decent. Everything elsehowever went down under-water like a sunken ship.The story and concept were really intriguing. But it wasn't told verywell. Why? Because the film is very stodgily paced, while the subplotsare badly underdeveloped and clichéd and the climax is very badlybotched. Then we have flat direction and an awful script. Even theacting was disappointing. Robert Carlyle, Tom Courtenay and DavidSuchet are truly talented characters, but their characters are notinteresting. Neither are everyone else's. In fact all the charactersare very cardboard especially Jessalyn Gilsig's and Joanne Whalley's.Overall, a big disappointment, looks great but it is badly told anddull. 4/10 Bethany Cox

BEAR-132 2012-04-27 08:56:29

Deja-vu

On the face of it this film looked like it might be really good - itisn't.The cast is pretty good, but most of them seemed embarrassed by thewhole thing. The real disaster in this film is not the flood, but thescript. It attempts to include every cliché in the book, all doneincredibly poorly. The ending is very abrupt, but this is a blessing indisguise. Congragulations if you make it that far.All three main male actors (Carlyle, Courtney and Suchet) would surelyagree that this is the low point in their careers. I hope they got paida 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 muchbetter effect in The Day After Tomorrow.In short, a pointless exercise. Don't waste your time.

gz4216 2012-04-26 22:41:11

This could have been great!

The cast was a who's who of British TV actors! The special effects werevery good! The idea was great! So this should have scored an 8 or 9,but only got a 5 - wanna know why? Then read on...The acting was awful - Nigel Planer does the honourable thing! Thespecial effects were a little samey! The script was dreadful! The holesin the plot considerable - Eg. 1: Why didn't Tom Courtney take a biggeroxygen tank with him, or a spare? Doh! Eg. 2: The hidden currents inthe Thames would drag a swimmer under as it is today, so the chancesthat 2 people could jump off the Thames barrier during a major floodand survive - let alone stay together are minuscule!!!Having said all this it was quite watchable - which is why it didn'tget a 2!!!

davidsaxonjones 2012-04-23 18:22:06

Quite a memorable disaster of a movie

Oh dear, Oh dear! What were they thinking of? Terrible script, terribleacting. I don't even feel sorry for the actors... they took theircheques to the bank and smiled happily.Since when did an air shaft from Charing Cross pop out at Bank? Why arevehicles crossing Tower Bridge going in towards the City when the surgehit? Why is Tower Bridge not crowded when the city is being evacuated?How does Carlyle dive into a raging torrent.... and survive? I could goon... and on.There is no real sense of urgency in the command room. They might justas well be waiting for the England eleven to come back onto the pitchafter the tea interval at Lords.It says something when I await the adsbreaks to learn more aboutdiarrahoea treatment with eager anticipation.Totally abominable trash!

fox_znqwpv 2012-04-23 01:31:52

What a disaster!

This movie follows in the tracks of The Riddle for an all star Britishcast in a downright awful movie! Poor cgi effects, poor editing, poordirection, a cast that i hope were well paid as this will be a nail inmany a careers coffin.Nigel Planer should've donned his Neil wig once more & gone out with alaugh at least!It was like a particularly long & drawn out episode of "Torchwood" butwithout the camp fake Canadian doctor fella...it had the same overlydramatic music though, perpetually repeated, in a vain attempt to drumup some tension.Oh the humanity!

simon-470 2012-04-21 21:07:23

waste of talent and money

I don't normally write reviews, but for this film I had to. I'm shockedat the acting talent in this move going to waste... the script wasappalling... the editing awful... and the plot very thin. You spend thefirst half of the movie wondering who is talking to who and what onearth they are doing. The latter half of the movie slows down slightly,but has no depth or feeling. The only saving grace is the nice, butstill limited cgi, and the location being London. I gave 3 stars forthat, and the fact the actors still tried to do a good job with thedrivel they were given. If you fancy losing a couple of hours of yourlife with mediocre popcorn disaster movie entertainment, by all means,this is the movie for you. But I would recommend doing something elsewith your time instead, like watching the real archive footage online!:) http://www.weatherpaparazzi.com/flooding.asp

rog-jac 2012-04-21 13:29:30

Accuracy (or not)

It was inferred by a previous poster that the military would not besubordinate to the police in a disaster as depicted in the film. Infact the military role would be to supply aid to the civil authoritieswhen requested to do so. The civil authorities would retain primacy. Inpractise the Army would need 48 hours or so to mobilise themselves,there not being much Army presence in London, especially with currentoverseas commitments. Even then they would be dependent on calling inthe TA.As for COBRA, we were given the impression that it was a fullgovernmental emergency department in its own right - even reference toa Met Police Cobra Division. In fact COBRA stands for Cabinet OfficeBriefing Room "A". It's just the room where the PM or DPM meet theiradvisers to discuss the current emergency!

Geminate 2012-04-16 05:05:18

You Know When The Toilet Overflows...

I'll put it straight to you, this movie is dead boring. It's about aflood, that's it. Blah blah a little about family, blah blah blahpolitics, blah blah blah boring. Blame it all on the weatherman, poor sod. The Deputy Prime MinisterCampbell is a hard-ass that expects everyone to be clairvoyant, a mostirritating character. If you are from the United Kingdom, or anywhere that it may flood, thenyou might like this film. It's sort of like earthquake movies are mostappreciated where earthquakes happen. This is not really an action film, where the weather is the enemy andyou must conquer, or outrun it literally, it is more like a time-bombthat must be disabled. Looking at this movie, it is understandable why the UK thinks the worldis overpopulated, it isn't, but for them it is. Really, the movie is about as exciting as picking scabs and I can'trecommend it. It's over 100 minutes, far far too long.The problems with the film; I won't get into them beyond this becausethe film doesn't deserve such dissection. Hint to you Londoner's - buymore boats. If you bring children to this movie they'll either fallasleep or become uncontrolled bored screaming demons.

raypdaley182 2012-04-15 21:44:37

Actually quite watchable

Firstly, start by ignoring any comparisons people may draw to "The DayAfter Tomorrow". This film is nothing like that. This is a film set inthe UK, it deals with an actual possible event.The film is set in London and deals with what would happen if a massivetidal wave flooded central London.Robert Carlysle is an unlikely hero and isn't really suited to therole. He's too quiet and unassuming. David Suchet plays the DeputyPrime Minister who is a very indecisive person. They obviously didn'tresearch what kind of powers the DPM would have when the PM isn't inthe country but his constant being on the phone to the PM just wouldNOT happen.He'd have all the powers of the PM. The other people running the COBRAgroup are really rubbish, they fall to pieces as soon as there's thehint of a crisis. My biggest complaint is an Army guy ordering a jet tobomb the flood barrier. Sorry mate but that would be a senior RAFofficers job, not yours.The best things about this movie are the supporting cast who make thefilm what it is and the excellent effects and visuals of the actualflood itself. The fact that it's inter-cut with shots of real floods inEngland makes for even more realism.I agree with people who asked why they didn't tell people to try andfind tall buildings to seek shelter in. Trying to evacuate centralLondon 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 soonas Wick was flooded was a bit silly but they were just trying to createa scapegoat character which Nigel Planer played very well. So well infact his character commits suicide out of sheer shame.The film is exceptionally silly in places (I'd expect the LondonUnderground system to be the first place to fill with water in such anevent).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 itto. (Why? It's nothing like that! This is the UK, that was the US. Thisis a flood, that was an Ice Age).Generally the film is bearable enough to be entertaining, it might nothave an all star cast but the supporting cast do a good enough job tomake it watchable. Give it a go if your a Brit.