Genres

Visitors Review

primroseann 2013-05-11 17:01:57

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.

tony-wigfall55 2013-05-11 08:42:42

Could be worse

I just watched this on a very wet August Bank Holiday in UK 2012(Movies 24 Channel) and it was not as bad as I thought it was going tobe. Admittedly you have to be in the mood for every disaster moviecliché from every disaster movie ( not Towering Inferno though) you canthink of, give the plot a lot of leeway and put up with some glaringplot holes that cause some why didn't you, or how did..., moments? I'mnot going to do spoilers, you can discover those for yourself. It isworth a look for some harmless, wet afternoon entertainment. Beprepared to suspend your disbelief at one or two points but overall nottoo bad. I've see worse.

rog-jac 2013-05-02 21:23:35

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!

Kevin Williams 2013-05-02 05:36:56

The only disaster is that i watched this.

Well as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie iwas hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully montyman himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lostinterest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenlyshe points out there is random water coming from under the door, thenbam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believethey didn't notice the rising water level outside or at least heard it.Sorry for this to sound like a rant but it really grinds my gears andhas affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copynearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in thatsense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directingpoor too, and at the end i didn't care about 1 character at all!!!don't waste your time people no wonder it was released straight to DVD.Well thanks for reading xxx

scootb73 2013-05-01 12:42:44

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

I recently purchased this on DVD as I hadn't heard of it and likerobert carlyle.Obviously this movie is not going to have Hollywood blockbuster specialeffects,in saying that though the special effects were decentenough,and the acting was fine also.I found the movie to be enjoyable and do not regret buying it at all,atalmost 2 hours long it is just the right length for this type of movie.Do not expect thrilling explosive action from beginning to endthough,it is a fairly well balanced movie with a decent enoughstoryline!

zoroaster-1 2013-05-01 01:44:12

A floody bore

Miscast, badly directed and atrociously written, this is watchable ifyou have an hour or two to kill or are suffering from insomnia, butonly just. Robert Carlyle fully realises his potential as an actor ofsupreme mediocrity with only one expression to his repertoire (that ofa chronically constipated football hooligan nursing a cripplinginferiority complex), which he manages at times to alter slightly byflaring his nostrils and baring a row of skewed yellow teeth (this toindicate anger, tenderness, grief, surprise, horror, hilarity,compassion, etc.) In his role as "the best marine engineer in the UK"and son of a university professor he is about as convincing as myneighbour's cat. Tom Courtenay, equally miscast, slurring and mistimingevery line, appears permanently soused to the eyeballs, and would seemno more able to tell a flood from a puddle of his own urine if he werestanding in it. All in all, another silly attempt on the part of theBritish to imitate Hollywood pulp at its most rubbishy. The dialogue isa series of badly-delivered clichés; the action is disjointed; the plotis pointless and amputated; and the characters, if you can call themthat, do not even make it into the basic two-dimensional sphere oftheir American counterparts.

rdugrandbois 2013-04-28 00:58:27

Mildly entertaining but ultimately complete RUBBISH

A really wonderful cast and very talented technical crew wasted theirvaluable career time, and our equally valuable leisure time, bybothering to support this utterly predictable and plainly formulaicpiece of commercial junk. The movie is based upon a really good andvery topical idea but both the producers and the director simplyapplied the standard Hollywood 'disaster movie' formula and therebyruined any potential value from the production.An unusually high tide and very strong gale conditions combine toproduce a record high storm surge that overwhelms London and floodsmost of the Thames Valley. The plot centers around a heroic scientist(Tom Courtenay) who alerts the authorities of the danger and ultimatelysaves the day, a glamorous female police chief who runs the entire showand an embattled Deputy Prime Minister (David Suchet) who tries to lookimportant.But it's all so unreal that one feels like an extended tea break afterjust 30 minutes. The young glamorous female Police Commissioner demandscomplete authority over the army during a declared State of Emergencyand gets it (as if!). The experienced General is just pushed aside likea complete moron who has to lick her boots because of her obviouslysuperior capacity. The trouble is that our female supremo, whilst nowresponsible for millions of lives, spends most of her time worryingover the fate of her two daughters who have taken a trip to South WestLondon and haven't telephoned to say they were alright. So our mightywoman sets her staff to look for them and decides that the solepriority for all the army and the rescue services must be South WestLondon and not any other quarter of the city. Of course the Minister,the Army and the entire entourage accept her prioritization withoutquestion. One can only assume they all had property there. When herchildren are eventually found after endless reports and efforts by herstaff she is told by our male hero, 'Thank God they're safe, that's themain thing'. Never mind about the millions of others or all the otherresponsibilities she was supposed to control; as long as her own kidswere safe everything was alright. This film is just another excuse to push the same old female chauvinistsexist clap trap that women are the clever, mindful, caring and clearlyable leaders whilst men are good for nothing except physical bravery,mindless strength and very specialist knowledge. And yet the one simpleinstruction that she could have given the populace; namely to go to thenearest tall building and calmly go up to the 4th floor or above andawait instructions when the waters recede was never given by thisfemale super hero - or indeed anyone else. The whole problem was sosimple to solve and yet millions of people apparently didn't think ofsimply going upstairs! Pathetic rubbish.

Geminate 2013-04-27 15:23:24

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.

patlightfoot 2013-04-12 19:27:04

Oh could have been better

Having worked in London, before the Thames barriers were erected ofcourse. One very strategic mistake, was that those areas predicted tobe woeful for survival are actually very safe. Just go up a few storiesand wait for the water to go down. Very unbelievable for those who knowthe area, foreigners probably would be unknown to the topography etc.It was very predictable but left us with the aftermath not explainedand quite honestly, the acting, special effects etc., were great. Butthe plot had so many holes it would have drained the Thames watereasily. LOL. To start with the sleuth gates do not hold back tidalwater, they are there to allow boats to travel through. Ridiculous.The Mum who was initially fighting for her life in Scotland, suddenlywas pinning up 9/11 'looking for my family' in London!!!!!! How thehell did she get there in such a short period of time? May be nonBritish think it is a London suburb? No very very badly done! Sure you wouldn't want to be in the Tube or underground, but you knowmost under ground lines, actually leach out into open above groundstations.I agree this Flood disaster movies give food for thought, but almostrate as Sci-Fi in their credibility. And with such good actors that isthe shame. For example, Why would anyone drop off the Thames barriersto confront a surging tide, and not stay there out of the water, untilrescued. Absolute dick heads in my opinion. One good point was pushed, the Met office can't predict the weather!And they can't?

SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain 2013-04-12 05:46:54

Flood (2007)

This is a review of the 3 hour miniseries version, rather than theheavily edited 100 minute cut. I had originally only planned to watchPart 1 today, but I was sucked in and quickly put on Part 2. That hasto say something. The film certainly grabbed me, but I must admit tobeing a sucker for disaster movies. It had all the twists and turns youwould expect. Cruel public officials, broken marriages, scientistsdeemed crackpots turning out to be right all along. With three hours toget through, it certainly covers all the angles. After a storm hitsScotland, it soon becomes apparent that the storm will sweep along theeast coast of England and eventually flood London. The cast is variedfrom bad roles and bad performances, bad roles but good performances,and passable roles good performances. Carlyle and Gilsig are the usualdivorced couple, forced back together by this natural disaster.Courtenay is Carlyle's estranged father, they are also forced backtogether due to the flood, as they all happen to work within theparameters of the same field. Most notable are smaller performancesfrom Nigel Planer as the head of the MET office who failed to predictthe storm. He feels genuine grief over the tragedy he could have helpedavoided and an early performance by Tom Hardy. He is the only realperson that feels human throughout. He has some completely unrelateddialogue regarding his mates and a dog. It is perhaps the only time wehear somebody talk about something other than the weather. Seeing a bigdisaster in England is a welcome change and the effects were actuallyquite good. The film does have many flaws though. It is incrediblypredictable and the bulk of dialogue is exposition or corny familyfeuds. The editing is annoying, as it constantly freezes and shows usthe time, or flashes back to something we saw just minutes a go. Themusic is very repetitive. I had the main 'dramatic' tune down within 3minutes (no exaggeration). Towards the end of the second part, all thereal threat is over with and they spend a good forty minutes unfloodingLondon. This makes for a film that has reached its climax much earlier.However, if you like seeing disaster films just to see how differentparts of the government would react, this is mostly competent.

fox_znqwpv 2013-03-31 01:10:02

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!

Benoît A. Racine 2013-03-30 09:43:32

The dawn of a new genre: Backward Science-Fiction

This film is striking for its opening sequence of a flash flood inScotland, especially after seeing footage of what happened inGalveston, Texas, with Hurrican Ike just now. It unfortunately goesdownhill from there. It might as well have been set in the XIXthcentury for all the realism of the weather-predicting techniques. Forthe last 10 years at least, the paths of hurricanes have been highlypredictable a week ahead of time thanks to probability analysis. Evenyour local weather channel is a better predicting tool than anythingimagined in this film. That part is laughable. Unfortunately, so is thedrama element which is redolent of the worst soap-opera (read:hormonal) hysterics on record on both sides of the Atlantic. Failedmarriages, missing children, the usual vaginal yearnings, you get theidea... How bad is it? It makes "The Day After Tomorrow" look like anundiscovered play by Henrik Ibsen. I find particularly offensive thatthis film depicts the lives of millions of Londoners depending on thewhims of a single powerful woman with gonads the size of weatherballoons surrounded by menzipoo wimps. On the plus side, thedestruction of London by tidal wave (and CGI) is sort of cool at times,if you like that sort of thing. Action scenes are powerful if a littleconfused. The British actors are competent but lack charisma. The wholeproduction, while infinitely better than any made-for-TV Americanentertainment of the same ilk, tries to embrace too much, Eastenders,Coronation Street and "Titanic" all rolled into one, and fails. Thefilm's cardinal sin is that the talkiest scenes sound and look likecost-cutting time-fillers. The trendy blue-green colour scheme and thevaguely Celtic wailings of the soundtrack are the last word inoblivion-bound film-making.

Richard Hawes 2013-03-30 11:45:41

Part Poseidon, Part Day After Tomorrow

Out of nowhere mention of this film came from the media because oftopical similarities to recent events here in the UK. Now Flood has hittheatres. Or rather a theatre.A few weeks after the film's press coverage has ebbed from publicmemory. 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. Orperhaps the distributor, Lionsgate, were not particularly confident inthe product to give it a wide release. This one print release has allthe hallmarks of a token outing. Just a contractual obligation toensure the film does not get straight-to-DVD status.Independently made, Flood is as bland as it sounds. An ambitious butwholly routine production which suffers from feeling rather too muchlike recent TV dramas such as Supervolcano and less like the Hollywoodblockbusters it wants to be held in the same regard as.While the disaster film is hardly the most critically popular genre thespecial effects vehicles do generally have a little more to offer theviewer than this film does. Generally something we haven't seen before.The special effects are impressive but clearly copy scenes we'vealready seen. There is nothing creative in exchanging one set oflandmarks 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 nosurprises.Powers that be struggle to come to terms with the situation and sufferethical crises. The military attempt to seize power. And the heart ofthe film lies in a heavy-handed father/son rift that must be healed.Tom Courtney is miscast as the scientist whom no one believes (alaDennis Quaid in Day After Tomorrow) while Robert Carlyse is the film'smale lead. One can't really describe him as a hero. Both actors deservebetter than a routine film which shares it's name with an old IrwinAllen film and a recent TV movie.In fact Carlyse is wholly ineffectual as a star presence in this filmsince he serves only to consistently remind those who've seen it of theexcellent 28 Weeks Later. A novel, stylish and better made tale of aLondon apocalypse.Almost the entire cast seem ill suited to their roles and the film as awhole. Only Joanne Whalley walks away with dignity. An oft overlookactress, she plays her role as well as it demands and shows up theunknown US TV star who is the female lead. Elsewhere Tom Hardy iswasted 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 mostnotable.The ministerial role he plays demands a high profile Brit. It's anattempt to lend the film an air of respectability. In Transformers JonVoight 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 inExecutive Decision. Suchet and films have never quite gelled. He's noRickman or McKellan.Flood is worth a watch on a wet Sunday afternoon, it's certainly not abad film. Just an unimaginative and forgettable one.

Muldwych 2013-03-30 03:20:14

A good idea squandered on a dreadful script

'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at afilm will do little to compensate for a rubbish script. The basicpremise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the seastraight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast thatmost of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time? It'sbasically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but thatshouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn'tthere. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. GreatBritish talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but twodo their level best with what they've got, but their characters aretwo-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. andit'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. Not that every actor getslet off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotionthroughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks fora change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on renderingultra- 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 ofhalf- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that'shardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disasterfilms you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with somefriends. Better still; don't bother.

2013-03-25 03:15:47

what a disaster

This review is from: Flood (DVD) in this movie all London floods over. if you love disaster movies like i do you may like this movie. they only have a certain amount of time to save there self from the great flood. me and my brother watched this and let me tell you this is wonderful hope you like it as much as i do.

2013-03-24 08:55:45

Film Flood

A very disappointing interpretation of Richard Doyle's excellent book of the same title. They could have done so much more. I appreciate that making disaster films is difficult but huge chunks of the story are missing, chunks which would have given a much better forward to the story. This is one that I would not bother to watch again.Pam Conrads

Kayson Wong 2013-03-23 09:08:08

An average movie, don't expect any surprises

My overall comment? Editing: POOR. VFX: OK (not bad). Acting: not bad.script/idea: not badThe editing of this movie is obviously POOR. It cannot communicate tothe audiences. The transition of scenes, the length of scenes areinappropriate. It's a bit boring actually. The story goes almost allthe way the audiences would expect. The background music is alsore-used several times throughout the movie, as though they only have acouple of pieces available.The visual effects is OK, acceptable, but nothing very surprising. Thewaves themselves are OK, but the way they blend with still water (whenthe waves are coming) is poor. It's obvious that they just rendered awave layer and put it on top of an image with still water, instead ofrendering the entire stuff in one piece.The story itself is not bad, up to standard. But the way the editing isdone really downgrades the entire piece. It's obvious they wannareproduce a UK version of a flood film from those US ones, but theycan't get as good.It's an average movie, not bad after all. But don't expect a Hollywoodclass one, you'll be very disappointed.

ledragonquidort 2013-03-23 06:45:59

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!

Victoria Kettner 2013-03-17 13:17:19

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

george-dyson 2013-03-17 08:24:33

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.