Highly Overrated But Still Good

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

I got a mental hernia trying keep my disbelief suspended. starting with a wacky premise, it turns that over into flawed characters behaving badly and reveling in those self same self serving selfish flaws.

I really wanted to like this movie for a number of reasons. First of all, I really like natural disaster movies; if the scenery or CGI is even adequate, I am satisfied. Secondly, there is always the human element whether it is the "villains" that caused the disaster or refused to admit that there was a problem or the "heroic" people whose stories are told as part of the overall disaster. And finally, it takes place in London - I don't think I have seen another disaster movie that takes place there. Therefore, it would be a refreshing change to the typical destruction of New York, L.A., or Japan.But, no matter how many times I watch it, I always wind up doing something else at the same time. I just can not warm up to this movie. Another review I read finally made me realize why. It is like a low budget, poorly made-for-TV movie. There is so much disjointed editing and so many poorly connected scenes that I eventually just lose interest. The CGI is at times fine, but for the most part unbelievable. That is a shame because great walls of water wiping out structures can be awesome to watch if done competently.And the acting. Robert Carlye chews the scenery every time he is on screen. The other primary actors are equally unbelievable, although Joanne Whalley does seem to be trying. The only performances I actually found credible were the two barrier workers (Tom Hardy and Angus Barnett I believe.) At least I think they were barrier workers. Not being from London I didn't know if they were somewhere in the barrier or in the Underground. There were a few things that weren't explained, taking for granted anyone watching would know exactly where and what was going on.I have watched Haeundae (2009) which is entirely in Korean and kind of goofy at times and felt more interest and connection than I ever did watching Flood, a movie that was entirely in English.

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

Recap: A catastrophic and unpredictable storm hits northern Britain causing massive floods. Against all experience, the storm then moves south and finally reaches London where everyone is mostly unprepared for it. Caught in the middle of it is the family Morrison. Father Leonard is the professor that devoted his life to preparing for London and is the only one who recognizes the threat. His devotion has left him and his son Rob estranged, but Rob is still the engineer that knows the Thames Barrier best, the only but hopelessly overwhelmed defenses. And the Barrier is run by Rob's ex Sam.Comments: A good idea in the footsteps of The Day after Tomorrow. However, to make a movie of this kind work you need either massive amounts of water (and allowed to cause massive collateral damage) or massive amounts of CGI. Of course everyone opts for the second, but then you really need enough to make the images plausible. Flood don't quite cut it. Too much of the footage is too clearly fake, too clearly the result of CGI to make it believable. Sure, I know that even if the movie looked good it would be fake footage, but the images need to look real.I think the people responsible realized this and the response was to fill it with subplots focused on the people involved. We have one main one in the Morrison's, but there was many others. Actually too many. In what seems to be an attempt to cover up the fact that they couldn't provide good enough images it is filled with small subplots of either missing family or guilt ridden characters. But they are too many, and too little time are spent to really invest in them, they become rather uninteresting. I got the feeling that they was there to cover up plot holes in the main plot instead of really contributing something. So, this was not so good. OK, for a rainy afternoon when the flood risk is low, but nothing more.5/10