Flood
Tags: dramatic, mystery

Plot synopsis:
A devastating flood strikes London when the Thames Barrier is overwhelmed by a huge surge of water. A storm surge travels between the United Kingdom and mainland Europe, raising sea levels and coinciding with the spring tide. Several parts of Scotland are devastated, including Wick.
The Met Office's head forecaster, Keith Hopkins, mistakenly believes the storm will head towards Holland and is guilt-ridden after Professor Leonard Morrison proves that the approaching surge of water will break through the Thames Barrier and flood central London in the next 3 hours. Leonard had focused his life around the belief that the barrier was built in the wrong area, and turned his now apologetic son Rob into a bitter man.
Deputy Prime Minister Campbell, in charge while the prime minister is away, declares a state of emergency. He begins to evacuate over one million civilians from Central London before the water surge hits. He is assisted by Police Commissioner Patricia Nash, Major General Ashcroft and others.
The Thames barrier is raised, but the huge wave of water (now over 46 meters high) overwhelms the barrier and sweeps into the city. Rob and his ex-wife Sam, both expert engineers, jump into the Thames to escape. Leonard is saved by a military helicopter and taken to Whitehall, where the authority figures desperately require his assistance in finding a way to handle this emergency.
Rob and Sam end up in the London Underground with other survivors. They are led through a ventialtion duct to higher ground by two underground maintenance workers, Bill and Zack. When the surge floods the station, the currents drown Bill. The group find themselves in the flooded Trafalgar Square, where Rob and Sam are able to contact Leonard. They end up returning with him to the barrier, where Leonard believes the water flow can be reversed back out of London, as the tide has turned and the water level is starting to go down. But the military's Ashcroft disagrees and prepares to destroy the barrier with an air strike.
Hopkins, feeling even more guilty when thousands of corpses are shown on a news report, quietly disappears and is later reported by Ashcroft to be dead, an apparent suicide. Nash is at odds with Ashcroft, wanting to give the Morrisons a chance to remedy the situation, while also distraught over her own two missing daughters.
Rob, Sam and Leonard discover the controls to the Thames barrier are now underwater. One can activate them, but likely will not survive the effort. Rob and Sam try to decide which of them should go, but Leonard leaves on the suicide mission behind their backs. He saves London by activating the barrier's controls before running out of air whilst underwater and hence, dying.
Campbell is informed that the Thames barrier has been activated and orders the air strike to be aborted. Rob and Sam lower the Thames barrier and the water flows back out of London.

Review: The movie is based upon a really good and very topical idea but both the producers and the director simply applied the standard Hollywood 'disaster movie' formula and thereby ruined any potential value from the production.An unusually high tide and very strong gale conditions combine to produce a record high storm surge that overwhelms London and floods most of the Thames Valley.
The plot centers around a heroic scientist (Tom Courtenay) who alerts the authorities of the danger and ultimately saves the day, a glamorous female police chief who runs the entire show and an embattled Deputy Prime Minister (David Suchet) who tries to look important.But it's all so unreal that one feels like an extended tea break after just 30 minutes.
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.
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.
He's no Rickman or McKellan.Flood is worth a watch on a wet Sunday afternoon, it's certainly not a bad film.
What is left is a tired formulaic attempt at the disaster movie genre that will disappear with the ebb tide.A decent cast, are either miss cast, or cannot be bothered.The beautiful Joanne Whalley is unable to bring any gravitas to the role of Police Commissioner Nash who wears the most irritating matching waist clincher above her skirt.Jessalyn Gilseg plays the heavyweight part of Director of the Thames Barrier with all the conviction of a fairground candy floss.
It, and she, fails.Her initial appearance in a tight fitting pink jogging suit as she arrives at work is risible.The part of the "Siren old git who was right" is played by Tom Courtenay as though he is acting in his sleep, and the various plot twists that are designed to energise his son, played by Robert Carlyle, struggle to get any response from him.Nigel Planer looks determined to commit ritual hari kari for his failings as Met Office Director, or for his acting, or both, and only David Suchet emerges with some credit for his role as Deputy PM.There was enough in the story, and the cast and the effects to have produced a decent effort.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Poor cgi effects, poor editing, poor direction, a cast that i hope were well paid as this will be a nail in many a careers coffin.Nigel Planer should've donned his Neil wig once more & gone out with a laugh at least!It was like a particularly long & drawn out episode of "Torchwood" but without the camp fake Canadian doctor fella...it had the same overly dramatic music though, perpetually repeated, in a vain attempt to drum up some tension.Oh the humanity!.
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.
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.
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!.
Someone somewhere has obviously come up with a new bit of software that asks a few questions then churns out four hours of loosely connected clichés, lousy dialogue and a collection of stock characters that you end up wishing had all drowned in the first five minutes.Tom Courtney took the prize for worst performance.
'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at a film will do little to compensate for a rubbish script.
The basic premise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the sea straight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast that most of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time?
Not that every actor gets let off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotion throughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks for a change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on rendering ultra- realistic graphics.
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 have a little time to save London from total catastrophe.Perfectly acceptable drama-disaster with alright acting.
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'.
If only the characters had the same depth as created by the flood itself, yet they galumph from sound bite to sound bite without any emotional response whatsoever.The sad thing about this film is that it could have been so much better, informative, imaginative and tense.
The human suffering is portrayed in perfect balance with the actual flooding scenes.And of course, the movie confirms what many of us suspect anyway: weather forecasters so often do not get it right!
It might have worked as a 110 minute straight to DVD movie but with a run time of almost four hours padded out with clichés , poor plotting , sheer internal stupidity and a totally wasted cast this is one disaster miniseries that should have been drowned at birth.
A massive flood in a major world city, a virtually unique opportunity to demonstrate the Thames Barrier, and decent but not outstanding special effects.Unfortunately the movie gets bogged down in some very contrived, drawn out, and stultifyingly uninteresting romances and family "crises".
This is initially an annoyance but by the end of the film, the cheesy subplots completely take over and actual action nearly grinds to a halt.Taking about 30 minutes out of the film may have turned his from a D grade drama into a B grade disaster movie.
Anyway, this was just a really boring movie and it does make it seem like whoever made it doesn't understand good storytelling in film.Darn stock footage...
Lately we have seen movies such as The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and to an extent Twister set themes of destruction to our screens, all as well have failed to live up to their giant budgets and huge use of special effects.
Like I said Flood is the British version of these sorts of films but unfortunately it is placed back in the Hollywood category as it is full of special effects and fails to really add anything new to what we have already seen.The title of the film makes it obvious what it is about.
The Met Office begin to investigate this event and a local professor, Leonard Morrison (Courtenay), discovers that the storm is heading South and will hit the Thames Barrier at the same time as high tide, causing mass volumes of water to flood into central London.
The characters in the film never really seem bothered by the fact that London is being hit with gallons and gallons of water, and there is little urgency in the attempt to rescue it.
As a film this did not work despite the strong cast, the interesting idea, and the special effects, which at times are the only good thing in this film.
The script is totally unrealistic, and the film does not even have the feel of a disaster movie.
Apart from all the other points that have been made - great cast wasted on a truly appalling cliche-ridden script; poor pacing; intensely irritating camera-work and meaningless use of freeze-frames; and (criminally) some absolutely dreadful acting - this production commits the ultimate sin: it's unbelievably BORING.
There's nothing wrong with the story, it's quite clever, I have gripes with the acting, script, direction and special effects, all are generated dire, the likes of Robert Carlyle, David Suchet and David Hayman battle with what's basically a woeful script.
Flood tries to be like those big-budget American disaster films...
It's like they're trying to be funny and self-parodying, only they're not - they're being serious.The film tries to crank up the tension by quick cutting and shaky camera work, plus some incredibly dramatic music just to point out just how dire the situation is when the Thames overflows and drowns half of London.
However, despite the fast-paced direction and dramatic score, you have the dialogue bringing it back down to the quality of a sixth form drama production (no offense to sixth formers - I'm sure they'd do better).The special effects aren't that good, but they're not that bad either.
It confirms to every cliché going: it has the family coming together in face of a catastrophe, the budding romance, the token characters who you know are going to be washed away in the first splash of waves and, of course, the inept officials.I'm sure you've probably heard people say "It's worth a watch if there's nothing else on." Well, they're probably right about this one.
It's obvious they wanna reproduce a UK version of a flood film from those US ones, but they can't get as good.It's an average movie, not bad after all.
The film is like a simulation of what might happen if a giant sea swell overwhelmed the Thames sea wall barrier created in 1983,to counteract tidal swells which have increased in size over the years and do actually pose a threat to the city of London, England, due to its close proximity to the ocean waters of the English Channel.
Not including the water, of course.Lots of dialogue like "Oh my god" and "we're not going to make it." Lots of people looking at each other with long faces.
Although Tony Mitchell's 2007 film, "Flood," begins well and promises to be a serious warning about the dangers of global warming, this low-budget disaster epic soon descends into a maelstrom of stock characters and Irwin-Allen-inspired clichés.
Many crowd scenes look like footage from unrelated events edited into the storyline.At more than three hours, "Flood" is overlong, often ponderous and self important, and lacking in state-of-the-art special effects that might have raised the film's entertainment quotient.
On the face of it this film looked like it might be really good - it isn't.The cast is pretty good, but most of them seemed embarrassed by the whole thing.
The real disaster in this film is not the flood, but the script.
Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense.
I really do not joke when i can honestly submit that this film is not suitable for Sunday night viewing on ITV4.The underground scenes are just awful when London is supposedly under 30ft of water, Robert Carlyles character is drab.
Anyway,the film itself was just about watchable, the acting talent available was under used, the rather flimsy dialogue was in places almost drowned out by an overbearing and irritating action music soundtrack and the whole thing smacked of a made for TV production complete with plot holes, unfulfilled side stories and lots of people fussing about and getting stroppy about not being able to see the disaster unfold on their big screens at COBRA headquarters.
I enjoyed this film because i didn't take it that seriously, good cast, British made, but my problem isn't with the film, the actors, the effects or the script, its with people comparing it to massive budget American crap like the day after tomorrow, we are force fed that crap and expected to accept it as quality film making and when a little film comes out over here then its a copy and therefore crap, what about all the really crap remakes that Hollywood are doing because they are afraid to make something new or original, all films made on blue or greens screens and created in a computer so no real effort is put in, maybe the people who slated Flood should watch it again as they are probably American and 12 years old and know less about film making than Hollywood do, I would rather watch this than transformers which is an insult to anyones intelligence over 17 years old..
Sorry mate but that would be a senior RAF officers job, not yours.The best things about this movie are the supporting cast who make the film what it is and the excellent effects and visuals of the actual flood itself.
So well in fact his character commits suicide out of sheer shame.The film is exceptionally silly in places (I'd expect the London Underground system to be the first place to fill with water in such an event).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 it to.
In a film filled with actors of the calibre of Carlyle and Courtney., she gives the best performance.The script, like the book, is full of clichés - there is nothing any actor can do with lines like 'we've got to get out of here!', and there's no real sense of danger to any of the characters - this is the kind of film where the heroes always survive.But the true star of this film is the water - whether is the shots of the coastline flooding (and a bit disturbing when you realise those aren't special effects, but actual news footage) or the amazing shots of the massive tidal wave sweeping over London, the water shots are breathtaking, astounding - and worrying when you see your home town flooded so quickly.And finally - well, at least next time I'm stuck in an underground station as it floods, I'll know to head for the map!
About it's only redeeming quality was it had Robert Carlyle in it and for once it wasn't a disaster movie set in the United States of America.A great flood whooshed into the city of London, but buildings didn't crumble and there was absolutely no debris to speak of ugh...Bought this on DVD for a couple of quid on Amazon, but I'm sure I got ripped off because more than likely they sell it in my local Poundland along with all the other crap movies no-one buys.
He is perhaps a little too calm for what is going on in the film, all that fake water gushing around London must have made him pretty annoyed.It is understandable that the effects weren't going to be as good as TDAT and DI, but the CGI was at best, average.Bland, disappointing and sometimes even tiresome.
Some of the action scenes are OK concerning the seismic waves and disaster effects.On the other hand the command of London in the depiction descends into farce but I cannot see why Suchet is so panned for his role in this movie as his acting is not poor.If anyone likes seeing what would happen if London was rocked by a massive amount of water, check this movie out.
I live on Crystal Palace hill, so I'm alright.So far from inundating us with entertainment, 'Flood' has simply set a new low-water mark for disaster movies..