empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Woa, talk about awful. Do not waste your time. I wish I had seen the other use comments first.
I have to admit, I didn't watch the whole thing. It was just too horrible. The worst, sappiest dialogue... I could go on and on. But what really made it unwatchable was the direction. The poor actors. You can't even tell if they have any talent because they not only have pathetic lines to speak but the director gave them no action. If you check the director's filmography on this site you will see why this film didn't have a chance.
This would not even be good as a made for TV flick.
Ouch!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was a complete waste of time. The soundtrack was bad, story was lame and predictable, and the acting was terrible. One of the worst 25 movies I have ever seen. After the first ten minutes, the rest of the film was completely obvious.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was terrible! My friend and I were so bored by it we fast forwarded through the last half of the movie just to see what happened. It's the typical sports thing, she either wins or she loses. The only remotely interesting thing was when the one guy refers to someone as a Veg-e-tab-le. That will be a line my friend and I bring up for years to come reminding us of this colossal cheesy cliche waste of time


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The horror. The film about the Nazis - the Germans. The murderers of babies, young girls rapists ... For that they regret? What are they interested in doing thousands of miles away from Germany? You do not come to mind is? Fascists are now good Samaritans? Think, killed, tortured, 27 million people. No, of course, they do not want. They were forced to Hitler, he gave each of them, and forced to kill: every fourth inhabitant of Belarus peace, all Jews, Gypsies ... Killing the Slavs. The facts: At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when taken prisoner by fascist (German), they were defiant and brazen. We kill you all, and so on. Since 1943, when they were taken captive, they suddenly became anti-fascists and peaceful peasants who were forced to Hitler, and personally. For such films should be put to prison for life for the glorification of fascism.
If you want to see what they did, yet went to Stalingrad, then watch the movie "Come and see" (1985).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
One would think that with the incredible backdrop of WWII Stalingrad that the writers would come up with a script. Nope. There is NO story here! It's like porn, vignettes of violence interrupted by pathetic, rote, and meaningless dialogue.
A bunch of Germans march around shooting and getting shot. Slowly there are fewer Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot. Then there are no Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot.
Pretty bad.
Chilcoot


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Do people rate this movie highly because it's a foreign war movie???
To me it's nothing more than a bad Hollywood war movie in German.
This movie is so bad on so many levels. To even mention it along with Platoon or Full Metal Jacket is absurd. The battle sequences are pathetic, the dialog and acting atrocious.
This so called group of "storm troopers" are regulars in the Wermacht. Not SS troops. There is so much wrong with this movie it's sad. Bad editing, bad acting. It's got it all.
The movie goes on and on and on as though the audience should be made to suffer as much as the soldiers did.
I read in a review that the this film had a $20 million budget.
For real? Where was it spent? In the fake train car sequences? In the pathetic "special effects"? Ugh.
As a WWII history buff, and WWII movie fan, I found this movie to be a serious disappointment.
For an excellent alternative war movie check out "The Beast". (Not a WWII movie, but still outstanding)
Don't bother with this one.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but it was full of trite melodrama. It was too long and seemed at least mildly disjointed (granted, I didn't pay full attention...). For a more entertaining depiction of the battle of Stalingrad, see Enemy At The Gates. True, some pretentious folks will scoff because it's a Hollywood film, and doesn't show "the gritty reality of war" like this "wonderful foreign film" does, but it has better flow and is all around just more fun to watch. Besides, there are already enough contrivedly "gritty" war movies, and this one just seemed amateurly done. But hey, you might like it, so go right ahead; it just wasn't for me.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I love Das Boot. I hoped for something along similar lines -- a realistic war movie, portraying soliders and civilians on both sides as real people, with both the joy and pain of combat.
Unfortunately, Stalingrad appears to have been written by a third grader and directed by a fifth-grade student. Major pieces of the movie simply appear missing, leaving it completely disjointed. The dialogue in translation is ridiculous, but appears no better in the native tongue; you only have to watch the actors' faces during the bad moments of dialogue to realize just how bad this movie is.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The war in the East,as the Germans referred to the WW2 Soviet-Nazi conflict, was a war of annihilation on the part of the Germany. 90% of the German army were in the Soviet Union fighting. Their ultimate aim was to wipe out the so called "sub human (Untermensch)" Russian population and colonize the mainly empty country with German settlers after they had won.
Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners."
Here we have the German army presented as innocent victims and not as Nazi mass murderers. When are modern German film makers going to be honest and face up to the past?
Better see the Russian film "Come and See" instead!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
What a sucky movie. This is without a doubt a low-class B movie. The German elite StormTroopers assault Russian bunkers en masse like an old WW1 battle. The acting is mediocre, the plot thin and threadlike. It's hard sometimes to follow where it's going. The action sequences are pretty worthless (when it shows any), except for the fact that they do use authentic equipment/vehicles from WW2. This is in NO WAY on the same level as "Saving Pvt. Ryan" or "Platoon". Lots of worthless attempts at character development, which lead nowhere. Old theme good officer/bad officer that's highly predictable. Even the action sequences look like a 12yr old kid set them up. I could have directed better. Too bad this is the same guy that did "Das Boot (The Boat)", because that was a dang good movie. He must have partied too much after that success because he sure lost his touch when it came to this film. I bought it on DVD, better to rent it instead.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I don't usually like TV movies, I reckon that if the thing was any good it would make it to Hollywood. This one though is better than average, pretty high production values, a few interesting story twists and some nice shots of NYC (along with Toronto) hold the interest.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
As bad as they get. This film commits the fatal error of making the viewer not care what happens to characters. The two women in this flick are so stupid that you begin to root for the bad guys so this thing would end.
This film is one of the few that was so bad that I had to turn to another channel.
Put in highbrow language, this film lacks verisimilitude. People, not even people from Ohio, simply do not act like this. Well, maybe the writers do.
There is not enough beer in the world to make this film bearable.
F903


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A really wonderful cast and very talented technical crew wasted their valuable career time, and our equally valuable leisure time, by bothering to support this utterly predictable and plainly formulaic piece of commercial junk. 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. The young glamorous female Police Commissioner demands complete authority over the army during a declared State of Emergency and gets it (as if!). The experienced General is just pushed aside like a complete moron who has to lick her boots because of her obviously superior capacity. The trouble is that our female supremo, whilst now responsible for millions of lives, spends most of her time worrying over the fate of her two daughters who have taken a trip to South West London and haven't telephoned to say they were alright. So our mighty woman sets her staff to look for them and decides that the sole priority for all the army and the rescue services must be South West London and not any other quarter of the city. Of course the Minister, the Army and the entire entourage accept her prioritization without question. One can only assume they all had property there. When her children are eventually found after endless reports and efforts by her staff she is told by our male hero, 'Thank God they're safe, that's the main thing'. Never mind about the millions of others or all the other responsibilities she was supposed to control; as long as her own kids were safe everything was alright.
This film is just another excuse to push the same old female chauvinist sexist clap trap that women are the clever, mindful, caring and clearly able leaders whilst men are good for nothing except physical bravery, mindless strength and very specialist knowledge. And yet the one simple instruction that she could have given the populace; namely to go to the nearest tall building and calmly go up to the 4th floor or above and await instructions when the waters recede was never given by this female super hero - or indeed anyone else. The whole problem was so simple to solve and yet millions of people apparently didn't think of simply going upstairs! Pathetic rubbish.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
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.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
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.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
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. It attempts to include every cliché in the book, all done incredibly poorly. The ending is very abrupt, but this is a blessing in disguise. Congragulations if you make it that far.
All three main male actors (Carlyle, Courtney and Suchet) would surely agree that this is the low point in their careers. I hope they got paid a 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 much better effect in The Day After Tomorrow.
In short, a pointless exercise. Don't waste your time.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The production values for this film make it fall short of Hollywood blockbuster status, and the script makes it fall short of cult status. 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. Her Canadian nationality and accent were presumably drafted in to appeal to a transatlantic audience. 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. Alas that did not happen.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
You would have thought, given how much this overblown pile of rubbish must have cost, that the budget could have stretched to a decent scriptwriter. Instead, they seemed to have opted for a bog standard Hollywood 'Paint by Numbers' disaster movie plot and dialog. The only cliché they seem to have missed was the Cute Kid. But every other one is there. There's the sullen hero, flung together by fate with both his ex wife and estranged father. There's the doting Dad and the rebellious teenager.There's the 'Professor that everyone thought was wrong until it turned out he wasn't'(Played appallingly by the normally excellent Tom Courtney seemingly in the grip of some powerful drugs), plus the comic duo wandering about in the deserted underground railway.
I sat down to watch this full of anticipation. The cast is, as noted, amazing. Yet within minutes it became clear how bad this was going to be. Stuff this useless should come with a warning. Something along the lines of;
'This film may have been made in Britain but was aimed at the American market. It therefore contains tired clichés, stock characters, stilted dialogue and a plot so lame brained and simplistic that even George W Bush could understand it.'
Avoid.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
'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? It's basically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but that shouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn't there. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. Great British talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but two do their level best with what they've got, but their characters are two-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. and it'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. 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. 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 of half- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that's hardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disaster films you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with some friends. Better still; don't bother.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This awful effort just goes to show what happens when you not only use computers to generate the effects, but also let them devise the plot and write the script. 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. Saying that he was wooden would be an insult to trees. It's hard to fault Robert Carlyle in almost anything he does, but the odds were stacked against even him in this one, especially since he was for some unaccountable reason required to adopt a gor' blimey London accent.
A complete washout.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.
How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of "How could anyone survive that?" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).
Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.
Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.
As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
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. The Police commissioners outfit reminds me of something Kate Moss threw up and Nigel Planer looks very VERY old, in fact, I am worried that he may have had suffered a stroke whilst filming.
The father of Robert Carlyle who was 'right all along' has obviously been necking too many Ketamin and whilst he has a major part in this awkward journey, he deserved to be killed off way WAY before he was caught pretending to be Kate Winslett (Titanic) whilst dangling over the Thames Barrier.
I'm sorry Film lovers but avoid at all costs.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Miscast, badly directed and atrociously written, this is watchable if you have an hour or two to kill or are suffering from insomnia, but only just. Robert Carlyle fully realises his potential as an actor of supreme mediocrity with only one expression to his repertoire (that of a chronically constipated football hooligan nursing a crippling inferiority complex), which he manages at times to alter slightly by flaring his nostrils and baring a row of skewed yellow teeth (this to indicate 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 my neighbour's cat. Tom Courtenay, equally miscast, slurring and mistiming every line, appears permanently soused to the eyeballs, and would seem no more able to tell a flood from a puddle of his own urine if he were standing in it. All in all, another silly attempt on the part of the British to imitate Hollywood pulp at its most rubbishy. The dialogue is a series of badly-delivered clichés; the action is disjointed; the plot is pointless and amputated; and the characters, if you can call them that, do not even make it into the basic two-dimensional sphere of their American counterparts.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I don't normally write reviews, but for this film I had to. I'm shocked at the acting talent in this move going to waste... the script was appalling... the editing awful... and the plot very thin. You spend the first half of the movie wondering who is talking to who and what on earth 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, but still limited cgi, and the location being London. I gave 3 stars for that, and the fact the actors still tried to do a good job with the drivel they were given. If you fancy losing a couple of hours of your life with mediocre popcorn disaster movie entertainment, by all means, this is the movie for you. But I would recommend doing something else with your time instead, like watching the real archive footage online! :) http://www.weatherpaparazzi.com/flooding.asp


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I usually like these dumb/no brain activity movies, but this was just too stupid. There were way too many clichés and the plot didn't really make much sense. There were a lot of loose ends and the ending was extremely poor and abrupt. We didn't even get too see if the big master plan worked. We only got too see the main character sob over his dead farther, the professor (that died because of stupidity (see below)).
One scene annoyed me particularly. Why did the professor only have about 5 minutes of oxygen in his container when he went to manually override the dam? And if they only had oxygen containers containing 5 minutes worth of oxygen, why didn't he bring two or three of them? Then he would have survived that was bloody stupid. The movie is pretty full of such stupid things. I can not recommend it at all.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Well as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie i was hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully monty man himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lost interest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenly she points out there is random water coming from under the door, then bam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believe they 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 and has affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directing poor 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


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie follows in the tracks of The Riddle for an all star British cast in a downright awful movie! 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!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The digital effects were done on the cheap and the action sequences lack suspense. This was essentially made for TV and it shows. David Suchet looks bored and Nigel Planer looks down right embarrassed! and as for Robert Carlyle's Dick Van Dyke London accent, no comment! If you want to pass away an hour or two when you've nothing on then it will do. If your going to buy the DVD wait a few weeks and pick it up in the bargain bin at Asda, cos thats where its heading! If the budget was bigger and Richard Doyle's book followed more closely, then it could have been something special, but as it stands its a bit poor. Watch the trailer instead! Or read the book and see what could have been.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


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


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
In addition to all the negative reviews: I was amazed to see that at the drop of a hat somewhere, somehow a CCTV-camera was summoned at a most unlikely location, to show the 'crisis'-team (''Look Maaaaa-aaam'') what was going on, notably near the Thames-barrier, where the professor is hit at full (wind)force against the head by a heavy object and subsequently lives to tell the story. Otherwise I was unable to shake off the image of some actors as portrayed in other films/programs: I said to my wife: 'Hey, that's Neil, from the Young Ones' (Nigel Planer) and 'Did they summon Hercule Poirot for help?' (David Suchet). To add to the disgrace of this film (shown in two parts on ITV UK recently), ITV showed the telephone number of the Environment Agency after each episode for worried viewers, living in areas 'at risk of flooding'. How low can you as a broadcaster go to treat your audience like that? What must the Environment Agency have thought?? (''Oh no, it's Mrs Jones from Hull again. She says she was right all along, she saw it on ITV'').


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


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


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


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


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen; I gave it one star simply because it is the lowest score possible. Whoever thought Flood would ever be a good film? The director and cast should be ashamed and then it dawned on me this could all be part of a shambolic scare tactic. Only propaganda could be this bad.
The redeeming feature of Flood is that it's ghastliness and shameless formulaic storyline make it funny. 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. Flood has the amateur streak to found in many recent British films where a more focused use of funds would have made for a better entertainment.
Where was Smithee?


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This film was total rubbish. I was sitting watching this absolutely furious that this was funded. They most definitely spent all their budget on the special FX rather than the script writer and director AND some of the actors.
First the acting was bland and rubbish. The story was not relatable to the audience enough. Rather than being from the peoples perspective of the storm, the narrative was told more from government figures and the army, which really isn't a way to connect to them as most of us hate politicians anyway. The writer attempted to add a human element to the unrealistic characters by adding the little subplot about the father and son, which failed completely.
As for the directing...oh god, his techniques to try and create tension and unease are repetitive and over the top. The sped up camera movements and then the sudden flash bolt pauses on a characters face when something horrendous has happened was pathetic.
The only reason I watched it till the end was to see the special FX. Which is a bad thing as special FX shouldn't make the film it should only amplify the story and experience. There was no story.
I really wouldn't bother watching this, total trash and an embarrassment to the British film industry.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I was struck by the awful acting and script for this movie. All the characters seem rendered immobile by personal issues - rather like deer in headlights. They dither around whining and moaning about their emotions when decisive actions need to be taken. I found myself yelling at the TV screen trying to wake them up to their situation and DO SOMETHING! The plot line is implausible. Every time there is a key decision to be taken by a lead character, one of the other characters has to bring up all the problems with the obvious decision as though to further render the decision more difficult - it is a tried melodramatic ploy and just wants to make you groan. Clearly the import of the decision is obvious - you don't need to treat the audience as idiots. Overall - there is just too much emotional melodrama in the whole movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Avoid this movie. If you are expecting "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972), you may experience nothing more than a case of the 'bends'. This film offers nothing more than two extremely-long, and drawn-out, hours of complete boredom.
The cast members act as if they are angered by the irritation of a bathtub of water overflowing on a bed of an insignificant's petunias. The script is totally unrealistic, and the film does not even have the feel of a disaster movie. In fact, everything about this movie is bad, with the exception of Tom Courtenay. It is unfortunate that such a fine actor got swept away, by a flood of misrepresentation, to appear in such a washout. When this movie was being made, the Poseidon must have turned over, in its watery grave, in a sea of shame. And, Shelley Winters will rise again, from the dead (direct from the Poseidon), to haunt anyone who dares to see this pathetic movie. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but it really deserves a zero. This movie will make you want to avoid, or completely turn against, water. And, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. It may even make you want to see "Jaws" (1975), and befriend a great white.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
After huge budget disaster films set in America like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, it was refreshing to see something on a smaller scale like Flood.
Using mainly unknown actors and actresses and actually focusing on England it was a welcome change of pace to seeing The Empire State Building being demolished.
However, this is not a strong film on any basis. Whilst being fairly shocking seeing all your favourite London landmarks being demolished by a very fake CGI storm surge, Flood doesn't really deliver on anything else.
The performances are bland, being saved from the pit of hell by David Suchet and his refreshingly calm performance as the Deputy Priminister. 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. Watch it if you must, but watch something else straight afterwards.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I really tried to give this film a chance but when I realized that most of the film was being told by a bunch of boring officials walking around and talking on phones, I knew it was over. A lot of this film also looked like stock footage. That's just lame.
The camera person kept like doing these quick short zooms for NO REASON! It bothered me so much but I was just wondering why in the heck did they think it was a good idea. It doesn't add anything to a static scene of two people talking. This isn't NYPD Blue or some cop show or something.
How could they have not realized that telling this type a story from conversations of people in conference rooms and what not, is BORING?!! Did they not watch this mess? 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... that's just wrong.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I'm sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.
The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.
Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I registered at IMDb solely for the purpose of warning others about this movie. Hwo does anyone ever get funding for projects like this? That's the mystery. Farewell to Harry might be the worst movie ever, except that I tried to erase the others that rival this blathering idiocy. Bad plot, not-credible logic runs throughout. I can't spoil this movie for you by revealing anything that would make your experience less enjoyable. There is nothing enjoyable about this movie. I have the CD and will send it to you for free, it is that bad. First come, only served. If I know you, this offer is void, because I wouldn't inflict this movie on anyone, not on purpose. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
While the dog was cute, the film was not. It wasn't the premise, or the theme that was a problem. The premise had great possibilities for humor and pathos both. The theme is a worthy one. Helping other people is more important than amassing a fortune.
Sadly, the adorable dog, the unique premise, and the theme were undercut by poor acting, stilted dialogue, and amateurish filming.
Even my youngest child who will sit through almost anything gave up before we had gotten halfway through. How many times can that dog run up and down the same hallway? I can't spoil it for you, as I never saw the end. It just was not worth watching all the way to the end.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If you ever plan on renting (hopefully not buying) this movie, think again. It was as if Gary Busey had a gun to his head and was forced to act or die. I only wonder if Busey was arrested for something and was sentenced to play in this movie because I just don't see the guy that acted so much better with Keanu Reeves in Point Break play in this disaster. It was a feel-good movie, but there are thousands of other feel-good movies that make you laugh without wanting you to get your money back.
The only reason I would ever tell someone to rent this movie is to watch this movie is to see Gary Busey jump up and down like a monkey. If you want a good funny movie, pass up Quigley and go rent Spongebob or something.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
My wife rented this movie and then conveniently never got to see it. If I ever want to torture her I will make her watch this movie. I've watched many movies with my 4 year old and I can take almost anything. Barney is refreshing after a shot of Quigley.
The plot, dialog, cinematography, & acting were one step above (or equal to) a cheap porn film. I feel cheated out of $3.69 that we paid to rent it and then 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. I will say my 4 year old liked it, luckily it was a rental we had to return right away.
I just hope that the younger actor's careers are not ruined from being in this movie.


assistant
0