Out of nowhere mention of this film came from the media because of topical similarities to recent events here in the UK. Now Flood has hit theatres. Or rather a theatre.

A few weeks after the film's press coverage has ebbed from public memory. 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. Or perhaps the distributor, Lionsgate, were not particularly confident in the product to give it a wide release. This one print release has all the hallmarks of a token outing. Just a contractual obligation to ensure the film does not get straight-to-DVD status.

Independently made, Flood is as bland as it sounds. 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. Generally something we haven't seen before.

The special effects are impressive but clearly copy scenes we've already seen. There is nothing creative in exchanging one set of landmarks 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 no surprises.

Powers that be struggle to come to terms with the situation and suffer ethical crises. The military attempt to seize power. And the heart of the film lies in a heavy-handed father/son rift that must be healed.

Tom Courtney is miscast as the scientist whom no one believes (ala Dennis Quaid in Day After Tomorrow) while Robert Carlyse is the film's male lead. One can't really describe him as a hero. 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. A novel, stylish and better made tale of a London apocalypse.

Almost the entire cast seem ill suited to their roles and the film as a whole. Only Joanne Whalley walks away with dignity. An oft overlook actress, she plays her role as well as it demands and shows up the unknown US TV star who is the female lead. Elsewhere Tom Hardy is wasted 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 most notable.

The ministerial role he plays demands a high profile Brit. It's an attempt to lend the film an air of respectability. In Transformers Jon Voight 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 in Executive Decision. Suchet and films have never quite gelled. He's no Rickman or McKellan.

Flood is worth a watch on a wet Sunday afternoon, it's certainly not a bad film. Just an unimaginative and forgettable one.

I only watched the movie because Mr. Carlyle was playing in it. Even he played badly. The entire film felt like someone intended it to be a mini series and they were forced to cut it to pieces in order to make it last only 100 minutes. 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. It is not funny, it is not emotional, not intelligent and not thrilling. Just plain boring.

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.

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.

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.

I was a good 15 minutes into this movie before I realised that it was a serious film. The script is awful with dialogue being dreadfully written and acted out. Some of the effects are good, that was until I saw an obviously toy helicopter land. The plot is terribly weak and the use of camera angles and sudden zooming in on characters faces detract from the suspense rather than enhancing it. Avoid watching if you can unless there is absolutely nothing else to waste your time on.

This is a catastrophe movie set in London . Starting multiple hurricane,superstorm and tornadoes on Scotland are displaced towards East , downing England coast and later the South. After several hours of heavy rainful , the London barrier above Thames is short from running over, and it paves the way for disaster. Then a colossal tidal-wave travel relentless down East causing devastation and lives of millions of Londoners are in danger. 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 are trapped into the barrier and dropped to sea .Meantime the secret government agency HQ ruled by Nash(Joanne Whalley) under direct orders of deputy Minister(David Suchet) attempt to control many displaced and avoid more dead, approximately 200.000. They have a little time to save London from total catastrophe.

Perfectly acceptable drama-disaster with alright acting. Magnificent Tom Courtenay as a climatologist who predicts catastrophe and excellent Robert Carlyle and Jessalyn Gilsig as ex-matrimony rekindling their love. 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'. Although isn't a clear denounce, we know that the flood is caused by the greenhouse effect and global warming which originates the ozone hole. The motion picture is well directed by Tony Mitchell. I would recommend this movie to people who like disaster movies. Another adaptations about floods, are the following : 'Flood(1976)'directed by Earl Bellamy with Robert Culp and Barbara Hershey; 'Hard rain(1998)' directed by Mikael Salomon with Morgan Freeman and Christian Slater; ' Flood : a river's rampage(1979)' directed by Bruce Pittman with Richard Thomas

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.

Excellent special effects make this disaster move very plausible. One can see that the producers went to some trouble to get the displays on the computer screens just right - it all makes it very convincing. The sets are also very authentic looking. A good choice of music rounds off the film nicely.

Acting is good and the presence of David Suchet adds some weight to the cast of course. Compared to other movies of this genre, Flood is right up there with the best of them. Thankfully, the "human drama" aspect has not been overdone, as is often the case with this type of movie. 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! :)

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!

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!

'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.

When you read the premise, and see the cast list, you think you're going to be in for something quite special. The only thing I can really say is, didn't Ton Hardy develop his looks some years later? No, all joking aside, this really is a mess, the version I have is much longer then the running time suggests. 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. Some of the worst extras acting you will ever see, mass panic, and they're static, and at one stage grinning. It's 2007, but the effects look at times as if they've come from a 1970's Doctor Who story.

I remembered this quite don't, time has not been kind to it. 4/10

Everything is just stupid! The characters are stupid and incredibly irritating, the acting is bad, the dialogue is painful! Don't even bother!!

I love a good disaster movie and this one had a lot of potential. 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". These add nothing and detract from the pace of the movie. 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. Unfortunately it's a bit late for that.

How any actor could take part in this rubbish. The scrip was of the lowest quality for example the head of the flood barriers after getting on a boat downstream going with a high tide says "I must go back to the barriers" - how was she going to manage this given the strength of the tide she would have to swim against - a person in this position just would not say this ! A girl with her father trapped in a car says " we must get out of here" oh really!! These are just two examples of the poor scrip writing- The film was utter garbage.

But I ****ing loved it!

Every aspect of this film is awful. The acting, the direction, the editing, the music, the script, all of it. But it all comes together to make a masterpiece of a bad film. The scene with the two old biddies in the cottage that floods at the beginning sets it all up nicely.

Lots of whining and moaning on here but what do they expect? It's a disaster film they are all bad but at least it is not preaching political correctness from self righteous goons blaming man made climate change. it is a feasible idea and my advice to the people that have left poor reviews is, if you don't like disaster movies and are not prepared to enter into the spirit in which they are made don't spoil it for others with your 'dog in a manger' attitude!

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!