Flood

This film essentially begins with a helicopter pilot by the name of "Steve Brannigan" (Robert Culp dropping off a passenger in a small town known for its freshwater fishing in a lake created by a dam several years earlier. On his return flight, however, Steve notices that a little boy named "Andy Cutler" (Eric Olsen) is lying on the ground and seems to be hurt. That being said, he quickly lands his helicopter to check out the situation and, while doing so, notices that the dam has sprung a leak. Having been reassured that Andy is okay, Steve then tells a friend named "Paul Burke" (Martin Milner) about the leak in the dam. Upon hearing this, Paul becomes very concerned and goes to talk to the mayor of the town "John Cutler" (Richard Basehart) who downplays everything and suggests that relieving pressure on the dam by opening the flood gates would result in a loss of tourist dollars during the busiest time of the year. What he doesn't realize is that his stubborn attitude is going to do a lot more damage to the town than he could ever imagine. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this was an okay Erwin Allen disaster film which benefited from a solid cast and some decent suspense along the way. Admittedly, the made-for-television format didn't help this movie all that much but, even so, I suppose it passed the time well enough, and I have rated it accordingly. Average.

Let's face it, we're all probably more than a little guilty at watching 'disaster movies' to see the scale of whatever carnage is being inflicted on our helpless protagonists. I don't want to spoil 'Flood!' but in this case a small town is being threatened by a plague of locusts from the future. Only kidding. It's a flood. Or rather a big dam just by their town and if it breaks - and it's already starting to crack - it'll flood the town and home insurance is going to go through the roof when it comes to the residents' next premium.

So we're introduced to the two men who have an idea as to what might happen and they try to warn the rest of the town. Or at least they try to warn the town's leader, who - in tried and tested stubborn style - refuses to believe them because if they drain the water from the dam it will impact on the revenue that fishing brings into their local economy.

So our heroes persist in their efforts to warn more people (in between popping home to their respective women who look about twenty years their junior, but that's another story). And then they go to a different location and warn a different person. In fact, most of the film is set in - very dry - houses with people talking to people about what might happen, i.e. The flood.

It's only the last twenty minutes or so where you see the actual flood. Now, maybe this pay-off is so awesome and ground-breaking that it makes the build up worth the wait? Sadly, this is a TV movie and there wasn't much of a budget for big practical effects, let alone an alien invasion with a skybeam.

So you have a film which is quite long and desperately wants to be an epic in its genre, but the lack of anything that really happens just makes most of it drag. Pity really, as it does have its charms and with a little more money behind it for the effects in the final act and a little less scenes building up, this could have been quite good.

Among many other contemporary trends, hypes and sub-genres of the glorious 70s decade, yours truly is a diehard fan of typical disaster movies of that era! I love them so much! I've seen so many that I even developed a specific rating principle to check, via five simple little traits, if a certain disaster movie qualifies as good enough cheesy & clichéd entertainment!

Condition #1: without producer Irwin Allen, there wasn't a budget for special effects and thus no movie. Well, Allen was the producer of "Flood", but it's a made-for-TV film and hence the budget was significantly smaller than in, say, "The Towering Inferno" or "The Poseidon Adventure". Still, for a TV-film, it's looking quite good, so I'll give it 0,5 points. Condition #2: all disaster movies star one major star (Charlton Heston and Paul Newman were prime choices) and a long list of "secondary" stars (like Ernest Borgnine, Leslie Nielsen...). Another 0,5 points scored here. For reasons linked to the TV-movie status, there isn't a major star, but the list of secondary stars is nevertheless long and impressive: Robert Culp, Barbara Hershey, Richard Basehart, Cameron Mitchell, Roddy McDowall, Francine York, Teresa Wright, ... Condition #3: The characters are usually split into two camps with completely opposite ideals and/or initiatives. Oh, definitely the case here! The little Oregon fishing town of Brownsville is recovering after weeks of heavy rainfall and storm winds. Local entrepreneurs Steve and Paul are persuaded that the ecologically built dam will burst and drown the entire town, whereas the stubborn mayor irresponsibly keeps proclaiming that the dam will hold. Who do you think is right? Full point! Condition #4: Regardless what type of disaster we're dealing with, variants of the exact same perilous situations are always applicable. Yes, but limited. We have 9-months-pregnant women trapped in their homes, missing children and elderly women sacrificing themselves to rescue others, but that's about it. 0.75 points! Condition #5: always remember that, when the situation appears to be at its worst, it can and will still get even worse! I'm not handing out a point here. There aren't any sharks or piranhas coming along with the flood, the central hospital doesn't collapse, or the helicopter doesn't crash. So, theoretically speaking, Brownsville could be worse off.

All this adds up to a proper 2.75 rating, meaning "Flood!" is a recommendable and engaging disaster movie IF you are already familiar with the genre and if you are relatively tolerant. In case you seek pure blockbuster-fun, better stick to the mastodons of the era, like "Towering Inferno", "Earthquake" or the "Airport"-series.

PS: I'm still waiting for news on Roddy McDowall's character! Did he make it?

Irwin Allen was the king of disaster movies. It's not a surprise that he would base one around a flood. The film was OK, but the disaster wasn't the main thrust of the film.

From the beginning, the story line revolves around Paul Blake (Martin Milner) trying to convince the mayor that the town dam was unsafe. Richard Basehart as the mayor did a good job in the mayor's role. Probably the best performance was given by Robert Culp as helicopter pilot Steve Branagan.

My main criticism is that for a film built around the disaster, the disaster itself seemed underplayed. Stock footage of floods (it was a TV movie, so probably not big FX budget), and a brief time for its depiction.

Watch for 70's teen idol Leif Garrett to have a small part in this.

I'm a fan of the genre, so I gave it a 6. Your mileage may vary.

You ever watch a movie where the protagonist, even if he's in the right, is just so pushy and unlikable that you root against him? That's how it is with me and this TV disaster movie from producer Irwin Allen. The hero here is played by Martin Milner. He spends the entire first hour of the movie yelling at everyone, including women and senior citizens, one of whom he manhandles. He's so intense in every scene. It's like he's looking for a fight, even when he's talking to his buddy or his (much younger) girlfriend. He really got on my nerves. Then the flood comes and yay he was right - I guess - but I just kept hoping the flood would get him. Really obnoxious character. I found the selfish mayor putting people's lives in danger more sympathetic than this guy. Imagine watching Jaws and you root for the shark because Brody is such a dick.

Anyway, once the flood starts the movie becomes more entertaining, although even that is limited by TV budget restrictions. The rest of the cast is solid, with Robert Culp my favorite. There's a subplot involving a bandana of his that I found more interesting than every single thing involving Milner's character.