Well, I recently got a hold of a used VHS tape, very cheap, with 2 disaster-of-nature flicks on it. I stumbled upon them on a flea-market and just took it home because of the cool cover-art (paintings of water/fire-disasters, not shown here on IMDb). So I sat down this afternoon and watched the first one on the tape, FLOOD! And I can say right away that the most exciting thing about this movie indeed was... the cover-art! And, yes, I know this is a 1976 made-for-TV movie, but still I expected quite a lot more from it and I feel like the film-makers could have done a lot better. The first 45 minutes of the movie are just too tedious. Sure, a lot of different characters are introduced, but they say or do nothing interesting at all. And what's even worse: Roddy Mcdowall's character gets introduced during the first scenes (apparantly he's a wealthy tourist on a fishing holiday), and after that, he never re-appears in the movie! The other main characters, basically just couples (husbands & wives and soon-to-be-married folks) have nothing else to do than to basically grab every opportunity to say "I love you" to one and other (over the phone, while meeting in a hospital,...). And naturally, there's this Brannigan-character (played by Robert Culp) running around warning everybody about the dam that's about to break, and of course nobody, especially the mayor (what did you expect?), believes him. I got somewhat excited when Barbara Hershey's name came up on the opening credits, but boy, did she portray one of the most disappointing female characters of the movie! <br /><br />And when the dam finally breaks, it's just pretty pathetic. All you see, is some sort of wall of mud crumbling down. It doesn't even look like a dam. The one thing I really hoped for, was seeing some well-crafted miniatures of town-buildings getting flooded with river water. But nope. Nothing like that at all. One or two shots have some water running through a street (with easy-to-figure-out not-so-special-effects), some living rooms with water in them and a kid floating in a river holding on to a tree. And on top of that, we get several stock footage of real floods (mostly air-shots) which poorly match the main look of the film.<br /><br />So, this really is a rather uneventful film, and the only thing you can say about it is that it's not particularly badly made and features OK acting. It's one of those movies you just might end up watching when it comes up on TV while you're 'zapping' channels and have absolutely nothing else to do. On the other hand, you might also keep on changing channels.<br /><br />I suppose there are fans of disaster-movies out there, and they just might dig FLOOD! on some levels. I just got nothing out of it. I sure hope the other movie (FIRE!) on the tape is better.