GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

ShangLuda Admirable film.

jabrbi There's nothing wrong with this film, if it had been made 20 years before. As a late '70's early '80's disaster film it would be pretty average for a member of the genre. However, coming in 2003 it's simply obviously dated, full of clichés, bad acting, terrible special effects, has an obvious and hackneyed plot, and is barely worth watching.There's the Baddie developer, who broke all the rules, secretly stashed a lot of money, blamed the architect - who was too stupid to notice that he wasn't to blame - spent all the money from a contract before it had been signed, has everybody in the town in his pocket (except for the ex-wife of the architect). Phew! I'm sure there are more clichés about the character, but my fingers are getting tired.There's the hero architect, who comes back to defend his reputation, try to make it up with his estranged son and wife, does everything he can to save the town, finds redemption, doesn't die. Yada, yada, yada.When the water flows through the town it's obviously a bucket of water superimposed on shots of the town, or a cup of water and some models.As I said, if this film had been made before 1985 it would have been a lot more acceptable. To have made a film of such low quality in the 21st Century is a travesty.

Robert Napier This movie doesn't even have the saving grace of being so bad that its good. It is truly appalling. Its closer to a tongue-in-cheek parody than a disaster movie, but alas they were serious. Made for TV, but not worthy of even that. It contains every cliché and cheesy plot moment you can imagine. Oh will he save the town from the flood? Will his wife admit that she still loves him? Will they escape before the flood drowns them? I cant explain how bad this is. Awful predictable plot that makes you wince it is so cheesy. Bad Effects (although to be fair I have seen worse super-imposed bubbling water). Bad script. Woeful acting. Hideous. So bad in fact that you probably should get drunk and watch it.

mark Why can't there be better TV movies made I was at a loose end today and watched this film on a satellite channel in the UK. What a terrible waste of my time it was . Poor sets, Poor acting & Oh my god what a terrible flood . Blimey that woman can even outrun a torrent of water too!.I really wish that people would make TV movies using better effects, better or at least more believable plots & far better acting. Killer Flood is well up there with poor acting. A few bits of ham couldn't act any worse.1 final thing I really agree with the comment about the dog, but I believe it would of already scarpered in real life!

drew-121 What a dreadful movie. The effects were poor, especially by todays standards, but that was forgivable. What was unforgivable was the terrible rehashing of every flood/dam breaks disaster movie ever made into this piece of trash. The acting was awful and I mean AWFUL. The point in the story where Michelle Green stops to rescue a dog from the approaching torrent was hilarious. They see the water approaching and run for their lives. (By the way they had to find a very old fat dog so as to not make Ms Green look to unfit). They manage to outpace the water for some time before taking refuge. What speed! Later, a speeding car is not fast enough to escape the torrent. God, she and that dog did run fast! If you want to watch a good movie about a dam breaking - this isn't it. Porchlight Entertainment turn out some good family films but this time they just missed the mark.