Not as good as the book

You think? I read the book twice and it is one of the best disaster novels ever written. They left out the most important part of the disaster and that was the massive firestorm caused by the supertanker ramming the LNG Depot and the subsequent fires that leap-frogged each other and caused the destruction of the houses of parliament, London Bridge as well as all of the buildings and the other bridges along the Thames. What the flood didn't destroy the fires finished. The movie hardly touched the massive loss of life as people drowned and burned alive. The author of the book i think is telling us that the story he told is true (it just hasn't happened yet.) The part about the supertanker is the only part that is most likely not to happen given the tanker's captain could hardly speak English. The movie didn't do justice to the tens of thousands of people who died from the flood alone. Someone should remake this film and get Richard Doyle to do the screenplay even if they have to make it into two films or do it as a 4 x 2hr miniseries.

pmusson

[deleted]

Yeah, I've been reading the book and I was surprised to discover that it has almost nothing in common with the movie. I can see why the book was pretty much unfilmable and had to be changed -- too many characters who we only see for a few pages and no main characters at all -- but the writers of this movie took a pretty good disaster novel and turned it into a predictable pile of cliches.

Good god, the book this was based upon had to be one of the worst novels I've ever read based on the fact that the author tried to convince everyone that water will suddenly start running, get this, uphill, and never soak back into the ground again, ever.