It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Floods of Fear is directed by Charles Crichton who also co-adapts the screenplay with Vivienne Knight from the novel written by John and Ward Hawkins. It stars Howard Keel, Anne Heywood, Cyril Cusack, Harry H. Corbett, John Crawford and Eddie Byrne. Music is by Alan Rawsthorne and cinematography by Christopher Challis. Two convicts and one guard are washed away into a flood after the barrier they were building collapses. Ending up at the flooded farmhouse of Dr. Matthews (John Phillips), the men find that the doctor is not at home but his daughter Elizabeth (Heywood) is. Soon enough tensions rise to boiling point, especially since one of the cons, Donovan (Keel), appears to be innocent of the murder he is locked up for, and he has revenge on his mind... Something of a legend for his directing work for Ealing Studios, Charles Crichton does a fine job blending a suspenseful action thriller with film noir thematics. Though primarily known for comedies (his last film would be A Fish Called Wanda), Crichton had already shown he had a considerable eye for noir with the brilliant and under seen Dirk Bogarde starrer Hunted (1952), only difference here is that the setting is predominantly set on or near water, and it really works for dramatic purpose. The flood recreation scenes are excellent, be it our protagonists/antagonists flailing about in the water trying to keep alive, or the destruction sequences as houses and various other parts of the watery landscape falling by the wayside, there is high peril crafted out there on those waters. With Challis' (Footsteps in the Fog and latterly Arabesque) beautiful black and white photography making a mark, and Rawsthorne's (Uncle Silas/Pandora and the Flying Dutchman) musical score suitably stirring, the tech credits are high grade for such a Brit production. It's the character dynamics that really seal the deal to make this a film well worth seeking out. Keel is full on brooding machismo, who seems to have the world on his shoulders, but he always convinces as a man to turn to in a crisis. Cusack is a nutter, no beating around the bush, he would stab you as soon as look at you, and he has very unhealthy designs on Elizabeth. Which brings us to Heywood, who as the sole female of the piece gives a real stoic performance, she's constantly pulled from pillar to post, drowned like a rat, and she has to balance fear, bravado and romance, which she does admirably. While Corbett, who would find fame in the hugely popular TV comedy show Steptoe & Son, provides the requisite officialdom axis in the play. All good really. 7.5/10

I have seen this film several times since its first airing on TV in the 1960s, and I ALWAYS watch it .... it's a very compelling feature, firstly because we see Howard Keel (a popular American singer/actor in many famous Hollywood light musicals of the 1950s) and Harry H Corbett (the British co-star of BBC-TV's long-running 1960s comedy "Steptoe & Son") in non-typical roles.Secondly, the problem of being trapped in a flood, or even any natural disaster, makes for a viable dramatic background in a story of revenge and suspense. Filmed in Britain, but set in Canada, the movie points out how Nature can upset, without warning, the various plans of humans. In this particular case, it is the aim of Howard Keel to track down John Crawford, playing the man who framed Keel for the murder of his (Keel's) wife, and then took over Keel's business! Without repeating what others have said here, yes, there are some moments of outrageous melodrama typical of the cinema scene of the late 1950s, mixed in with some very exciting moments. Keel's ambition to mete out the well-deserved ultimate punishment (in Keel's mind) on Crawford is eventually mitigated by the love of the new woman in his life. All very convenient, and acceptable "for dramatic purposes".What I found unconvincing was the fight scene at the end, where Keel and Crawford rained what seemed like hundreds of blows on each other's faces and bodies, while they struggled, rolling from shack to shack. Keel got the last few blows in on Crawford's face, which by now should have been mangled into pulp.This potentially great drama ends with an almost comedic line, when some medically-unqualified labourer takes a quick glance at the bleeding, bruised and battered head of Crawford and announces to the awaiting crowd; "He's gonna be all right!" Of course, this movie's final scene fits in with the credo of those days that all films should have a "happy" ending. The fact that Keel set out with full premeditation to kill this man, but only ended up scarring him for life, does not deter the audience from accepting him as the hero of the film.As I said, the action and adventure in this movie are compelling, but the morals are somewhat flawed.

What a picture! Howard Keel taking on a major flood, several arch enemies and a girl to boot. Everything about this picture was simply amazing and fantastic. You felt the characters' desperation as they fought against each other and against the raging flood waters. Keel was in his element in a way that he never was before except maybe in his dual role in "Callaway Went Thataway." Granted, I have drooled over Keel in many of his musicals and still get a pleasant shiver down my spine when I hear him sing and belt out "Bless Your Beautiful Hide," but it were these dramatic roles that really set him apart. I only wish he made more of them. The final fight was one for the record books and Keel's athleticism throughout the entire film was tremendous. I recently saw "Floods of Fear" on TCM and can honestly say that for the first time in years, when the movie ended I nearly screamed. I wanted more Keel and more of the action. It was that kind of film. Good job, Keel and bless YOUR beautiful hide!

I saw this movie only once - in 1959 when it came out. I was only about 9 years old at the time and it scared me. But at the same time I really liked it - to me it seemed to be an adventure film. Of course that was only the mind of a nine year old. I did not realize the real drama going on till now, as I think about it. The characters--of whom I remember Howard Keel most because I had seen him in a good many movies before this one. I expected to hear him sing--since most of his movies had been musicals. But he really was forceful and did a good job of making the most of his role. I thought he can act as well as sing! The film was tense- and full of suspense. To this day I am afraid of large bodies of water. All and all I found this a film I would like to see again. Unfortuanaley I have not been able to find it on video or on TV. I recommend it and hope to see it and also add it to my collection.