Some things I liked some I did not.

Lack of good storyline.

just watch it!

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

I've seen this movie on video, and was not impressed at all. The 1953 flood was an unbelievable disaster, 1800 people died in that night. That does not come out at all in the movie. A lot of water, but no drama. Why does Julia not look in the basket when she recognized the crying of the baby ? Why doesn't she even try to pull out her mother or sister ? When she goes under herself in the beginning, you see strands of hair floating as if she is wearing a wig. Her hair is dry when she arrives at the party in the beginning of the movie, although she has been going to the party on a bicycle in a heavy rainstorm, with only a fabric scarf.

i also saw this movie yesterday , i was impressed , i think it was a great movie ,the big action in the beginning of the movie , didn't make you fall asleep.instead of a boring talking start of the movie , it shows you immediately the big bang , how the water destroyed the helpless people by surprise. it shows very realistic how this all did happen. now finally we all can see and understand what the people had been through in 1953.BUT the movie is not ABOUT the storm , . if people see this movie , they might expect to see a movie about the storm like a disaster movie. there is lots of disaster to see but the storm was not the big subject here .the real story here is about a mother looking for her disappeared baby. the storm disaster itself here is just a part of the movie to show in what time this story did happen.for this reason i think they could have called the movie a different name ,because this movie was all about the young mother , they could have called the movie , The Zeeuws Girl , just an example( Zeeuws because that is the name from the area where she lives) that would have been a more honest name for this movie. because the movie is about HER and her baby . and then when people see the movie they find out it all happened during the storm .Just like in MASTERPIECE The Pianist . they didn't call the movie THE WAR ! because that movie was not ABOUT that war but about that pianist , than watching the movie you find out it happened during that war . a very cool way and honest way for a movie to profile itself. that movie would probably confuse when Polanski would call that movie THE WAR , and then people would see a movie about a pianist , so 10 points for Polanski by the way ... so no confusion creating by wrong chosen name for a moviei understand why they want to call this movie THE STORM , because they want to attract people with this name , but too bad it gives confusion when people will see a film about a mother and her baby . still a great movie . and still a must see . i liked everything about it. would actually be better if her son in the end was meeting his never met younger sister or brother . where are the new kids from the mother ? did she never get new kids again with her new boyfriend ? that would be a nice happy end . maybe i should be a filmmaker ?lucky in this movie they didn't speak in Zeeuws dialect , nobody would probably understand that dialect , except of course the people who speak that dialect in that area. go see the movie and be ready to wipe your tears.

I saw this movie yesterday. I was pleasantly surprised for the theatre was completely sold out. Which does not happen often when a Dutch movie is released. Maybe it has to do with the history which the dutch have with the water. For non-dutchmen: The dutch have a long history in the fight against water. In fact: half of the country is below sealevel and can only exist because of the so called Deltaplan, a construction of dikes and other measures to prevent a disaster like what happened in the night of 2/3 february 1953. This disaster is the background of the story told in De storm .The story is about a girl who has just become a mother 5 weeks ago. In the complete madness of what happens after the dikes break and the water is in the peoples houses she gets separated from her child. The rest of the movie she is looking for her kid. In doing so we follow her and we see the full picture of what impact the disaster has (dead cows in the water, families ripped apart, people praying to God, others saying its Gods will, etc.)I would say the acting is done very well. The story is good. Only thing is: if you expect to see a disastermovie like towering inferno, day after tomorrow etc. this is not the wright movie for you. It is realism with a big touch of drama.Was the movie any good. I would say so. Story is good, acting OK, special effect are great (you actually see the water flooding towards the houses), a true accomplishment considering the low budget. For me the main reason to call this movie a good movie is the reaction of the people in the theatre. People were at the edge of their seat the whole time and I actually heard some people say "Basterd!" to someone who didn't want to help the main character. They were completely 'in the movie'.Maybe not an Oscar, but certainly worth a nomination.

56 years after the devastating 'big flood' of 1953 the tragedy finally makes it to to the big screen. After a wait this long it's even more a shame that such a big event in Dutch history turned out to be such a disappointing movie. Where other movies, like for instance Titanic, successfully use a personal drama as a metaphor for the bigger picture, 'De Storm' gets lost in a totally unrealistic and very one dimensional story about a woman losing her baby. The movie ends up almost ignoring the tragedy all those other thousands of people where facing during this flood. The characters in this movie aren't properly introduced so as a spectator you feel no connection at all with the leading roles. The dialogs are very poor and the acting, especially from leading lady Sylvia Hoeks, is a disgrace!!! Just do yourself a favor and avoid this movie