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.
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.