User reviews

I'll admit that having heard all these negative things about this 2 part movie, that it wasn't all that bad. It certainly wasn't as bad as I had expected but it also really wasn't too much good either.

The movie is filled with many stupid silly plot-lines. They are so all formulaic that none of them offers any surprises. On top of that, the dialog in the movie is absolutely horrible. At times it even manages to become laughable. This is the sort of typical dramatic disaster movie that features many characters in it, of which none really ever work out as an interesting or engaging one.

This movie isn't about natural disasters, this is about people and their personal problems. Now is that anything new or interesting? I mean, I've I wanted to follow a story like this I would watch a soap opera in stead. It's the sort of mistake "Deep Impact" and disaster movies in general often make. The movie at times tries to put in morale in about the environment and global warming and such but all those things come across as forced and look silly because of that in the movie.

It seems to take for ever before the introduction and build-up in the story stops. There is a lot of talking about natural disasters but not enough of it gets actually shown on the screen. The movie is too long on its drama.

The use of news archive material of bad weather conditions and tornadoes is too obvious. It makes the movie seem even more cheap and silly.

There are some good actors in the movie but even they can't make the movie work out fully- or the dialog. Randy Quaid, Dianne Wiest and Brian Dennehy are no small time actors. Guess they also regret being in this, looking back at it.

But the movie does a good job at keeping the pace high, even though when nothing is happening. For a made for TV production this really wasn't all that bad. I mean, I have seen far worse attempts. The movie was overall good looking, despite of the weak and cheap special effects. But I don't really see what's the big deal about it, since the special effects get never featured that prominently in the movie. I therefor also feel that some of the negativity toward this movie is for most part unjustified. Not that it deserves raving criticism but its a decent attempt that does not bore but just becomes too silly and unlikely in parts.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Sort of like a train wreck, I had to watch this and part seven. Very goofy, but had some interesting yet predictable plot lines.

The whole message of this series (at least the two parts I watched) seemed to be that we humans are bad, bad creatures. According to what I gleaned from these two parts: We and we alone caused global warming, should recycle more, should stop driving and should stop using so much energy. And of course, all energy companies are evil.

A very preachy series! Oy!

Some of the plots were predicable. Like Chandra West and Thomas Gibson in their obvious extra-marital affair, crisis with family, resolve issues during weather disaster.

Randy Quaid was a hoot as he more or less did a reprise of his "Independence Day" role as a whacked-out misfit.

A lot of the special effects were repeated in both 6 & 7 (like a skyline view of Chicago then a skyline of Washington, D.C., with the same carnage in the foreground - or a repeat shot of a power plant, one in Chicago, one in D.C.).

I had to suspend disbelief as the time-line of many of these events and scenes defied logic.

Overall – poorly written storyline with average acting and quirky special effects.

The first two hours of the televised version are full of character and plot exposition -- after an early brief sequence of Las Vegas being hit by tornadoes, the action doesn't really start until the second two hours. Still, some character relationships don't become clear until the second part. The actors turn in competent performances, but nothing special (however, better than those in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York"). An exception is Randy Quaid, whose character is superfluous and incredibly annoying. The plot is a pretty standard mix of parts of "Independence Day", "Speed", "The Day After Tomorrow", "Earthquake", "The Towering Inferno" and several other films. You can predict what will happen next, and come close to predicting the dialog, word for word. The special effects are unbelievably bad. Despite the effects in "Twister", the tornadoes in this film seem less realistic than the one in "The Wizard of Oz" and other effects were obviously done for less money than such series as "CSI" and "Cold Case" spend on the totality of a single episode. If you have to see a made-for-TV disaster film, see "The Day After", "Asteroid", or "Special Bulletin" instead -- you'll get better plots, acting, and effects.

In Australia, this was screened all in one night (in Feb 2005) beginning at 7:30pm and ending at 11:30pm, four hours!

Independence Day (1996) did the CGI filmed city destroyed-thing and since then, all other disaster films (like this one) must be compared to ID4. No one will ever do it as good as ID4 so forget about even trying. But Category 6 has HUMAN things to watch, instead of the effects. So this makes it okay.

Brian Dennehy holds the show together with his fine acting, he plays an old man who gives a young female worker a go when others in the office don't. That might sound simple but such things hold my attention more than the crap FX seen in this show (The Towering Inferno-type seen of the chopper landing on the office building is painful!). The sub-plot involving the two women stuck in the lift is well performed and scripted. The sub-plot in the bank is also well done.

All in all, Category 6 is not too bad at all. However, if you look back at 1970s television disaster movies such as Irwin Allen's Flood (1976) or Irwin Allen's The Adventures Of The Queen (1975), you can see that something is sadly missing from these modern TV takes on the disaster genre...music.

Richard LaSalle scored those 1970s productions and his music brought life to any scene, even to a simple scene of a chopper taking off! It all comes down to a thing called film showmanship...which is partly missing from Category Six.

A wasted effort. On the surface it's a typical disaster movie: we're involved in the lives of a few people who get caught up in the Big Event. However, the script is so awful and there's so much explaining of the characters' background within the dialogue that we feel we're being treated like morons. Even Sesame Street didn't explain the origins of Mr Snuffleupagus or how Mr Hooper died: we can work it out. Someone thought that entering 'Enron' into the script would give it currency when discussing power companies. The acting is by and large bland, with the exception of the older performers (Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy), and after the first hour, I couldn't care less about who the storms took out.

But maybe there are the special effects to watch. Sadly, no. Even on a 20-year-old TV set I could see one tractor and trailer were computer-generated—badly. Maybe there are budgetary limitations, so I can forgive that one. Footage of a plane trying to land looked pretty real, but I kept telling myself I had seen that before. This site confirms it: it was from an earlier film, Nowhere to Land.

So in summary, the only good bits are from another film, and when you see the best action sequences compressed into a 30-second network promo, it makes Category 6 look quite good. My advice: rely on your network to do some good 30-second clips, watch them, and save yourself two nights.

I was sitting at home and flipping channels when I ran across what potentially sounded like an interesting film. I like Destruction type movies and decided to watch it. I don't know why but I ended up watching it the whole 2 hours. We have seen this type of movie I don't know how many times.

Back in 1998 - 2000 there were dozen of films that dealt with global destruction of some sort. The best one on my list so far is Deep Impact which was more believable than this one. Here are my problems with this film: 1) cheap special effects, like something out of the old computer. 2) no background information or explanation on weather patterns. If you are going to make a movie about weather, at least have some decency to entertain the viewer with technical details. 3) How come only 2 or 3 people figure out that the storm is converging on Chicago... no more experts left in the field? 4) where are some interesting characters? I truly don't care for anyone except maybe the pregnant woman. I felt that there was no character development. 5) no thought provoking moment what so ever and factually incorrect theme. And this is only the first part of the film. I bet the conclusion will show us few destruction scenes and a search and rescue operation just like it has been done many times before. And judging by the special effects in the first part of the movie, I can only imagine what we are to expect. Of course, at the end, the main characters will survive and life will go on... how original

Anyone who complains about Peter Jackson making movies too long should sit through this CBS "event". There's about 45 minutes of story padded by 2 hours of unnecessary subplots, featuring bland by-the-book TV drama clichés. Bad science is a staple for crappy weather disaster movies, so I'm not going to complain about that. Silly science can be fun to watch if it's executed in an amusing fashion. What kills this movie is it's 10 subplots... all of which could be excised without destroying what is supposed to be the central plot. The one character that is entertaining to watch in Category 6 is Tornado Tommy, despite being a very annoying stereotype.

Note that I also didn't bother commenting on special effects. Their quality should come as no surprise.

Not recommended.

Mitch (Thomas Gibson) is an executive with a power company serving the Chicago area. Although he has a loving wife and two wonderful kids, he is having an extra-curricular affair with a public relations officer at his company named Rebecca (Chandra West). How unfortunate this is for everyone, naturally, especially since one of the children, teenage Lindsey, is also dealing with boyfriend issues. Meanwhile, television news reporter Amy (Nancy McKeon) is determined to find out why the city is experiencing a number of blackouts but Mitch and Rebecca are not being very forthcoming. Also, a top climate scientist (Brian Dennehy) is getting many bizarre readings at this Windy City office, making him equally anxious about the coming week of weather. Indications are that a strong northern cold front and the present hot temperatures are about to bring on massive storms. His staff is working overtime but no one knows what to expect. Also, Amy's pregnant sister is close to delivery and her pilot husband may be away from home, making Amy's presence valuable. Not far away, in Kansas, Tornado Tommy (Randy Quaid) takes tourists on storm chases but he, too, is fairly worried about current conditions in the region. So is the United States Department of Energy Secretary (Dianne Wiest) If a bad storm, stronger than any known tornado, does hit, what will happen to these fine denizens of Second City? For fans of disaster films, this one works quite well. The large cast is very capable and the special effects are done well. One scene, in particular, involving Quaid and his run-in with "the big one" is quite intriguing. Since much of the film is devoted to the problem of global warming, too, science fiction lovers and ecology-minded individuals will also be interested in a viewing. Therefore, if you fall into any of these categories or just want to see something "different" tonight, look for this interesting movie.

Fist of all don't listen to the negative critics here this movie was made for TV and was the highest rated Mini-Series in 2 years for CBS (because it was good)Part 1 had 19.4 million viewers, Part 2 17 million. If you've seen some of these wackadoo Sci-Fi Channel movies this is not one of them. Area51 FX used a combination of actual stock footage blended with cgi and LightWave3D Modeling to create the FX with a budget close to $15 million. Keep in mind of just over a thousand reviews on IMDb 12.5% give this movie a 10 over on Amazon of 34 reviews it scores a 3.5 out of five. Not to shabby some people just like to pick fun movies apart as if this was meant to be Shakespearean its not its meant to be what it is a DISASTER MOVIE. Some movies with larger budgets have their flows to like 2012 which had a monster budget and awesome FX had a single family plot line while all heck breaks loose around the world same for DAY AFTER TOMORROW. This excellent TV-movie gives us several characters, some better than others and while I liked the other movies mentioned so much so that I bought them on Blu-Ray I just ordered the sequel CATEGORY 7 on Blu-Ray after watching this one on Sci-Fi channel over the weekend. Great fun, Very Good Special FX, some funny and interesting characters, likable acting and actors for me these days with some lame movies on TV this was a cut above 8 out of 10 stars for keeping me seated the full 3 hours.

This made for TV film is about every cliché you can come up with for a disaster movie. The only problem is it isn't very well done.

My brain is still insulted from the scenes in which Brian Dennehy is supposedly looking at a computer monitor looking for weather pattern data and showing on that monitor are stock footage scenes of weather turmoil ala The Weather Channels commercials. Why would watching local news footage of a washed out side-street give insight to global weather patterns? You got me.

Also interspersed through out the first two hours are some of the worst CGI effects known to man. Watch for the semi truck and the airplane that look like they were rendered on a Commodore 64.

All the foreshadowing in this "movie" is done with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, the dialog is forced and I can't think of a likable character that I want to survive the second half.

The character I hate the most is the stupid wife who's husband is cheating. Maybe if she lifted a finger at anytime during the show instead of being a helpless woman who stands in the the same 10 square feet of the kitchen all day her husband wouldn't be sleeping with the PR rep for a rival energy company. She is so helpless, in fact, I want to put her out of her and my misery. I hope everyone in this "movie" dies in the second half.

There have been some great television movies in that past. Epics such as "Roots" and "Lonesome Dove" come to mind. Category 6: Day of Destruction will not be remembered for advancing the cause of made-for-TV movies. A laughably bad story, surpassed only by the horrible screenplay, Cat6DD, as I like to call it, inspires more sympathy for the actors involved than terror in nature that the movie was supposed to bring out. That sound you hear during the movie is supposed to be the sound of wind, but instead it's actually the careers of Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy, and Thomas Gibson (Greg, of the Dharma & Greg duo) plummeting faster than houses and trucks and cows can fly away from one of the 15 tornadoes we see in the first 5 minutes of the movie. The movie was advertised as "nature gone amok," instead we get a lame story about how 15 different weather systems conspire to produce 150 degree days in Chicago, then a blizzard the next day from a hurricane that was in the Gulf of Mexico that combined with a storm system from Canada but actually had it's origins in a jet stream changed by global warming.... ENOUGH!! It didn't matter what the story was, the acting was terrible, the words the actors said were dumb, and 13 scientists throughout the country had coronaries after hearing the dribble that came out of the movie. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, the special effects were sub-par, even for made-for-TV standards, and the story lines were pointless. All in all, I really really dislikes this "TV event."

I can't believe I actually spent almost three hours of my life watching this. This must be one of the most unbelievable, predictable and cheesy television movies I have seen in a long time. I was hoping for some good special effects and action, instead I spent the entire time rolling my eyes and yelling "OH COME ON!!!", at the screen. The dialog is shallow and obvious, the acting strained at times and as the story moves along, isn't it just funny how EVERYTHING happens at the same time... Not to mention the obvious and nauseating ending... Now I've seen more than my share of disaster movies, I am a big fan actually, and think that often they can pull off completely unrealistic stuff as long as it's done in a fun way, but this is definitely not it. This is just an insult to intelligent viewers everywhere. What were they thinking when they made this movie?????

I enjoyed this movie but i believe there were some flaws in it. The realism in the movie was very good however i feel that the animated graphics could have been better. Also on the DVD i think that they should have remastered so that it would be played in 5.1 Digital sound so that you can get a better feel of what the terrors of these storms can do. The plot was very easy to follow. I like how the producers were taking you in all different directions at one time to show you what was going on in different parts of the city and the nation all at the same time. This movie rolled all of the reality thrillers and emotional stress into one. From a love affair to the corporate cover up. A very well made movie i would recommend this movie to many other viewers who enjoy realistic thrillers.

This movie has to be the worst film I have seen. There is a reason it was made to be a MOW (Movie of the week). The continuity was all wrong (palm trees in a Chicago setting even though it was filmed in Toronto, Canada), the effects were left to be desired for the year of 2004. HELLO. "Lord of the Rings" had better CGI than that. But I guess they also had the money for it. The budget will for sure affect the outcome but anyone that calls this MOW more than a 2 needs to go back to Film and TV school. Next time remember that care and time make a classic not rushing for a tornado box office or TV smash hit.

Also, I know networks can reuse footage from old networks or affiliates but using 80's footage for 2004? I have a hard time buying that.

Okay, I watched this because I am a weather freak and I thought that maybe, just MAYBE the plot would be better than "Day After Tomorrow" or that it would have a plot for that matter and that the weather might be more realistic. Let's just say it's a much more low budget version of the film that was made for TV. Although I must admit that some of the special effects were all right. And the plots made some sense here and there.

Why have so many great actors (Thomas Gibson, Dianne Wiest, Randy Quaid) waiste their time on this??? Why not run some reruns of CSI or something like that instead? I wouldn't go out of my way to watch this if I were you.

Just my opinion though.

Come on you guys--it's a dandy no brainer. Let yourself go. It's quite a ride. I loved the veiled references to George W. by Secretary Abbott and her assistant. Let business run riot and we get Enrons and all kinds of devious stuff. And regardless of John Stossel, the government is the only control we've got. A big part of any story is the actor's performances which I thought were quite well done. Some of the dialogue was corny but I imagine in the same circumstances it would be hard to come up with award winning comments. And that's part of the humanity of any story like this. I'm just mad that they had led me to believe that a flood was one of the results of the storm coming from the North and there was none. I wanted to see how they could get out of the many advices for citizens to head for secure main floors and basements with the flood coming. So they just chickened out.