Category 7: The End of the World is almost like its prequel, a made for TV disaster movie miniseries that is heavy on drama. While this film has less subplots than the last one, the drama this go around is significantly more heavy. What is a big improvement is there's more of the disaster element to go around which is a major improvement, plus Randy Quaid is back as Tornado Tommy, it turns out he survived being thrown by the tornado which was a major surprise.Despite the improvement previously stated, the film stumbles due to the subplots and heavy drama which includes a pastor riding off of the fear of the public due to the storms to promote his ministry, personal relationships, and a major kidnapping of teenagers in Washington D.C.In the end this sequel is basically an unnecessary complexity of subplots and drama with more disaster.

This is one of those times that I wish I could give a zero score. "Category 7: The End of the World" uses the kind of pseudoscience you find in the the sci-fi movies from the late 50's and early 60's in an obvious attempt to make money from the politicization of global warming. The script is tired and predictable, no more rehash of other old ideas from other dooms-day weather movies. Not a single original idea. The performances of some of the actors are inconsistent and generally unconvincing. With a movie that is this weak you would expect the movie-makers to try to carry the film with good special effects. Unfortunately, I guess there was not enough budget or concern for quality for that either.

This is absolute garbage, unless it's some kind of subtle parody of the entire disaster film genre. If the latter were true, I'd submit that it's a little TOO subtle. Pretty much every scene, especially during the second half, fails on multiple levels.I didn't realize that this was a sequel, though that explains my extreme confusion at the start of the piece when a rapid succession of events and locations made me wonder if I'd grabbed a copy of the "Reader's Digest" version of the film or had somehow started the second half of it and was watching a recap. It was so confusing that I went back to the DVD menu to see which half of the thing I started watching.There're some good actors in this, as well as actors capable of more than they're often handed (Randy Quaid, for example), but there're also some whose acting skills I doubt; I've never really admired Shannen Doherty's thespian skills and some of the interchangeable-but-mostly-good-looking younger cast members likely belong to the "I'm pretty, so I'll be an actor" school of performance art. Even the best actors aboard this piece, including seasoned veterans like Tom Skerrit, Robert Wagner, and James Brolin, couldn't save the day. After a while, toward the end (finally!) of proceedings, I began to drift away with eyes wide open, realizing that I'd missed exactly who was dispatched by tornadoes and realizing simultaneously that I didn't care any more.I'm a scientist but I'm not a climate scientist. My knowledge of severe weather events falls pretty much into the general knowledge category, with some extra edge provided by working around climate researchers, reading tidbits relevant to my research interests in coral reefs and fishes, and having endured a few hurricanes because of exposure attendant to the nature of my research field. But even my minimal knowledge related to these kinds of weather events was offended by blatant errors in the script.First, obviously, there's no such thing as a Category 7 (or even Category 6) hurricane. Sure, the way things are going we may well have to extend the scale that far, so perhaps we can give them this one. There is still no excuse for rattling on about a Category 6 tornado, though -- they don't come in categories. And, particularly offensive to me even when I'm NOT wearing my scientist hat, the alleged scientists on screen here should be completely ashamed for referring to 'data' as a singular, as in "that data" (the correct, and ONLY correct, form would be "those data"). It's a small point, perhaps, but it's indicative of the sloppiness that's apparent here. Such sloppiness totally contrasts this piece with a film like "Dante's Peak," that quite well captured the feel of a field research team and for the most part did its homework (thanks to technical advisers and to the director's long-term interest in geology). These actors better never let me catch them again saying such things as "that data." Any real scientist who ever deploys such an atrocity should similarly be punished severely, perhaps by forcing them to watch this dreck.On the bright side, I did get to look at Gina Gershon for a while. In fact, looking at Gina Gershon -- generally a good idea -- will for me likely remain the most (only) memorable part of this entire production.I'm willing to lay off the production values, especially the special effects, given the budget and timeframe constraints they obviously faced. For the most part, the special effects are well done and where they fail it's usually more as a result of the bad science or other inaccuracies involved, not the actual effects themselves. The annoying, gimmicky cinematography, undoubtedly intended to portray hyperkinetic action throughout (this film rarely pauses, obviously its creators never heard how the most important parts of music, among other things, are often found in or bolstered by the pauses), at least helps cover for the general lack of perceptible peril in half of the perilous scenes.Also, there's lots of bright sunny weather for being in the middle of a gynormous weather event. And surprisingly little rain, as is sometimes the case, and what rain there is somehow manages to fall vertically during a hypothesized Category 7 hurricane. The most severe hurricane that I've endured (so far) had sustained winds of 120 mph and gusts up to 164 mph. There was talk of it still being a Category 4 when it struck (≥131 mph sustained), because the Weather Service's recording instruments were destroyed partway through, but it definitely was a good, solid Category 3. It's hard to keep a field scientist out of the field and, knowing that I was risking a Darwin Award, I was outside for a good chunk of the storm and (dodging all sorts of things that were flying about me and painfully aware of my fragility) videotaping the show. The force of that storm was such that I was able to do a handy Marcel Marceau leaning-into-the-wind impersonation with ease and peeking around the corners of buildings into the full force of the wind would not only snap my head back but really do a number on my eyes. Now, in this film we're supposedly talking about sustained wind speeds twice that and the actors are running around as if it was just a 50-mph breeze? And the rain's falling straight down, rather than coming in sideways like a billion bullets? Well, sure, I guess, in a universe in which a telephone pole affords protection form an incoming trailer home. Really, even if the science was right, this'd still be execrable simply because the writing's so dire.It's also how amazing how unbelievably (literally -- as in being absolutely unbelievable) quickly this unprecedented storm dissolved in the wake of DC turning off its power. I'd say it was an anticlimax but, really, by this point it was just a mercy killing.

I'm 1/4 way through watching this.. so riveted that I'm writing this as I'm continuing watching. See that audience in The Producers, all stunned and jaw-dropped in disbelief? That's me, that is.Godawful teevee soap with an agenda to see how many OTT special effects can be bolted on in the shortest time. This is the film Gerry Anderson would have made in 1965 if the "Thunderbirds" team had access to CGI but whoever writing the screenplay had never been to the cinemaOK, there are plenty of comments on this board about the laughable script, the casting, the competition to match silly stereotypes as closely as possible, the cheesy, overstating the obvious, PC subtext.Overall, it's like a text book illustration of "How to write to a tried and tested, lowest common denominator FORMULA." In that sense, it's quite informative and worth watching if you're with a film crew or bunch of journalists seeking to hone your analytical skills. Herein is the film's "strength" and also its core weakness as a piece of as-sold entertainment.So, in terms of cinema craft.It's lit like a documentary. Colour balance is all over th place in what is maybe an attempt to produce "It's real life" atmosphere with available light footage (footage?) edited in with a hatchet.The camera is tracking around and re-framing ALL the time, like yer uncle Joe filming a wedding. Actually, the camera work is, in a sense, extremely competent. Subjects in shot are "nicely framed" but every shot has pullbacks, tracking and a "we've paid for this dolly so we're damn-well going to get our money's worth out of it!!" MTV style that is pandering to a generation of film-watchers with no attention span who need to be constantly re-stimulated by intrusive cinematography. I think that's the crucial problem about this film, visually. The direction is constantly shouting "Whoo-Eeh! Look at me!!" instead of telling a story.As I said, think of uncle Joe shooting home movies. His over-riding thought is, "Hey, this is a MOVIE camera, not a boring, old-fashioned still camera, so everything ought to be moving all the time." So, wherever possible, it does. If the subject can't move, the camera does.I just got to the part with the smug evangelist rehearsing his stadium speech - it was so hilarious I had to rewind and play it again.Gerry Anderson would have been PROUD!.Gerry Anderson, of course, would have a truck or some-such crashing into a power pylon, a tree, a bridge support… Said struck object would always fall over, usually in flames and would ALWAYS explode at least once or twice as it hit the ground. Anderson is my favourite closet pyromaniac, ably sent-up in "Team America." I'm halfway wondering if Category 7: The End of the World is a subconscious homage to the genre. The acting and dialogue would be entirely suited to puppetryI'll finish watching this now. If my opinion changes, I'll edit this post later.