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.

This film is not as bad as everyone says if you empty your mind first. OK, the special effects are terrible, but that's the result of low funding I guess. But if you look at it in an artistic point of view like you should with every motion picture, it's not a bad movie. The makers, writers, actors and everybody else who worked on this film worked hard and believed in it! So in that angle, even if there were a few flaws in the scientific details and perhaps critics on other levels where viewers themselves exceed in? I have no knowledge of weather forecast or tornado's or any of that. I'm an economic by education. But like I said, if you rest your mind and view this for recreational purpose (as you always should) it's OK, I even thought the story was plausible, about the heat of the cities and so on (I don't want to write a spoiler). And I liked Randy Quaid in here! He's always funny! And as a surprise to me (I didn't study the cover closely when I rented it) there was Shannen Doherty. Good looking' and I think she is a good actress!Just watch this on a rainy hang-over Sunday and free your mind.Oh yeah, I rated this film a 10 to pump up the average. My personal vote would be 7.

this movie is the sequel to Category 6:Day of Destruction.like category 6,this one deals with a series of catastrophic storm systems, many converging together at one time,creating a series of super storms around the globe.however,this time an unprecedented category 7 is imminent over Washington,D.C which will leave the city in ruins,killing thousands of people.the government and the disaster agencies must find a way to avert disaster.there is also another,non weather related element to deal with,which adds another dimension.will disaster be averted?you will have to watch the movie to find out.there is obviously a ton of action,as in the original.the cgi is quite good for a made for TV movie.the acting however,did not seem as convincing this time around.There are a few strictly minor league (b movie or lower quality)actors/actresses in this movie.also,this movie is much more preachy than the first.at times, it is almost a sermon on pollution and global warming.that put me off a fair bit.the movie is much faster paced than Category 6,so it does movie quicker.the big problem however,is,how do you make the movie more intense than the last one?i don't think you can.the movie is certainly louder,but visually,it had been already been done In the original.and although the movie had some tense moments,i wouldn't call it thrilling,and it wasn't really a fun experience.overall, i'd have to give this movie 6/10

Well, this movie started exactly where category six left off as we all know. I do think that category 6 had a more enjoyable story, but thats not what people watch these movies for, unless they really don't know a thing when it comes to these kind of movies. These movies are meant for pure, twisted entertainment, and i think Category 7 gives it all to u. I think about every person has fealt like they had to watch a "disaster" movie for a weird reason. People are just drawn to them.The fact is...don't look into his for an award winning drama. Cause your not gonna get one. This is A special FX extravaganza. or watever. I have to say with the 15 million dollar, they exceeded ALL my expectations. Better FX than much of the movies I've seen on the big screen. So, be a little better judge for this movie. 1 star is not the type to give to a disaster movie, and then go around and talk about how lame the script was, cause you should know what ur up for. I personally thought it was good, thats just me. The people behind the scenes, the ones that worked for days on end, deserve all the praise. The Emmy nominated sound crew, and the well deserved people behind the special FX did unbelievably good. I say give this movie a chance if your up for seeing the eiffel tower fall and much much more.