Marshal Phipps Category 6: Day of Destruction is difficult to keep up with due to various subplots. Instead of a simple disaster flick the audience is going to also get an amplitude of environmental abuse, job cuts, global warming, aging industrial infrastructure, computer hackers, corporate corruption, and etc.This movie isn't just about natural disasters and the convoluted subplots, it is also about people and their personal problems revolving around natural disasters. There is much talk about natural disasters but not enough of it gets actually shown on the screen, there are good parts likes the tornadoes in Las Vegas, St. Louis, and Chicago, but they tend to be overshadowed due to the films plot structure which is heavy on drama.There are some good actors in the movie. Randy Quaid makes a memorable performance as Tornado Tommy.For a TV movie miniseries this really wasn't all that bad, I have seen far worse attempts. The special effects are impressive for a TV production, it's mainly the effects that keeps the film from failing.

jabrbi When you're halfway through a disaster movie and you find yourself rooting for the disaster, then you know that something's gone wrong. As usual for these types of movies I found myself hoping that all the lead characters would just die, the sooner the better. The only person I liked was the cranky artist who gets stuck in a lift. Other than that it's just a bunch of walking clichés that should have been shot at the earliest opportunity.Not only are the characters the usual clichés - whiny teenagers who fall apart at the first sign of trouble, the evil corporation bosses who prize money over safety, the old, exhausted boss due to retire who knows everything and the bureaucratic idiot replacement, the pilot hero who can keep flying for 150 hours straight, the dogged reporter, the bonkers hacker - but the plot holes are big enough to sink Chicago in. And, of course, nobody does anything logical.A huge plot point is that the power goes out in Chicago, and then there's a huge effort to bring the power back online, and then the 'hacker' who took the power out tries to bring the power back online, again. However, he seems to have no ability to see that the power is already on? Why? Don't bother looking for an explanation, there isn't one. So the power goes out, then it's on briefly, and then it's out again - because power plus power equals zero. So there's no power, except when a protagonist HAS to make a vital phone call, or when a siren HAS to go off on top of a building, or a computer connection has to be made, ...The movie looks like it had a decent enough budget, or there's warehouse in America with over a hundred hours of disaster footage. Sadly, the budget wasn't spent on a decent script, or better actors. A lot of lines felt as though they were place markers until a better line was created. Sadly, the better lines never turned up. Were the actors any good? Can't tell as there was no need for anyone to act, they just had to deliver awful lines with wooden faces.Why can't people make a disaster films and concentrate on a single storyline? Instead, you have dozens of sub-plots, side-plots, wasted-plots, irrelevant-plots, and go-nowhere-plots that just fill in the time between the opening and closing credits. This film is like an elongated episode in a naff soap opera. If you find that you can keep up with who all the characters are and what their issues are, then you've watched too much daytime soaps and need to get a life.As a cure for insomnia this is an excellent movie. That's about the only useful thing this film is good for.

patlightfoot Probably as I was watching it in bed, with a cold, I appreciated it more than most! However, I think various criticisms were warranted, as I was attracted to the TV movie watched from a hire DVD, I could stop it when I wanted.I was attracted to hire it because of Brian Dennehy, and dear old Randy Quaid. Personally I thought that Brian's performance appeared subdued, in my opinion. And he looked old and cynical. And Randy was Randy, and didn't disappoint. I mean the computer systems analyst, well, that was a bit hard to take. "He meant well..?" As entertainment value, I thought it was OK. Plenty of sub plots, and special effects were OK. But it ended without it really explaining to my opinion, certain weather facts, other than electricity is a very important factor in our lives whether breakdowns can become disasters in themselves without the weather adding to it. Little bit of politics there in my opinion influencing the plot as such. What would happen to all the animals for instance, or pets? The birds flying away gave some hint to this side of any tragedy or disaster. What happened to Typhoon Randy Quaid, and his film of it, that he released into the storm? I see he stars again in Category 7, End of The World? No I felt it deserved a better score than it got for just entertainment value alone. But as I said, I could pause it when I felt like it. But if you are searching for reality or credibility in any Sci-Fi or any disaster movie unless it is based or inspired by a true or actual event, then you may always query the credibility in a plot?

Boba_Fett1138 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.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/