parcival-3 I like bad movies. In fact, I collect them. Some because the figures who created them are fascinating(e.g., Ed Wood). Some others because they're SO bad they're entertaining in themselves (e.g., "Robot Monster." I got this one as part of a cheap collection of disaster flicks. I can only summarize it based on I'm amazed any company put up the money for such a story; the bad guys all die--I especially like the scene where one of the kidnapped uses a shotgun to blow down the door of a room causing the kidnappers to get sucked into the sky by a tornado. He then enters the room and his hair doesn't even get mussed up.The good guys? The only ones who die are heroes, e.g., Tom Skerrit's character, a colonel whose SR71 gets ripped apart.(The plane, by the way, doesn't do what the movie suggests that it does).This flick might not be bad for a 6 year old. After that, it's just inane.

Ivan Bradley 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.

Studly135 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.

yoongkoh I've seen this movie last night and I find it completely waste of time. The story flow is bad. The common sense is bad (e.g. the twister pull most of the building including cars up to the sky easily but as to the human... it take it takes a long long time). And to make it worst, why the hell do the terrorist want to kidnapped those people in a very dangerous situation like this??? Even if they succeeded, maybe all their others relatives might be dead by now (hello..we are talking about category 7 here) so.. who will save them poor people? The government? well, we all can see that the government themselves are in big trouble.AND the worst part is the ending! All it says is "We are talking about category 7" and the movie ends. This is just totally wrong!