Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

JessicaHieser The actors in this each did an exceptional job. Very believable responses to the environmental crises. I love the layers of story line, which are quite complex, but rather than omitting them, they add to the depth of the film overall. Great science stats, and coverage of both social, political and economic issues arising from Global Warming.

elliott78212 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.

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/

galinda This is semi enjoyable as a piece of cheese, but that's about it.Honestly, the dialogue and most of the acting is downright laughable. Not to mention the obvious green screens.Thomas Gibson doesn't even attempt to sell any sort of performance whatsoever despite being the lead. The only ones who don't completely embarrass themselves in the acting department are McKeon, Dennehy, Quaid, Wiest and a few of the supporting players (the pregnant sister in law wasn't bad). Their dialogue might have been as dumb as the rest, but at least put in some sort of effort to try and rise above it.The first half was also just sort of boring. At least in the second half I was entertained by seeing how many secondary characters they could kill off.