horsegoggles They covered everything... Badly. From special effects to facts. I kept watching because it was so bad. There's something to be said for bad, but not enough to make me want to watch part 2. I probably will though, just to see if it is as bad. Everybody was over the top. Actors that I usually like count on for good performances were terrible in this. Had any of the writers ever actually observe a real relationship between real people? I had a little trouble understanding how people in a city that was totally blacked out were able to watch news updates. Big business is bad. Government is good. The only people you can count on for honesty is the media. Throw everything you can think of at a camera and you've got yourself a movie. I think that must have been the philosophy behind this one.

randyandsharon-125-426229 This movie is so funny. It amazes me how many famous actors/actresses are in it. It's hilarious that they try to make it look like Chicago and various parts of the storm footage show palm trees! Some funny parts: Nancy McKeon saying vulnerable instead of vulnerable, the brother walking into the bank and asking quite matter of factly "what happened to Lindsay?", various images of obese people running from the storm, and pretty much everything Randy Quaid does. The special effects do not look real at all. If you watch this movie, go into looking for a laugh or two! It is pretty long going on for 174 minutes. Sometimes you think it won't end. But, all in all, it's fun for a cheesy film. If you're not looking for Academey Award winning quality acting - enjoy!

ctomvelu1 CATEGORY 6 can readily be summed up by pointing out that it was shot in Canada, although it is set in Chicago. An aging Brian Dennehy leads a huge cast in this badly made disaster flick as huge storms head for Chicago and a hacker brings Chi-town to its knees, power-wise. Dennehy is OK even though he is clearly just collecting a paycheck. Thomas Gibson of "Criminal Minds" mumbles his way through as the TV movie's secondary lead. And Randy Quaid plays a colorful tornado chaser who is a near-duplicate of his character in "Independence Day." The film is talky and tedious, and the effects are on a high school level. There's even stock footage that doesn't match particularly well with the locale (palm trees, anyone?) I managed to sit through most of this before finally giving up.

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?