CAT. 8 (2013– ) User Reviews

Great concept, terrible execution

[ollie-evans · 3/10 · 2 August 2014]

The script isn't that terrible, although I suspect the premise of the film carries it somewhat. It was a shame that it has been so poorly produced.

Every piece of the story is labored and is a perfect example of how modern films are scared to leave anything to the imagination. An example is the scene in what presumably is the White Situation Room or PEOC. The President has just shouted orders at people while repeatedly reminding the viewer that he is the President. He gets a message saying the Nasa Administrator is on the phone, and answers the phone as "President {such and such}". I get it, he is the President.

Tedious.

Reasonable acting and production values aren't enough to save an overall overlong, implausible and dull mini-series

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 10 August 2013]

Out of the four mini-series personally viewed in the past two weeks airing on the SyFy channel, CAT.8 is better than Ring of Fire(though at least that had Terry O'Quinn) and especially the irredeemably terrible Meteor with Christopher Lloyd. But of the four the best was Eve of Destruction, although that was a long way from great that looked reasonably good and at least four of the actors were convincing. CAT.8 also has some better-than-average acting, Matthew Modine is a commendable lead, and the production values(apart from some hokey effects) are reasonable, basic though with some signs of atmospheric. On the whole however CAT.8 doesn't work. What really lets things down is the story and the science. To say that the science is questionable is an understatement in itself, if anything it is a disaster, so bad that experts would feel tempted to bail out halfway through the first half. It honestly sounded like the writers were making things up with no research and it was very difficult to believe any of it. As a result the story was implausible and had little if any credibility. Unfortunately also for the story it didn't feel enough to sustain the three hours, so it felt like a thin structure interwoven with a lot of padding, ham-fisted melodrama/exposition, underdeveloped sub-plotting and an overlong length. If you think the first half takes too long to get going and is implausible, wait until you see the second half, like with the Meteor, Ring of Fire and even Eve of Destruction it gets increasingly dull and illogical. The script is underwritten, cheesy and very awkward, another one of those instances where it came through clearly that the writers hadn't properly checked to see whether what they'd written and given the actors made sense. The music is turgid and unmemorable, the pacing is pedestrian and stretches the story out too much, the characters are nowhere near developed enough which is inexcusable for a mini-series of this length and generally CAT.8 feels under-directed and characterless. On the whole, there is worse out there but this was rather poor stuff, the best assets are the production values and the acting but the story, script, pacing and especially the science bog things down considerably. 3/10 Bethany Cox

I don't particularly care about the shoddy science. I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on TV, either. Overall, the first episode was pretty good for this series.

[datchi01 · 5/10 · 19 September 2013]

Going into the second episode, however, there are some pretty significant issues with the main antagonist.

There's just no background or reason for many of the things that the antagonist does. It's irritatingly irrational and the product of weak writing. The world is ending and everything is burning around you, and you're going to relentlessly hinder the one person who can help save mankind? For what purpose? To what end? This character just makes no sense. He's written as though he's suffered some sort of horrible psychotic break. It may have been mildly interesting if there was some sort of buildup that showed it was due to guilt or stress, but sadly this is not a series that strives for depth.

I watched it over the span of a few days just for entertainment during my meals. I don't regret watching it, but it would be the bottom of my Netflix queue.

A potentially good story line abused by infantile dialog and unbelievable situations.

[peter-65-895317 · 1/10 · 27 July 2014]

In addition to all the scientific malarkey discussed previously....the script is infantile, amateurish......can I be more direct.

Where do they find these writers? The concept had a lot of potential as a real good suspense drama...but they had to put in lines like "it's really deep"...about the chasm. And the world is about to end but Mathew M and his partner scientist spend time re-connecting.....wow!!!

An elite task force with automatic weapons is held off by two citizens with handguns.

I know that they likely did not have the $ that a series like "24" has, but lord have mercy it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put together a realistic, mature screenplay. I could go on and on about the silliness of the script but I'm too ticked off about a potentially good story being wasted away by such infantile dialog and situations.

Simply infantile!!

Suddenly 'Sharknado' feels more attached to reality..

[mariost · 2/10 · 25 October 2013]

IMO sci-fi has two parts...'science' and 'fiction'…this series misses both,

Lets start with the 'fiction' part slash plot ….government hi-tech experiment goes bad…sun is going ham on planet earth…human hero 'bad-boy-knows-it-all' saves earth from the sun…then he knows how to restart the core…then he restarts the core with a machine that he kept in his barn … and finally he gets the girl!

My personal metric is which of this ''original story'' couldn't have been written by a 10 year old...verdict: not much … have to give credit though for the 'really fictional' parts i could spot.. the fact that he did all this while getting chased by the US military – and the part that he could operate a multimillion-high-tech-sun-magnetosphere-disruption- facility with just his daughter and her boyfriend … ah and the president dies of falling debris because he was giving a speech under a half collapsed building <- this was a good one

About the 'science' part -Not there-

And no ..you don't have to be or pretend to be a scientist to figure out that downtown Chicago, Big Ben and Athens is ridiculously unlikely to be destroyed by satellite debris. Or if you turn a blind eye on the solar- flare-induced-6.5-earthquake, how can you not wonder why the heck the epicenter was somewhere in East Coast US?

I watch sci-fi and enjoy it because it could show a glimpse of what might happen after 50-100-10000000 with a lots of sauce of course, but with some respect to some scientific hard facts .. this film was about what could never happen in a trillion years in the most remote parallel universe.

Acting was alright I guess ...

Saying a film is science fiction doesn't mean it can be nonsense

[bigal_a · 25 August 2013]

I watched this film yesterday with queasy disbelief. The simple fact is that nothing - but nothing - can fly between the earth and the sun in less than 8 minutes.

That isn't susceptible to "as far as we know", either. It is the basis of one of the most tested, verified and successful scientific theories of all time.

Even if a massive CME had been caused immediately by the incoming glittery beam of science-stuff, it could not have reached the earth in less than 16 minutes. And the sun is so big that like a big container ship, it doesn't exactly turn on a sixpence. By the time anything happened, the affected part of the sun would have turned away from the earth, and the CME would have missed.

I would have had a lot more respect if there had been an "omigod" moment and a prediction that something nasty was coming in, say, 24 hours, and the film wouldn't have had to run for 24 hours to show it either.

This is only one little point in a film I begrudge having spent the time to watch it. IMO it is a turd sandwich with really thin slices of bread either side.

Saying, "hey, it's just SCIENCE FICTION, Negative Nancy" does not relieve the film of the responsibility to have at least one foot planted firmly in plausibility. They could have done this properly at no greater cost, with no impact on the story, and I would have given them kudos for having done so.

No plausibility, no kudos. This film's nonsensical trashing of the scientific method does not render it any the more entertaining. It's just sloppy, rushed-looking and tedious.

I shan't be watching it again.

Let's just make stuff up...

[wbblair3 · 1/10 · 26 July 2013]

I agree completely with Ed Blackadder's review. Why is it so very difficult for the writers of scripts that pretend to be "science" fiction to ask even a serious amateur science enthusiast to review their scripts (I'd do it for free) to catch their innumerable errors and misrepresentations of natural phenomenon? Did the writers of this bad joke sleep through their grade school and high school science classes? Apparently. And they must also believe that everyone else did, too.

If you are a SCIENCE fiction fan, you'll want to skip this one unless you want to watch for a few laughs. However, that probably won't hold you through the entire show. I stopped watching to write this after the hilariously wrong satellite sequence about 20 minutes in. Gawd...

Production value? So-So; Acting? Ummm... Yeah, well....

[mratz · 2/10 · 7 October 2013]

At the outset, let it be understood that there is virtually no suspension of disbelief to be found in this sci-fi folly.

Science, and science fiction fans more importantly, understand that some scientific capital must be invested in a science fiction narrative to make it at least partially believable. No such investment occurred here, and therein lies the beginning of a bailout that never happened.

The absence of suspension of disbelief is well supported. There clearly was a vulgar absence of scientific research within the arena's of the scientific disciplines upon which the (weak) foundation of this cinematic effort was based.

Enough of this. Sci-fi fans of any stripe will understand the elements that are lacking. And that would be all of them. Satellites falling from orbit to impact Earth within MINUTES of critical solar events? International Space Station hitting the Earth and delivering an impact equivalent to the destruction delivered by hundreds of megatons of nuclear bombs? The I.S.S. is pretty much comprised of what amounts to little more than aluminum foil. The electro-magnetic effects of solar events assailing the Earth in mere seconds?

It's hard not to laugh out loud at the sheer absurdity of these film elements. Oh wait. I did laugh. Out loud.

The acting was careless and amateurish at best. Even veteran actor Matthew Modine delivered a performance that was stiff and over-rehearsed. The characters of the President and Vice President of the United States were just plain spooky and damned creepy. Personally, I feel the characters of the Prez and the Veep required lobotomies. That may seem a radical concept, but they *are* playing US politicians -- the majority of whom have already been lobotomized, I'd venture to guess.

If you watch this film to its conclusion, I have the contact number for Lobotomies-R-Us.

Phew

[PanoactionImagineer · 2/10 · 26 October 2013]

Its a shame someone like Mathew Modine was suckered into this. He is good as usual at keeping a solid character portrayal but thats where it all ends. After that this is probably one of the hardest things I have ever made myself watch. A real lousy implementation of VFX. The fact that his partner did not complain to someone is totally unreal. Let us not forget of course the complete misrepresentation of scientific fact. Finally what happened to the payback against secretary of defense and his sidekick. The ending is a complete let down. Who ever funded this must be regretting it now! Don't waist your time unless you wan to see how not to make a sci-fi. This is more like a bad drama.

Pretty bad but what did you expect?

[Gin-ster · 6/10 · 18 September 2013]

My review is very unfair because I have only seen the first half. It is extremely formulaic - the only smart guy is in disgrace, and has a beautiful, plucky daughter (don't they always?); the ESTABLISHMENT is full of weasels who are interfering with solving the problem, and the science is beyond ludicrous. But hey, it's good dumb fun. I wouldn't wait in line to see it, nor make space in my busy schedule, nor pay extra, but as a filler after you need to "come down" from an episode of Breaking Bad, if you like B-grade sci fi and/or disaster movie stuff, it works just fine. Strangely, the acting isn't all that bad. On the one hand, there are rug-chewing villains (the slime literally rolls off the "Secretary" whose self-serving unwillingness to listen to scientific advice causes the catastrophe; the hero's ex-wife's new husband is an unrelenting sleaze, etc.) But scientist/hero Modine is quite good in his role, and the scientist who unleashed the disaster (under pressure from the "Secretary") is actually pretty good too, coming across as sort of a normal person (well, normal for someone who has just destroyed the planet). Anyway, in the "good dumb fun" category I give this high marks. Others have compared it to "Eve of Destruction" and like "Eve" I have only seen one half, but will gladly view the second halves when the opportunity arises.

I love B disaster flicks, but this is an F, for FORGET IT!

[Nyssareen_77 · 1/10 · 19 July 2020]

Yeah, the "science" is laughable at best. I am in no way a scientist but I was laughing out loud at their "science" by 5 minutes in. By half an hour in, I was just rolling my eyes. This movie is pathetically badly written, the entire storyline is ridiculous. The characters are either completely underwhelming and forgettable, ridiculously perfect, or just plain a$$holes. The evil White House science guy (I have no idea what his position was, I think his name was Brian?) is too busy carrying out personal vendettas to care that the world is literally coming to an end. The whole thing is just one big hot mess that someone tossed into a dumpster fire.

Even for someone who loves bad disaster movies (10.5 Apocalypse is one of my all time favorite movies) this is a terrible a movie. Don't waste your time!

Undiluted American guff

[CutUncut2021 · 9/10 · 29 November 2022]

Seeing is believing: hilarious version of Thunderbirds with a team of wooden actors led by a defunct Modine (b. 1959, here with dyed hair) taking the place of the puppets (alas, without Penelope). In this cardboard effort even the interiors and set-designs were lost for words, as were the prozac-fuelled out-of-work white actors pissed as hell that all the decent movies are packed with African Americans professionals and this was their last shot, because they had promised to take their kids to Legoland. Rarely was so little owed to so few for so much, as Winston might have said between cigars and whiskey. But let's dispense with the words, since the Americans' language is one of bullets: Shoot 'em up, Scotty! Thank heavens we can always rely on the USA to save the entire frigging planet, while joining up all of humanity in a chorus of unity, right? This movie is so inept it really deserves 10 stars.

Butchering science but still ...

[Harvest-R · 6/10 · 6 June 2016]

Well, where to start ...

First off, this is the most scientific inaccurate movie I've ever seen. Not only that, they are butchering it to a degree where it gets pretty hilarious. OK, to be fair we don't know what happens if we shoot high energy stuff into the Sun. But if that was the only thing ...

Secondly, there are several goofs. For instance there is a scene where they show something on a computer monitor which was supposed to be their "software" and you shortly see a "play / pause / stop / ffwd ..." toolbar appearing in the bottom right of the monitor. Or when Beverly and Jack Hillcroft had the car accident because of an EMP discharge, the lights of the car were still on when they left it. Etc, etc, etc. There are lots of these little things.

But still, even tho the movie has a pretty generic plot and an interpretation of science which is ridiculous, I still gave it a chance and it had something which kept me watching for that 3 hours.

There was nothing wrong with the actors or their acting. Even the idea isn't that bad (at least of the first half), but just poorly realized. I mean we don't have that much "Sun doomsday movies", do we?

The acting wasn't Oscar-worthy, but still good enough to get you connected to the characters, their story, their hopes, sorrows and happiness.

Also the CGI was pretty good. I've seen worse in Hollywood movies (*cough* Hobbit *cough*).

The biggest problem this movie has is clearly the realization of their plot and script and their interpretation of science. I think in the 70's and 80's this movie would be great, because today we have a far more advanced standard of knowledge, of our planet and the Sun, etc. So therefore the common audience today expects more accurate "fiction", so to say.

Second, its length. It was obviously supposed to be a two-part movie. However, they offer it as one 3h movie in Amazon Prime. You can of course split it in two sessions, if you like. But I guess most viewers who quit after the first half didn't watch the second half anyway. So what ...

I think the movie would have been better received if they spent more time carving out the script and maybe talking to college physics and geology students about how to realize that scenario so that it could work.

Personally I think it was worth watching. I would recommend the movie to those who have already seen everything and don't know what to watch.

So bad it's good

[smb12321 · 3/10 · 9 October 2013]

I gave a "3" instead of a "1" because of unintentional humor. It was so bad it was good. Start with the premise that a new weapon is tested for the first time in the presence of the President. Suddenly, "something goes wrong", the machine shoots the sun and creates a huge flare. Then satellites crash ONLY on large cities - London, Chicago, Boston, etc

Acting and plot are the real disasters. The politicians were as genuine as Daffy Duck/ The male hero is an older disgraced scientists whose divorced wife i kept confusing with the daughter. Said daughter's cop boyfriend looked like a model with zero acting experience. A young female scientist whines as she battles the evil Sec of Defense.

The special effects remind one of the first Star Trek episodes in their amateurishness. Volcanoes erupt, the ground splits lakes boil, earthquakes strike yet cell phones, internet and power continue unimpeded. LOL As the new Madam Prez dashes the dastardly nuclear plans of the Sec of Defense with seconds to go the scientists (older guy and young heroine) fall in LUV in the mismatch of the millennium. Boyfriend announces he's marrying daughter & divorced wife's new hubby proves he's a hero too. Invite some friends and keep track of the errors for a fun night. (This thing is - believe it or not - in two parts.)

As seen on UniMas, "Category 8" took too damn long & has numerous flaws

[the_glorious_sob · 2/10 · 2 August 2014]

I actually took the time to watch yet another disaster flick on the Spanish language channel UniMás. While I did do some live-tweeting which contains a few "MST3K"-inspired quips, the re-viewing experience was torturous, especially when I learned this was a three-hour show. This TV movie followed the blueprint for your typical average disaster flick. But while the plot was nothing new & detestable, the characters were even worse, particularly w/ that one guy, um, Secretary of Defense or something, acting as evil as a villain in a Jean-Claude Van Damme film (also aired often on UniMás), & that's quite too evil when it comes to a "disasterpiece." Maxim Roy as Dr. Jane spends the first half looking like she's got indigestion from eating at Wienerschnitzel. & after she's escaped the devious Beltway, she becomes an acceptable love interest for Matthew Modine. I'm sure that the climax of the film, which was when Modine & Co. fought off certain apocalypse, actually took place in the middle, because afterwards, "CAT.8" transforms into a conspiracy thriller, w/ some occasional CGI disasters, such as the never-realistic & cartoonish instant canyon. & I knew the science of this movie was noticeably screwy when the government could shoot a laser at the sun, reach it in a manner of picoseconds, & solar flares could actually pose a genocidal threat. If I must say something positive, at least the SFX looked, um somewhat professional. But in conclusion, "CAT.8" is just a big, prolonged hot mess in many ways.

SyFy disaster miniseries is a little better than expected

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 6 March 2017]

I caught this on TV under the title Cat. 8: Armageddon. It's a SyFy Channel disaster movie made in a two-part miniseries format rather than the usual slot. Otherwise, all of the plot elements are the same as you'd see in a usual movie. This one was filmed in Canada like many others (blame the tax breaks) and surprisingly doesn't feel slow despite the three-hour running time.

The story is about a failed scientific experiment affecting the Sun and causing solar flares to strike Earth. Attempts to fix the problem only serve to make things worse when the planet stops spinning on its axis. Of course, the only person with the power to save the world is a renegade scientist, played by screen veteran Matthew Modine.

Half of the running time follows Modine and his friends and family attempting to evade the ruthless authorities who plan to stop him for no good reason. The other half involves the President attempting to keep a control on things. There's also a human villain, the Secretary of Defense, working for his own ends and only making things worse. The usual gamut of cheap acting and lousy CGI effects plays out, but this is notably more likable than many SyFy efforts, feeling like a throwback to earlier disaster movies such as DEEP IMPACT more than anything else.

Generic, but watchable...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 25 April 2023]

As I sat down here in 2023 to watch the 2013 disaster movie "CAT. 8", I had actually never heard about the movie, and thus obviously never seen it either. And with it being a disaster movie, of course I was interested in watching it, though I harbored little expectations to the movie, as the majority of disaster movies turn out to be exactly that; disasters.

The storyline in "CAT. 8"m as written by Donald Martin, was actually entertaining enough for what it was. Sure, it was a pretty straight forward, and thus also generic, disaster movie. I mean, you know the outcome of the movie from the moment you start the movie. But the ride from start to end was actually enjoyable for what it turned out to be. Don't expect writer Donald Martin to deliver anything that revolutionize the disaster movie genre, because that was far from the case here.

The acting performances in "CAT. 8" were okay. I wasn't familiar with anyone on the cast list, aside from leading actor Matthew Modine. But I will say that the cast generally put on adequate performances for a movie such as this.

Directors Kevin Fair and Sophie Boyer brought a fair enough movie to the screen, as it is simply a lean-back-in-the-seat-munch-on-the-snacks-and-enjoy-the-ride type of movie. You know what you get here, but the movie proved entertaining nonetheless.

The ending of the movie was predictable, oh so very, very predictable. And that is something I loathe about disaster movies; how a small group of people always manage to pull through insurmountable odds and come out on the other side and save our world when everything seems doomed.

Watchable for what it was "CAT. 8" lands on a five out of ten stars rating from me.