UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Action >

Path of Destruction

Path of Destruction (2005)

September. 24,2005
|
3.6
| Action Science Fiction TV Movie

The movie opens with a faulty nanotechnology experiment that results in a massive, deadly explosion. The company's CEO manages to sidestep blame by framing a meddling young reporter (Katherine), who now holds the only surviving evidence needed to expose the truth. All the while, the dangerous nanoparticles - having escaped from the explosion into the stratosphere - threaten to destroy nearby cities with wildly destructive weather patterns. Among the chaos of the storms, and on the run from the authorities, Katherine must - with the help of a young scientist - get the evidence to the government to enlist their help before it's too late...and the deadly disaster turns worldwide.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Reviews

Vashirdfel
2005/09/24

Simply A Masterpiece

More
MoPoshy
2005/09/25

Absolutely brilliant

More
Crwthod
2005/09/26

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

More
Geraldine
2005/09/27

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

More
TheLittleSongbird
2005/09/28

I was intrigued by Path of Destruction's concept and felt it had a lot going for it. But it was let down by mediocre execution. The Sci-Fi/SyFy channel have definitely done much worse, at least Paths of Destruction had some better than choppy editing and a good performance from the lovely Danika McKellar. The rest didn't really do all that much for me. The rest of the cast are not as terrible as casts for SyFy have been since, but they do lack McKellar's enthusiasm. David Keith especially seems to be going through the motions. The special effects have also been worse in design, but they do still look cheap and not very easy to tell what they were supposed to be. Not to mention they are poorly-utilized, made to do countless absurd things that only further amplifies SyFy's technical and scientific ignorance. The script is rather thin in structure and doesn't leave the actors much to work with, the story was fine in concept but rather trite and contrived in terms of the finished product and while the characters don't make the mistake of being irritating(like various character from SyFy creature movies, especially, have been) they are clichéd and we don't learn very much about them. On the whole, better than anticipated but didn't deliver much other than three or so things, most of the time SyFy is lucky to get even that so they're lucky this time. 4/10 Bethany Cox

More
bobwildhorror
2005/09/29

Okay, okay...I know my summary says it all. Another Sci Fi Channel "original." Well, wait just a minute folks; this one actually seems to have a grain of originality.I'm afraid the nanotechnology concept is where it ends, though. Bad acting. Horrible CGI. Ridiculous plot twists. Starring Winnie and directed by Flounder.But this one is so horribly bad, folks, that it's entertaining. We're not talking PLAN 9 bad, but pretty close. Another reviewer indicated that this may have been intentional, but I'm not buying it. For those of you that enjoy this kind of thing, buy some beer, turn off your mind, relax and float down stream.

More
ManiacCop
2005/09/30

This movie is hilariously bad. From the very beginning, you know you're in for a gut busting ride of bad script writing, acting, directing and gaping plot holes that boggle the mind. If you enjoy laughing at poorly made tripe, than this is your type of movie. If you want to watch a movie with a somewhat believable plot and some point, then you might want to rent something more mainstream.I watched this with my brother last night at 1am on sci fi. We knew what we were getting into. From the absurd dialogue to sheer convenience of certain events, you will get your fair share of 'writing class no-no's'. Anyways, this movie, taken for what it's worth (production value, acting and sheer lunacy), can be tolerated and watched. Once only though. NO ONE has that much time.

More
Bob-45
2005/10/01

"Path of Destruction" could have been a first rate suspense disaster movie. Too bad, the SciFi channel threw this one away with cheap theatrics and ludicrous plotting.From her IMDb biography, it is clear Danica McKellar's a genius mathematician. Why not have Danica play the scientist and Chris Pratt play the crusading reporter? Then, at least, including her in the Icarus flight crew would have made sense (What is Icarus? Ah, that requires spoilers).WARNING: SPOILERS Icarus is a prototype EMP-hardened, stealth heavy bomber. Actually, all military aircraft, particularly the stealth variety, are EMP-hardened; but, then we wouldn't have a story, would we? Actually, we would, but not the kind to which the junk food addicted audience of the SciFi channel is usually accustomed. Deleting a few minutes of mindless chase footage would have allowed Danica to dazzle us with her brilliance as she calculated and presented data of the precise trajectory for which the Icarus to deliver the EMP device. This would have also explained why the Titan missile could not have been modified to deliver such a warhead.END OF SPOILERS Instead, most of the two hours consisted of trite, unbelievable situations (Just what is Danica doing on that oil rig?), stock characters, tired exposition, and unconvincing perils. Oh well, at least we get to see Danica bare midriff, in tight jeans and flashing a little cleavage. All we lost is the chance to witness a thought provoking movie about a very serious (and, potentially, very dangerous) subject.I give "Path of Destruction" a "4".

More