What makes it different from others?

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

just watch it!

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

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

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.

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.

I thought this movie was a hoot. Seriously. I couldn't stop watching it. I'm not sure if it was because I wanted to hear someone say "nanobots" again, or if it was to see Danica McKellar's bare mid-drift and cleavage, who by the way, has seriously grown up since her "Wonder Years" days. (Not that anyone who saw her July spread in "Stuff" couldn't attest to that already!) I thought that she and Stephen Furst were great. She provided one of the only "ties to realism" with a very real and compelling performance, and Stephen Furst provided, you guessed it, comic relief. He hasn't lost his touch since "Animal House." It's a fun movie that thankfully doesn't take itself too seriously, and I recommend it- I had a great time.