Path of Destruction
Path of Destruction
| 24 September 2005 (USA)
Path of Destruction Trailers

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.

Reviews
Alicia

I love this movie so much

... View More
Mjeteconer

Just perfect...

... View More
TrueHello

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

... View More
FirstWitch

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

... View More
Dr Moo

I came across this on Netflix by accident and thought it looked like a decent enough movie. I thought it would be an entertaining way to kill some time on a rainy afternoon. It looked to me like a good enough Sci-Fi disaster-adventure movie. I was wrong. It's waste of your time and a movie so bad it does't even qualify as so bad it's good, but might just crack so bad it's funny.The story -- just kidding -- there isn't one! We have something half resembling a story as some tiny black things escape an oil rig and start killing people in inconsistent ways with no real reasoning behind it. We have an evil corporation responsible who decide to blame the stereotypical clichéd reporter for the black things getting loose. We also have the scientist she teams up with despite her being a fugitive with her face on every news station. That fact is ignored when she sees some unspecified security types and gets past them by... wearing a hat.The film (for want of a better word; calling this a film is an insult to the movie industry) opens with our heroic reporter talking to her friend about his family. Alarm bells should start ringing at this point since that almost certainly means he'll be dead in five minutes. It actually takes less than that time for him to die. The film (or whatever this is) ends with the reporter and scientist flying an EMP to destroy the black things with a colonel. It's already established that there's more than one soldier under his command so why does he take these two non-military individuals with him on a mission that could prove deadly, with the fate of mankind in the balance?! This is exactly the sort of logical failure this (supposed) film expects us to accept as Gospel Truth and believe it would be done like this, which it wouldn't.What is the worst movie of all time? It's hard to say for sure, but this is a definite contender. With extremely poor special effects, scenery chewing overacting "performances" and every cliché in the book it is hard to think of many movies worse than this.

... View More
chris-bruins00

Path of Destruction was entertaining and had a plot that made sense within itself, so there's not much more you can ask for in a television movie. The nanobots idea is far-fetched, but it is loosely based on stuff I've seen in Scientific American. And isn't that what a sci-fi movie is all about? Making up a story that's not real and then taking it seriously? If you don't like that then don't watch sci-fi. I'm a big Star Trek and Stargate fan, so I accept far-fetched stories quite easily. My measure is if the far-fetched premise is true to itself. In Path of Destruction, the premise was true to itself. Also, Danica is beautiful and gave it her all, Chris Pratt was very good, and Stephen Furst provided the levity.A fun movie to get on DVD or check out on television. Not perfect due to the budget, but not bad at all either.

... View More
lovercanon

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.

... View More
lslore

I have to wonder if the people that produced this movie, were the same ones that made Steven Segal's "On Deadly Ground." Neither group seems capable of reading a map. They manage to "crunch" the 700 miles from Palmer, Alaska to Juneau, Alaska down to an afternoon drive -- and got there driving! At one point, the protagonists say they are "a few miles outside of Juneau." Cute trick; Juneau is landlocked!! There are only two ways in, by boat or plane. Driving there is not a possibility. And I am not going to even get into the numerous other areas involving locations that showed the makers of this movie never bothered to do their homework.

... View More