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

AniInterview
2005/09/24

Sorry, this movie sucks

More
Tedfoldol
2005/09/25

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

More
Zandra
2005/09/26

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

More
Fleur
2005/09/27

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

More
Theo Robertson
2005/09/28

You can tell where this movie is heading from and its quality right from the opening . A go getting female reporter finds herself on an oil rig and stumbles upon illegal practises by the oil company . The person who gives her this info is black and mentions his wife is pregnant so in the best tried tested and turgid cinematic convention he should expect to die before the end credits . Low and behold he dies in the next scene and this rapid writing out of the character is the only surprise in the entire movie Right away your reminded of several other movies in general and Steven Seagal movies in particular . Just in case you've forgotten all about Mr Seagal and his eco-friendly wastes of celluloid the action cuts to the office of an oil company where executive directors discuss how to maximise their profits and bump off everyone who knows to much . Possibly you might mistake this scene from a fly on the wall reality series called WHEN OIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS ATTACK but it's doubtful the meanest mind will buy in to this . The story becomes conspiracy thriller meets disaster movie with a subplot about nanotechnology endangering the human race This is a highly derivative thriller , so much so you do wonder why Michael Chrichton didn't contact his lawyers . That said it's by any means worse than anything else you'll find on the SyFy Channel and Danicia McKeller as go getting reporter Katherine Stern is much easier on the eye than Steven Seagal

More
TheLittleSongbird
2005/09/29

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
2005/09/30

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
tom_jeffords
2005/10/01

On one hand I want to actually congratulate the Scifi Channel for making a movie containing a new idea. A giant cloud of flying man-eating nanobots. Dumb but at least it wasn't dragons or giant snakes or man-eating fish which I believe have been featured in every movie made by the Scifi Channel up til now. On the other hand that was the only original thing in it. As pointed out previously, all and I do mean all characters were taken direct from science fiction cliché HQ. Spunky girl reporter, jive talking black guy, corporate baddie, etc. FX were mediocre. Acting as always was atrocious. Basically the usual garbage that Scifi Channel puts out but leaving us with that one glimmer of hope that someday the Scifi Channel will embrace the concepts of originality, imagination, and quality. PS is there a rule that ALL Scifi Channel movies must feature either David Keith or Dean Cain?

More