Path of Destruction

September. 24,2005      
Rating:
3.6
Trailer Synopsis Cast

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.

Danica McKellar as  Katherine Stern
Chris Pratt as  Nathan McCain
Stephen Furst as  Terry
Franklin Dennis Jones as  Colonel Thomas Miller
David Keith as  Roy Stark
Richard Wharton as  Dr. Van Owen
Michael Cory Davis as  Eric
Griff Furst as  Krieger
Atanas Srebrev as  Purcell
Jonas Talkington as  Mount Weather Tech

Reviews

Sexyloutak
2005/09/24

Absolutely the worst movie.

... more
InformationRap
2005/09/25

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

... more
Lollivan
2005/09/26

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

... more
Kaelan Mccaffrey
2005/09/27

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

... more
Dr Moo
2005/09/28

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.

... more
Aspya
2005/09/29

Most of what I was going to say has already been covered repeatedly. I just had to add the on the nose scenes were too much to bear. For example, a dad trying to get his two sons into nature while they ignored him and played computer games. Seriously you just plonked that there like that without even trying? "Hey we need a hackneyed cliché for this scene do we have any of those in stock?" Lets not try to set a scene, lets just straight up tell the viewer like we're the narrator in a kids play.The bad acting, slow deliberate actions and blurting stuff out, it was a waste of time that only Danica made bearable.

... more
MartianOctocretr5
2005/09/30

Some weird things that look like a swarm of black CGI marks try to take over the world. An accident releases them at some off-shore drilling place which they wreck, and then they wander off to destroy more things.Beautiful Danika McKellar is the most memorable part of the movie. Not only is she incredibly cute, but her acting is top notch in spite of the plot-hole ridden script. She's a journalist who happened to be at the site of the first accident, and apparently there's some icky evil government plot behind the creatures, so a bunch of thugs everywhere are after her. There are numerous clichés of this kind thrown around, but there are a few spots of action that almost make sense in this thing. The science is whack. The things destroy stuff in ways that are bizarre and inconsistent. The way the heroes try to combat the things is almost comical. If you watch this as a joke in an MST3K sort of way, it can be entertaining on that basis. I just hope Danika gets some better roles in the future.

... more
lslore
2005/10/01

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.

... more