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
NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!
LouHomey From my favorite movies..
Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.
Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
Theo Robertson 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
verabeneman This movie is just very fun to watch. The acting is excellent, there is a lot of action, and I enjoyed the humor. The storyline is very interesting, dealing with nano-technology (and thereby weather) gone awry. I had never seen a science fiction film dealing with that subject before. I believe, however, that the actual script could have been better. There are some stock elements in the script that I have seen before, and the stock elements aren't done very well here. But for all that, I was quite entertained by the film. The production values are quite good, particularly for a TV movie. The film locations are at once scenic and foreboding; I was most impressed by the Alaska locales. The acting is first rate and brings a freshness even to the less original scenes.
ManiacCop 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.
J Bartell Poor acting, mediocre CGI and technical ignorance abound in this time filler. Some of the plot points don't hold up to even the barest scrutiny. They draft a bimbo reporter to serve as bombardier when they have an entire base of Air Force personnel to pick from? They push for an EMP bomb over a nuclear blast (the biggest EMP bomb there is, BTW) because radiation is too non-directional like shotgun pellets? Dental braces attract lightning? Come on. And why are molecular disassemblers causing storms and hail anyway? Even the bad acting and video game quality CGI could be tolerated with a little technical competence. The underlying concept is OK but the execution is pretty bad. Trying to guess which eastern European country is substituting for Alaska (and the winner is...... Bulgaria!) was fun. And David Keith and Stephen Furst chew the scenery in amusing if one-note performances. Any time you can completely and totally describe a character with two words, like horny yokel or corporate greedhead, you're in trouble.I've watched worse, though. And can't David Keith get any better roles than these second rate Sci-fi channel crapfests? Every month he's in at least one (two this month) of these celluloid WMD's. He used to be somebody. Maybe he figured, "Hell, I'm already in Bulgaria filming Epoch 2, I'll just knock another one off while I'm over here". Maybe the beer's cheap. Who knows.