Path of Destruction (2005) Reviews

• Path of demented plot holes

  MartianOctocretr52007-04-15

  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

• Eh.

  StediEng2005-09-25

  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.

  More

• Too Bad; There Was a Good Story Here

  Bob-452005-09-26

  "Path of Destruction" could have been a first rate suspense disaster movie. Too bad, the SciFi channel threw this one away with cheap theatrics and ludicrous plotting. From her IMDb biography, it is clear Danica McKellar's a genius mathematician. Why not have Danica play the scientist and Chris Pratt play the crusading reporter? Then, at least, including her in the Icarus flight crew would have made sense (What is Icarus? Ah, that requires spoilers). WARNING: SPOILERS Icarus is a prototype EMP-hardened, stealth heavy bomber. Actually, all military aircraft, particularly the stealth variety, are EMP-hardened; but, then we wouldn't have a story, would we? Actually, we would, but not the kind to which the junk food addicted audience of the SciFi channel is usually accustomed. Deleting a few minutes of mindless chase footage would have allowed Danica to dazzle us with her brilliance as she calculated and presented data of the precise trajectory for which the Icarus to deliver the EMP device. This would have also explained why the Titan missile could not have been modified to deliver such a warhead. END OF SPOILERS Instead, most of the two hours consisted of trite, unbelievable situations (Just what is Danica doing on that oil rig?), stock characters, tired exposition, and unconvincing perils. Oh well, at least we get to see Danica bare midriff, in tight jeans and flashing a little cleavage. All we lost is the chance to witness a thought provoking movie about a very serious (and, potentially, very dangerous) subject. I give "Path of Destruction" a "4".

  More

• Fun science-based disaster movie

  chris-bruins002006-03-02

  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.

  More

• If you love bad movies, then is takes the cake

  ManiacCop2005-09-26

  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.

  More