AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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.

TheLittleSongbird 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

Wizard-8 With one exception (the movie "Lost Voyage"), the Unified Film Organization film company has not exactly been churning out quality B films. Neither has the film division of the Sci-Fi network. "Path Of Destruction" was made both by UFO and the Sci-Fi network! So my expectations weren't exactly high when I sat down to watch it.Actually, it was a bit better than I expected. The special effects were above average, for one thing. True, there are some shoddy CGI shots, but there are also some that are pretty impressive for a low budget. Some non-CGI effects are also pretty good, such as depiciting the bad weather and the destruction it causes.The movie also starts off in an intriguing way... but soon things collapse due to a poorly written script. Among other implausible things, the heroine never goes to the press with the information she has on CD, nor gives it to the military later on. The script has clichéd characters like hard-to-convince authority figures, sneaky corporate types. It also has a character who is killed but miraculously turns up alive later.Nothing new here, either script-wise or film company quality.

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.