Distruzione dal cielo

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.

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.

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.

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.

Although it looks like he did only 2 or 3 days of work on this utter shlockfest of a Sci-Fi Channel piece of junk, poor David Keith has his name attached to this garbage. At least he's working and drawing a check, but it's a long way from the Brubaker days ...

This sci-fi mess should be required viewing for all films students: as an example of what a film looks like when things go completely wrong. The production design is all but nonexistent, the direction is sloppy and terrible at the same time, the acting is as bad as it gets, and the script sounds like an 11th grade English class did it as a week-long project, an hour at a time over five days.

I'm still waiting for the David Keith / Keith David co-starrer. These are two good actors when they get good material, and they've suffered long enough in the B-movie realm. Tarantino, are you listening?