Lightning: Bolts of Destruction (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Lightning Bolts of Destruction: I'm being a bit generous

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 25 July 2018]

This Canadian sequel to the 2001 American Lightning: Fire from the Sky is an underwhelming affair from start to finish and feels so very unnecessary.

What I mean by that is, a sequel......to THAT?! Really!? I mean the first was better but still just your generic Scyfy channel-esque movie. It wouldn't be so bad if there was a connection between them but this is an entirely new tale.

Starring underrated Joanna Pacula and overrated Nick Mancuso this hops over cinematic release, fails to be a straight to DVD and gets relegated to regular repeats on the free channels.

It tells ultimately the same story, a "Super" storm is coming and an expert in the field of erm....lightning has to save the day. Trouble is nobody believes her! What shall she do?

Well she leads a very boring film that manages to pale in comparison to the already mediocre first movie. Full of overwhelming volumes of pseudo science, a generic script and instantly forgettable sequences this is a bit of a mess.

A weak addition to the library of even the most hardcore disaster movie fan.

The Good:

Joanna Pacula

The Bad:

The "Nobody believes them until it's too late" trope is really tired

Too much pseudo science

Whole thing just comes across very phoned in

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Jiffy gas should be a real thing

The movie industry doesn't like Big Ben

Great idea that died in a flash

[Movie Hound Video · 4/10 · 14 February 2007]

Decent flick. Special Effects were good at times, but sometimes the buildings being struck by lightning looked like my sons' models. Science part is horrible, but movies are for entertainment escape, not educational. Acting was alright, but I felt Nick Mancuso & Pacula could have made their characters better. Could have been better if Pacula's character was casted differently. I usually like her, but I felt she took away from the character. **SPOILER** With the world in peril, I found it strange if not hilarious that there was only one military personnel on the "task" force as well as very little government "thinkers" I guess they put all their budget into the special effects.

Don't go outside, don't watch this movie

[jamkw57 · 2/10 · 20 May 2006]

I thought Cabin Boy was the worst movie I had seen, until this one. Manquito was even better. This movie was made according to the disaster movie formula to the letter. One person figures out the danger, antagonist too worried about money or career to heed warning. Doesn't even heed warning not to go outside. In the middle of the disaster the heroine tells her son, "You are adopted and oh, by the way, the world is about to end." The ending is very predictable. The acting is terrible and so is the plot.

And the craziest thing in the movie is that the fighter pilots for the US air force look like they are wearing storm trooper costumes from Star Wars. But, I did learn that there is positive lightning and negative lightning.

I was pulling for the lightning.

[willshack · 1/10 · 9 January 2005]

How bad can a made for TV movie get? We may have a new standard here. Besides the fact none of this movie made any sense which I can tolerate, the writing and acting was so bad it makes me think that even I could make living writing cable movies using nothing but tired clichés and nonsensical plot lines.

I just love the fact that as the world is about to be destroyed, all that these wooden characters could talk about was how they were going to reconcile their unbelievably mundane family issues. It was almost as if the supposed devastating lightning storm (which we see destroy various world monuments in what can only be described as "Plan 9 from Outer Space" quality special effects) was a subplot.

I saw this at 2 AM after getting home from a function and not being able to sleep. It was either this mess or paid programming, I regret not turning to watch the Ronco guy.

Pure rubbish, Don't waste your time watching this drivel.

[mason_612 · 2/10 · 12 September 2009]

I watched this Canadian-made (BC) TV movie all the way through, just to see how bad it could get. I was not disappointed. This is the kind of movie that insults your intelligence, even if it is a work of fiction. This Canadian says that this is the kind of stuff that gives all Canadian movies a bad name. The "science" stuff was pure junk, with the final solution to preventing the end of the world coming from a 15-year old kid with a generator made of scotch tape and pop cans. The family problem sub-plot was totally superfluous, with his mother worrying about her lack of compassion etc, right at the time of crucial execution. We find out that the teenage whiz-kid is actually her sister's son, but we never find out, and no ever mentions his father. WE are left to assume that his adoptive father maybe is actually his real father, or not. Sorry, 2 out of ten, no more

The American People will want answers if they can't watch their favorite television programs!

[lanechaffin-964-63190 · 5/10 · 12 August 2023]

For what it is, it's not bad. I watch a lot of these sci-fi channel movies and this one is probably middle of the pack. No, it's not very believable, but there are some good reasons you might want to watch: There are no really boring parts. It's sort of like Day After Tomorrow except done with lightning. Joanna Pacula's accent is very sexy. Her assistant is Crystal Buble is really cute. A couple of the scenes are funny: Slighlty built Pacula sees obese security guard on a pay phone and rushes to knock him down to save him as lightning strikes a junction box? She is faster than a speeding bullet? And at the joint chiefs of staff meeting, Kim Hawthorne notes that "The American people will want answers" if they can't watch their favorite television programs! There is real cause for concern though when a fighter jet mission is scrambled to dispatch of our would-be heroes at the north pole. Will the young man's plan to save the world even work at all? And will he save his mother? What will happen??? You will have to watch for yourself and find out.

Hard To Take This Seriously

[sddavis63 · 2/10 · 4 July 2009]

I was a little put off right at the beginning when the movie jumps right into the story with not even a bit of introduction. That was followed by a story that was entirely unoriginal combined with the fact that to me at least it didn't seem to flow very well. The acting was at best OK; the performances from a little known cast a little too wooden in my opinion. The basic storyline - the earth being threatened by massive lightning storms that somehow threaten the start of a new ice age, with the climatologist Valery (Joana Pacula) being the only person who understands what's happening, but who can't convince anyone in authority of it - had some potential, but was burdened with the introduction of far too many "soap opera" elements. The most obvious of these was the entirely superfluous subplot, which was never well developed anyway, about the return of Valery's sister from prison. The science was also pretty weak. Everything seems to happen in a matter of a few hours, which seemed far too short a time to devise a solution for the storms and then to implement the solution, and then there was the reference to the last ice age having begun "about 2 million years ago." What? As far as I know the last ice age began about 100,000-120,000 years ago and lasted for about 100,000 years. Not a very good movie at all - but I have seen worse. 2/10

Really Bad

[gary-275-721561 · 2/10 · 26 January 2012]

This is one of those movies that is so bad it's good. Some writer somewhere heard the term "positive lightning" and decided to create a whole script around it. A great drinking game would be to take a chug every time someone says, "Positive lightning." I especially enjoyed when lighting would follow a pole or wire slowly enough that people could react and jump out of the way. Or better yet, slowly enough that someone could outrun the lightning and push someone else out of the way. The science in this movie is so awful I really would not know where to start. I did not catch much of the human drama, because I was laughing too hard at the cheesy special effects and mangled physics. (Someone really needs to tell these scientists what a Faraday cage is.)

Rather good sci-fi film

[gmcdouga-1 · 8 November 2003]

Interesting concept, tho a lot of time was wasted on the usual academic in-fighting and the sub-plot of Pacula raising her sister's son was not really necessary to the plot and, in my opinion, distractd from it.

Good Science, Trite Story, Lame Acting

[Bob-45 · 6/10 · 5 March 2006]

"Lightning: Bolts of Destruction" has enough good science to hook me for it's two hours (including commercials). Unfortunately, that's just about all it has going for it. While Ellen Dubin makes the most of her small, tritely written role, the only other memorable acting comes from the unnamed named actress that plays Joanna Pacula's assistant. She's pretty hot to boot, a sensuous combination of beauty, intelligence and charisma. Too bad Pacula's such a cold fish in this one. One longs for a little over-the-top acting to fill out the character, often described as crazed, crusading, brittle and a control freak; "Janine Turner: call your office". The story boasts too many coincidences. Pacula's husband "just so happens" to be working at an experimental power station. Pacula's son "just so happens" to be a high energy physics genius working on the very experiment which could save the day. Worse, the director fails to capitalize in the slightest on the suspense. The movie plays out by the numbers.

Still, there's enough here to give "Lightning:..." a weak ^6".

a little too focused on family subplots,not enough on the storms,for my taste

[disdressed12 · 5/10 · 9 March 2007]

this movie is too melodramatic at times and gets bogged down in dialogue and subplots that don't really advance the story,in my opinion.the acting is not bad,especially from Noel Fisher who plays Jeremy Landis,the teenage son of the lead female character Dr.Valery Landis(Joanna Pacula)a weather specialist.there is at least 1 positive thing about the movie,and that is the scenes involving the lightning storms.the effects are fairly well done, int his regard.i certainly didn't hate this movie,but i do wish it had focused more on the storm aspect than the family issues.it kind of felt like 1 of those 'Lifetime' channel movies.if you don't mind that kind of movie,then you will probably like this 1.if not,you might want to avoid it.i'd have to say this movie is average,so 5/10 seems fair.

"Lightning" the future

[MrTwister640 · 10/10 · 8 November 2003]

Lightning: Bolts of Destruction is a film made for television in special effects wise. The story line is one that you see in most weather movies. It's the dark side of nature at its brightest. The movies links the past with the future and the present on different planets. It's a must see for any weather fan.

Better to sit in a lightning storm than suffer through this movie!

[queenlars · 1/10 · 26 April 2008]

Wow. Quite possibly one of the worst movies I have ever watched. As an environmental scientist I shook my head and smirked through most of it, then wondered why I sat through it. Ridiculous science aside - the plot was awful - it had potential, gratuitous destruction of the gas station near the beginning was fun to watch (medicore special effects aside), but this movie really didn't pull it off. The family storyline was completely redundant to the plot of the movie, and the acting was really sub-par.

I'm all for weather 'sci-fi' movies if they have an entertaining plot, e.g. "Twister", "Volcano", "Dante's Peak" - all somewhat 'unrealistic' weather-type movies - but all in a plot category somewhere far far above "Heaven's Fury" a.k.a. "Lightning: bolts of destruction".

The writers could have done a much better job with this movie. Truly awful in all aspects.

Bad Science - but not too bad drama - Spoilers

[carflo · 5/10 · 21 March 2004]

As drama, Lightning: Bolts of Destruction wasn't too bad. It was a typical low budget TV disaster movie: fun to watch with lots of lightning fx. The story was ok and the acting was fairly good.

The science however:

*******************MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW**************************

Give me a break, please. Sun spots cause a giant super cell thunderstorm with positive lightning - more powerful than regular lightning - to form all over the world and combine into one huge storm. This will cause the jet stream to dip down to earth and cause an immediate ice age which, along with the lightning, will destroy civilization and most of humanity?????????!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is stopped by an giant EM pulse put out by a R&D power station at the magnetic north pole that reverses the earth's polarity????????????!!!!!! I may be a lit major who specialized in pre-modern British poetry - but even I see all the holes as big as the Grand Canyon in this scenario. Credulity is lying on the floor whimpering in pain. 5/10 - mostly for the pretty lightning effects and decent acting.

Goofs & mistakes total dribble

[paulie1979 · 1/10 · 9 April 2014]

How actors can go with errors and lies in script is beyond me, hundreds of thousands & millions of years what rubbish, the earth time and time again even by some of the top scientists on the planet, has disproved this and proved the earth as God says is only about 6000 years old not millions, it is called the theory of evolution not the fact of evolution. Evolution is controlled by a cult who force it into schools, they are called (Smithsonian) these people hate god and want you to believe your not created by an almighty being but a bacteria, an animal who has no use or importance what so ever, if we are millions of years old how come 100 years ago we had nothing, it just in past 100 years or so we progressed with inventions etc, there are flood legends in over 250 cultures globally telling of the flood of Noah (NOT RUSSEL CROWS NOAH, HE WAS PURE EVIL AND THE FILM WAS A COMPLETE LIE) NOAH WAS A JUST MAN A KIND AND GODLY MAN, NOT THE MAN Hollywood MADE HIM and absolute proof it happened, evolution is taught and brainwash people with lies and false evidence, science definition 1 test, 2 observe 3 conclude, not 1 make up, 2 do not test and do not observe 3 believe in fairy tails, look at drdino.com or go to noahthemovie.com and wayofthemaster.com watch the videos and evidence about earth, the flood universe etc, if we are millions of years old why the earth still magnetised, magnets do not last millions of years, teaching evolution is what made Hitler the man he was, he was brainwashed by Darwin, who did not invent evolution Darwin was brain washed by the guy who made up evolution, big thumbs down on this film