Watch it at Amazon
143 out of 221 people found the following comment useful :- Good action scenes wasted on terrible story, acting and editing., 15 January 2007 Author: access_code_1 from Big Kahuna Burger Joint
What a waste.The only redeeming feature of this movie were the well made action scenes (not all were good, but overall there were more enjoyable fight sequences than boring ones).The story is clichéd and predictable. The acting is terrible (the main role is so horribly sketched out that you can barely blame the actor, the supporting roles all make a mark for their blandness). The main couple have no chemistry, the dialog is UN-enjoyably bad and the editing looks like it was done by a blind man. Scenes start and end with absolutely no flow. One scene was particularly bad (I wont spoil it for you, suffice to say its the one where the Indians charge into battle against the hero's wishes). That is the only scene when I laughed in the movie, and its supposed to be a sad/rousing scene.The trailer of this film looked really pretty, but then again the consisted of mostly the fight scenes so I'm not surprised at all. The director seems to have had a good eye for visuals, but his effort has ended there.Pathfinder = 5/10 Five for the fight scenes.I was trying to find a path out of the theater at many times during the movie.
181 out of 299 people found the following comment useful :- Worse than I could have ever imagined., 13 April 2007 Author: Pete Simone (ps42) from Auburn, MA, United States
I'm not quite sure how director Marcus Nipsel and company managed to take this screenplay, which had potential, and suck every ounce of life, drama and coolness out of it. They did, though. Pathfinder proves to be another completely forgettable historical action movie at best, generic as hell, right down to your cookie-cutter indestructible action hero (played by Karl Urban).My biggest gripe with the film, and I have many, comes from how long it was pushed back for. If I remember correctly, it was first slated for release in January of '06. It was delayed well over a year, and I assumed that the crew were editing, re shooting and doing other things that might make the film better. I should have remembered what happens when one assumes. In reality, they were just waiting around for a good time to release the film, because it obviously didn't improve in that year and a half. At one point, they literally insert stock footage of an avalanche instead of creating their own CGI (or real) avalanche. Who are you guys kidding? There are about six words worth of meaningful dialog in this film. The Vikings don't even look human, nobody ever really explains why they're going out of their way to kill everyone. The Native Americans are portrayed as weak and stupid, little more than target practice. This film just lets the arrows fly and the heads roll.The acting is horrendous as well. Its got some cool action scenes, but thats about it. It might have been a blessing having so little dialog in Pathfinder, because if how brutal the little that was present proved to be. It was like, Covenant bad. The script literally sounds like it was written by a child.Overall, Pathfinder wastes its potential and fails to prove itself worthy of anyone's time, let alone anyone's money. No amount of good action could have saved this film from its fate.
99 out of 150 people found the following comment useful :- Under appreciated, misunderstood film, 19 April 2007 Author: Lornsorrow from Palmdale, Ca
The movie going audience these days is not only sometimes fickle, but it is also spoiled. My wife and I saw pathfinder, and after some of the terrible criticizing reviews I heard I was bracing for a possibly terrible film. How surprised I was! Pathfinder was a fine film. If you grew up in the 1970's and 80's and like gritty films with hard action, and minimalist approaches, this pure and simple story of survival will probably be a breath of fresh air for you (it was for me) and a chance to take a break away from many of today's bloated, special effects laden blockbusters that are fine for what they are but really don't deliver much in the way of gritty harsh action. Is it perfect? No. But it's a grim story that is meaningful, entertaining, and worth seeing.The story is not clichéd and predictable in any more of a way than anything else is these days. It's simple, decent, and gets the job done of being entertaining. Sometimes I was surprised, sometimes not, but always entertained. My stomach just turns at the people who hate this film but go on to defend these bloated Hollywood CGI spectacles. The acting is fine, even superb in some places (Carl Urban did a fine job with what he had to work with and shows he is very capable). Visuals are great and sometimes breathtaking, editing is fine (minimalist, nothing fancy), dialog could have used some work perhaps, but dialog isn't the focus of this film and it works well enough. The Vikings lines are subtitled, and the Native Americans just speak a simple English. Was this the best choice? Probably, though it may not be satisfying for some. Otherwise the whole film would have been subtitled and I think the director was smart enough to realize that this film was not offering that level of entertainment. This is not trying to be Apocalypto. The main couple has a decent enough chemistry more suited to the times portrayed and the violence they are in the middle of suffering then some of today's recent bloated blockbusters.My one complain is that there is certainly a level of historical inaccuracy going on here, and the Vikings take the brunt of it. But the film is not supposed to be a work of fact and somebody has to be the villains. As far as villains go however, they certainly are some mean dudes in this film! All in all, everything that happened, the acting, the editing, the pacing, everything was understandable and done well and made this into an exciting film of a story of pure survival with some extra elements thrown in for good measure. If you're a nit picker, stay away from this film. If not, and the subject matter appeals to you, give it a try. I'm glad I did, and I'm looking forward to buying this on DVD.
86 out of 141 people found the following comment useful :- One Lost, 16 April 2007 Author: ecko_47 from United States
Twenty years ago, there was a terrific Norwegian action film called "Pathfinder" set in the Dark Ages and dealing with a boy whose family is slaughtered by marauders; villagers take him in. When the boy has grown into a young man, the marauders return, affording our hero the chance to repay his benefactors by avenging himself on the bad guys. It was brisk and chilly and had a real sense of mythic resonance. It was good.Here, now, is another film called "Pathfinder," virtually identical in plot. And it is everything the original was not: muddled, ugly, pointless, silly, incoherent, overly familiar and exceedingly dull. It is not good.German director Marcus Nispel, who remade "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" a couple of years back and likely is working on a lousy new version of something else now, has an eye: The film is handsome. But he has no ear or brain -- or at least not those parts of the brain that deal with such niceties as narrative, character, dialogue and logic.Karl Urban (Eomer to "Lord of the Rings" fans) stars a Nordic boy raised by Native Americans after being left behind in a Viking raid of North America. Probably the filmmakers (a dozen producers are credited) thought the introduction of Native Americans allowed for soulful depths. Actually, it allows for painfully dim clichés about prophecy, spirits and discovering "who you are" -- as patronizing in its way as the most insult-ridden cowboys-and-Indians movie of the '30s.Other characters include a heroic love interest (Moon Bloodgood), a wise elder (Russell Means) and a mute sidekick (Kevin Loring). These brief descriptions are about all the depth these characters ever acquire.Most of "Pathfinder" is given over to ridiculous chases and fights that remind you how skillful "Apocalypto" was at similar scenes. Someone who had never seen an action movie wouldn't credit a minute of it. In a way, it's perfect: You can't imagine anyone seeing this mess and not feeling lesser for the experience.
63 out of 99 people found the following comment useful :- Not a bad B-movie, 14 April 2007 Author: byrdman-6 from United States
This is pretty good B-movie. If you want subtle plot and dialog then you should have figured out from the trailer and the poster that this show is not for you.Yes, it appears to be inspired by a Frazetta painting (see Death Dealer) and is surely derivative of Conan and Tarzan. But how long has it been since a good Conan or Tarzan movie.Lots of gore, lots of decapitations (but as Joe Bob would say, all necessary for the plot) lots of low key lighting to make the special effects easier to pull off but then again, it's not a chick flick.If only we still had drive in movies.
81 out of 136 people found the following comment useful :- Little Story Well Made, 3 June 2007 Author: ekawalaski from United States
I have read many comments here that hated the film. One of my friends who accompanied me to the screening disliked it as well. He thought it was a waste of time, too. Unfortunately, many viewers, such as my friend, miss the point, as they in fact look for a point.Unlike the new trend of films of this era, "Pathfinder" did not submit to the theme of freedom, the political freedom. None of the characters pronounce the word freedom, such as the main character of the film, "300," who shouted it out loud. Instead, the main character of the film, Ghost, battles himself and "his demons" in order to find his own freedom and to fit in. Ghost tries to look for the peace he was raised in."Pathfinder" challenges the modern stage of film-making, and re-introduces a somewhat Western ideology that John Wayne's "The Searchers" had introduced in 1956. Therefore, the audience has to place themselves in a position to examine each character-groups' point of view. In that respect, the film offers some depth to the little story that is filled with violent battle scenes.The battle scenes are enjoyable. There is a certain level of combat cruciality. That is also a part of the little depth the story gives us. Thus, the issue of good and evil surfaces in the film in how battle is a balancing aspect of the life each side's lives.Of course since this film is trying to appeal to the general audience, a certain degree of love and romance is involved. The love and romance of this film is actually not all-so-bad, although I am not quite found of. However, it brings a little strength into the issue of choice of life Ghost must endear.I think "Pathfinder" lives up to its own introduction, "Legend." Therefore, it is filmed as such, an old legend. The film-makers saw it as such, and they wanted to let us see it too. I know I did. The dialogue(s) is not the perfect one, but must resemble the simplicity of older times. I do not think this is the greatest film ever made; however, it is a well made film which I think people will enjoy its little story, if they can go past the neo-ideology and "what's the point?" issue.
46 out of 75 people found the following comment useful :- visually arresting, 21 April 2007 Author: salad_days-1 from United States
Pathfinder was not nearly as bad as many people are making it out to be. True, the editing was mediocre at best, with the seasons clearly out of whack. There were some pretty odd incongruencies with language as well. The filmmakers relied on some trite Native American imagery and stereotypes...But Pathfinder was obviously never about the plot or silly Viking outfits. Ultimately I think the filmmakers wanted to impress upon the viewers the starkness of the landscape of "uncivilized" North America, and how the people who lived there survived. One of the best lines in the movie is delivered when Ghost tells his lady friend that the Vikings know eternal winter, but "don't know our spring." I think the movie, in its own kind of botched way, did a good job conveying the awe, reverence and fear that the people who lived in N.A. had for the seasons and the natural environment.
85 out of 153 people found the following comment useful :- Uninspired action movie, 15 March 2007 Author: badidosh from Philippines
Based on a 1987 Norwegian film, "Pathfinder" stars Karl Urban as Ghost, a young Viking who was raised by a tribe of Native Americans after being left behind by his Viking father after a raid on the new world. Years later, a new set of Vikings set foot on their land, and Ghost feels obliged to defend his foster people.While the film's acting overall is as frigid as the environment, and that the actors are playing no more than stock characters where, "Pathfinder" makes no pretense in presenting itself as a more-brawn-than-brain kind of film.Granted it's perhaps the case, but the direction of Marcus Nispel is heavily uninspired. Whereas recent films like Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" and Zack Snyder's "300" prove that a film with minimal plot can have its moments if it can build up on tension and sustain a viewer's attention, "Pathfinder" fails to do so. Action scenes are at most moderately entertaining and lacks a kind of punch that would elevate it into a cinematic status. Attempts to impart emotions fall flat and there's no chemistry between Urban and Moon Bloodgood who plays the the obligatory role of the female sidekick.Overall, "Pathfinder" is a film sorely lacking in impact, that it would leave the viewer in the cold more than it would excite.
37 out of 59 people found the following comment useful :- Hilarious!, 25 April 2007 Author: themowg from Alabama, USA
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
This was quite possible the worst movie I have ever seen. Ridiculous plot, no character development, absurdly unbelievable: this film gives up on the suspension of disbelief about 5 minutes into it. Sure, it has some decent action and cinematography, but as a whole, this movie is a joke. A hilarious joke. I can best describe it as an hour and a half of Walker: Texas Ranger blended with Army of Darkness and a sprinkle of randomness.Here is the plot: insane, genocidal Vikings with apparently nothing better to do in Scandinavia sail to America to trash the place and kill wantonly. Unlike the Vikings of history, who at least targeted plunder to make their raiding worthwhile, these bad guys just like to destroy stuff: baskets of cranberries, Native American women, whatever. This guy "Ghost," (cleverly named for his pale skin) who is himself a Viking, embarks upon a quest for vengeance upon the evil Vikings, because he identifies more with the natives than his former people. Along the way, a random retarded native decides to follow him in his quest and gets killed, for no apparent purpose. The love interest also tags along, occasionally helping, and this old native "The Pathfinder," who is apparently some sort of badass, shows up to provide some wisdom ("If you cannot defeat the bear, use the bear's strength against him.") and also to get killed. The inexplicably idiotic Vikings then take Ghost as a guide to the next village, presumably to wreak more senseless destruction. Ghost tricks them into getting caught under an avalanche, and everyone lives happily ever after. The End.Sound pitiful? That's because it is. I must say, however, that the final scene of the movie is so overwhelmingly cliché that I honestly laughed the entire walk from my seat in theatre to my car in the parking lot--a distance of about 200 yards. It was that laughable.That said, I do not regret seeing the movie, as it isn't often that one gets to view a serious contender for the worst movie of his life. Hope this helps.
21 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :- Not as bad as some have painted it to be, 3 July 2007 Author: sobeit712 from Canada
If you went to see the movie expecting something like Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, you will be disappointed obviously. But why would you expect it to be Apocalypto if you've seen the trailer? It tells a mythical tale of a legendary Norseman who was raised by native Americans. They called him ghost. And it's this ghost who ended up protecting the tribes from the destruction of the Viking Clang who shared the same lineage with him. The plot line is just that simple. What kept me entertained was the action sequence, absolutely stunning cinematography and the overall presentation and atmosphere. The overall tune of the movie is dark, mythical and menacing, fit perfectly well for the theme. Vikings are presented more like beast than man, with giant statue and equally ghastly giant armors and weapons.Some may argue that the vikings in this movie kill senselessly without any purpose. Does having a purpose makes evil more sensible? I have good news for people who are looking for reasons behind evil: they all have purposes and reasons, so don't waste time seeking one for them. Bad news for you: it absolutely makes no difference! Throughout human history, all aggressors had plenty of reasons to invade, ravish and destroy other culture and lives, the list goes from Vikings to Hitler... and it will probably go on forever. But does having reasons and purposes to kill make the killing more sensible? Absolutely not.In this movie, Vikings are symbolic evil. Giving it a reason to kill doesn't make any differences as I stated above: they all have reasons, pick one and get over with it. On the other hand, the movie was trying to suggest that not only there's this battle of good and evil going on in the physical world, there's also a battle of hate and love in one's heart. When asked: who would won, Ghost was given the answer: the one you feed the most. It's a very interesting theme that I wish the director would explore a little bit deeper. But in the end, violence prevailed the screen time. The thought of inner struggle and loftier redemption was lost in the midst of killing and vengeance. No sin was forgiven and no bad deeds went unpunished. Though it's a more satisfying end, but a shallow one.Overall, I enjoyed the movie for what it is. I'm not looking for complicated plot nor deeper character development. For an action movie, its visually stunning, fast paced and immersing. It kept me interested throughout the 90 minutes and left me pondering about some unfulfilled premises. It's not as bad as some have painted it to be.
Add another comment
