Pathfinder (2007)

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.

Fmovies: 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.

This film was very good. I really think the viewers should not even think about it being a 'history lesson' at all. It is very much a Frazetta style picture, with almost exactly the 'Death Dealer' painting portrayed. So with that in mind this is a movie of possible unknown 'raiders' who are just *way* too brutal and they just want to kill and maim and they need to be stopped at all costs by the natives of the land ... and so they need a hero.

I think this film is at least twice as good as "300", and here's why: although it has almost exactly the same 'graphic novel' look and feel, I like this film more because the storyline was very engaging, great characters, costumes, and cinematography. As you watch the movie each scene is distinct and new and really is memorable, and if you *really* squint your eyes you might even believe it (like 'Lord of the Rings'). There is lots of gore (heads lopped off, etc.) but that is the current styling of films anyways; I could do with a little less of it myself.

I loved the natives and how they're portrayed. The costumes and sets are fantastic! There's a bit of their mysticism, and honour (warriors are very 'brave'), and real sense of tribal bonding and family.

PS. Watch the DVD extras and you really 'get' where they were going, (who cares about the vikings having horns??). It's just a great movie, and for story this is great! Thanks to the cast and crew !

Pathfinder fmovies. 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.

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.

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.