Pathfinder (2007) User Reviews

Not all that bad, worth seeing it for Karl Urban

[monilasso-1 · 6/10 · 6 October 2007]

This movie is not as bad as some say. Yes, the editing is rubbish, the scenes have no flow and sometimes is confusing. Yes, the seasons are crazy, in one scene it's snowing, the next one is not, then snow again, then not...And yes, the script isn't great either, very poor. The Vikings are shown as killing machines with no purpose and the Indians afraid of those new weapons the vikings carry: swords.

At the beginning of the movie it is stated that it is a legend and so it's shown as such. Do not expect a great story, just a simple one with some good fights, a big gore and a lot of running. I also thought some scenes were very dark and so can't really see who's killing who.

But all in all, it isn't that bad, especially if you like Karl Urban, showing muscular chest and gorgeous face. He is one of those actors who people don't really talk about, but he is one of the most handsome. His acting is not bad, just has a bad script. He does make you feel kind of sorry for him at times. So I give it 6/10, as it contains some good photography and action packed scenes.

Violent motion picture about a brutal army of Vikings invading North America

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 18 May 2009]

A little boy is left in a strange land and he's adopted by an Indian family. But a merciless, ambitious and cruel barbarians(Clancy Brown, Ralf Moeller, among them) suddenly appear and they are cruelly murdered . The starring(Karl Urban) observes the massacre from a distance and he manages to flee these murderers and reaches a village with other Natives whose inhabitants are worried if he has been able to hide his leads. Afraid of the violent savage warriors ,they decide to flee. Meanwhile the protagonist falls in love with a charming Native(Bloodgood). The young stays alone to revenge his families killers but he gets captured by the Vikings. Unfortunately , they get him before he can do anything and force him to lead them to the other Indians. He guides them and agrees to lead to the hiding place of his fellow villagers but he has a scheme to destroy the cutthroats barbarians before reach the camp.

It's the second version based on ancient folk-tale from Lapland, the first and classic version was directed by Nils Gaup in 1988, winning several prizes. This new adaptation is an exciting picture plenty of action, thrills, chills, roller-coaster ride, violence and breathtaking fights. The brutal Vikings with horned helmets deliver the goods, their appearance is spectacular and creepy, including the majestic horses doing pirouettes. Furthermore the astonishing killings are gruesome executed and grisly graphic. Special mention to Russell Means , he was born Lakota Sioux, a good actor Native American, he along with Graham Greene, Rodney A Grant, Tantoo cardinal, Eric Schweitz and Wes Studi appear in all movies about Indian themes. The evil Vikings are characterized in similar style to the classic 'Conan' by John Milius, as when at the beginning appeared James Earl Jones in an unforgettable scenes . The sombre photography by Daniel Pearl with a sort of never-ending dawn and dusk time is truly awesome. It's a kind of light mingled in a moody and foggy atmosphere. Many frames including the combats and cliffs scenes are made in a ¨300¨ style adding computer generator backgrounds. Stirring and evocative musical score by Jonathan Elias. Stunning and gripping realization by Marcus Nispel. He's a video hits director and expert on terror genre such as he proved ¨ Friday the 13th, Frankestein, Texas chainsaw massacre¨ but none of his movies have been based on original plot.

Dances with Vikings

[mstomaso · 6/10 · 13 February 2008]

Nipsel and company basically hybridized the structure of Dances with Wolves with a not-quite-historical fiction (more like radical speculation) plot about interactions between Norsemen and Native Americans during the 12th century A.D.

Ghost (Karl Urban) is a Norse boy left behind aboard a wrecked ship. He is adopted by the Clan of the Dog (the dogs who cohabitate with this tribe are historically inaccurate, but that's just one of many historical transgressions). As he grows up, Ghost's obvious difference and his history become something of a stumbling block for him, but he works hard to overcome them in order to be accepted by his adoptive people. Eventually, it seems, he must confront the demons of his past, and unfortunately, so must the Clan of the Dog.

Pathfinder is played well by Russell Means, and Ghost's love interest - Starfire - is nicely portrayed by Moon Bloodgood. Urban has great physical talent, but this story did not lend itself to testing his ability to create drama and mood, so there isn't much to say about his performance. Likewise, most of the Norse characters were so under-developed and one-dimensional that it is impossible to comment on the performances involved.

Although the story relies on stereotypes to develop both its Norse and Native American characters, since so little is actually known about the Norse colonies, this seems forgivable. What is not really forgivable, in my opinion, is the reiteration of the trope established in Dances with Wolves and other similar works which suggests that it takes a European to effectively fight off Europeans. Although the characterizations of the protagonists in both films are adequate to explain their behavior, the character and behavior of the Native Americans attached to them is less well developed, and there is a lingering, inaccurate and disturbing shadow of inferiority implied in their apparent inability to strategize and effectively lead in combat.

However, Pathfinder refuses to touch reality with any length of pole, so, sit back and enjoy the action, costumes and sets.

The film contains a lot of violence, most of which is convincingly shot. The costuming is excellent, and the sets are lovely. if you can get past the problems - which are several - you may just enjoy it.

Good action scenes wasted on terrible story, acting and editing.

[access_code_1 · 5/10 · 15 January 2007]

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.

Not a bad B-movie

[byrdman-6 · 7/10 · 14 April 2007]

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.

Not as bad as some have painted it to be

[sobeit712 · 5/10 · 3 July 2007]

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.

visually arresting

[salad_days-1 · 21 April 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.

Not a bad couple hours

[GaiusMarius_4 · 6/10 · 15 April 2007]

Though it does not qualify as top-notch cinema it was an enjoyable watch.

Anyone that goes into this film thinking it was going to be a standard "Viking" movie will disappointed. It is a legend told from the point of view of the native population that lived in the north eastern part of north America. Thus the vikings are bigger, nastier, etc than what we might be used to. They are monsters. They look like it, and they act like it.

Others have mentioned that the natives are portrayed as weak, or stupid. Think of it from this point of view. These are the very first people they have ever encountered that use metal weapons, and wear metal armor. They have really no defense against them, but just like people all over Europe they fought the vikings in defense of their homes, and died.

Some great fight scenes, and panoramas, but it fails in the editing. The film is so dark that you lose track of things often, and cannot tell who is fighting, or how many there are.

The script is first grade, and I mean written at a first grade schoolchild's level, but who goes to a b-movie actioner for great dialog? Overall I was a bit disappointed, but not so much that I felt the need to leave, or other such protest. It was a great idea poorly executed.

Worse than I could have ever imagined.

[ps42 · 3/10 · 13 April 2007]

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.

Bloody, action packed and entertaining

[deedeeallstar · 7/10 · 22 November 2021]

I don't understand why this movie is rated so low. 5.4?! Sure it's not a Spielberg spectacular, but it has enough to keep you entertained. Clancy Brown is awesome as a vicious Viking, Karl Urban is good and Moon Bloodgood is one of the most natural beauties in Hollywood. The settings and scenery is gorgeous, the costuming is great and they kill a damn bear in it. Is it perfect?! No. But I am so bored of all the superhero movies that rely on cgi. This is def worth the watch. A solid 7/10.

One Lost

[ecko_47 · 3/10 · 16 April 2007]

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.

Could have been magnificent, but still a dark and fascinating movie worth watching

[mtess-1 · 8/10 · 15 February 2008]

I wasn't expecting much when I started watching this, but that quickly changed thanks to the brilliantly lit scenes and grainy, pensive mood of filming. The acting, as well as the violence was well above average in quality and brutality respectively, and the story was refreshingly original.

I believe three things could have elevated this movie to brilliance: 1. A more sweeping, bold orchestral soundtrack. 2. More sweeping, cinematic shots to give us short escapes from what, at times, became a claustrophobic atmosphere. 3. Authentic native language with subtitles, as was given the Vikings. I realize the choice not to do so (point #3) was probably based on perceived audience appeal, or perhaps even on the psychological identification with the "good guys", but it would still have added an element of greatness.

Overall I give Pathfinder 8 out of 10 stars for originality, brooding (amazingly refreshing) filming, and an authentic truthfulness in telling what was a simple but bloody tale of revenge. I also appreciated the fact that the film took itself seriously, and did not toss in a heap of "humorous" moments that so many current action movies seem to rely on. This movie was relentless in its pursuit of telling a dark and bloody tale and, for the most part, succeeded in providing an excellent couple hours of escape.

Karl Urban

[Doc Scot · 7/10 · 15 April 2007]

While it is true not all film directors can envision and extract the best from the actors in their films, this Karl Urban performance was different from what we have seen him capable of as Vaako in The Chronicles of Riddick and as Eomer in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Karl as the Viking boy raised by an American Indian tribe gave a primitive and exciting performance but his portrayal of an Indian brave did lack some of the close up intensity we know he can deliver. In this story, the Vikings and American Indians were struggling for survival, so perhaps more action and less character development was called for. If battle minded Vikings landed on those shores, they would have taken the Indians by surprise, and then swarmed on foot, killing at will. If we were watching a film about Crazy Horse fighting George Custer at Little Big Horn, we wouldn't want character development to slow the pace of the battle; rich character development was not this film's goal. Having said that, we watch Karl Urban as he learns to conquer his fears and we see Pathfinder's daughter learn to trust Karl's character, the ghost. We have rich character development in film when those characters have more leisure time, not when they are fighting for the survival of their loved ones and their tribe!

A good story with plenty of flaws

[vampyrecowboy · 5/10 · 21 February 2009]

While the story is good, the flaws begin to stand out.

Yes, all the little things that should have been important to the filmmakers in production and in filming.

Like - airplanes in the sky.

It seems to be winter or early spring but snow doesn't stick to anything, nobody's face or skin turns overly cold or white or purple due to it. Snow doesn't turn to water when collecting on anybodies's face, the pelts they wear do not freeze after they fall through ice into the river Natives have very straight, clean teeth and very clean hair and skin - even after going through battle.

Vikings wear heavy amour but move swift, fast and easily through the forest.

Climbing the edge of a mountain, nobody is freezing wearing virtually no clothing.

There are tire tracks in the mud.

Even though a slew of swords are used and arrows are shot, no horses get injured.

There are a bunch of things like that - after watching the movie, just begins to make you wonder how this can be thought out and actually given an OK.

Snow that blows all over the place, but in some areas of open space, there is none and then several feet away there is several feet of it.

Caves with light coming in from all directions.

Swords that seem to weigh as much as a can of pop - being easily flung across a field or lifted and swung without much force or effort.

I can go on,but I won't.

A BRILLIANT FANTASY WARRIOR FILM & KARL URBAN IS EXCELLENT

[lukem-52760 · 5/10 · 5 January 2020]

"Pathfinder" is one hell of a brilliant intense historic warrior adventure film about a young boy who is saved & raised by Native Americans but is the last survivor of a Viking expedition & years later as a young man he must defend his village against another brutal Viking expedition. That's the basic set up for an Awesome ultra-violent warrior movie. This epic action adventure is visually stunning & striking with just fantastic cinematography & a scary dark look & Atmosphere, also this film is Directed by the BRILLIANT Marcus Nispel who directed one of the greatest Horror remakes of all time with his visually striking & terrifying "The Texas chainsaw Massacre" from 2003!!! That movie is even better than the original 70's CLASSIC!!! He is a visionary director full of style & an exciting vision, i love both of these films. Also we get the veteran actor Clancy Brown as the head Viking villain "Gunner" although you probably wouldn't know it because of his huge beard & helmet & Armour but he does make for a huge menacing presence on screen. The excellent but underrated KARL URBAN is fantastic here as "Ghost" the warrior with hate in his heart & a quest of bloody vengeance, mr.Urban is a great actor & screen presence & he blew me away with his portrayal of the tough futuristic Cop named "Judge Dredd" when he played him in the 2011 Cult Classic "Dredd" & he was excellent there & is excellent here in "Pathfinder" so yeah he's a great actor & I'm a big fan!!!

The look of this epic adventure is drained muted colours so it looks dull, gloomy, dark & scary almost like a Horror film & the big Viking warriors are scary as hell, they are huge with big metal armour & big horned helmets & animal skins & really look terrifying!!! The Vikings are merciless & savage as they slaughter their way through villages of helpless people including women & children, so it's AWESOME when our warrior hero "Ghost" starts to hunt them down & slaughter them in Cool ways with traps & weapons. Like i said the look is great & gritty with beautiful shots & scenes mixed with the Horror of savage killings & the killings are brutal & blood soaked, this is a very gory film as it should be & "Ghost" really delivers on his quest for bloody vengeance & the evil Vikings deserve their deaths.

I was on the edge of my seat watching this excellent film as it was tense & gripping, "Pathfinder" is definitely one of the best "Warrior" films I've ever seen!!! Definitely one of the most entertaining & exciting one's too!!! I can see this is another way underrated yet brilliant movie with an excellent lead in "Karl Urban" but i loved it & consider this a "Cult Classic" in my opinion. Terrific,Tense & exciting

A Very Great Film by the Excellent Director Marcus Nispel!

[filmone1 · 10 February 2008]

This movie was gorgeous and everything I ever wanted in a "Viking" lands on North America film. I thought this film was very underrated and with the Judd Apatow dreck that gets called film-making these days this really stands up in beauty and depth of story. The cinematography of the Northwest coast was amazing and incorporating the dense forests and lush environments into the shooting process was simply amazing.

The acting was perfect and at times understated in wonderfully blocked scenes between the characters. I thought the action is unmatched by many films pretending to be the action blockbusters they are often sold as. I often marveled at the length in which the filmmakers brought the setting to us no matter how difficult the set-ups seemed.

I hope he keeps making films for years to come! Beautiful!

Cool movie

[i_know_i_die · 7/10 · 21 March 2007]

I don't know why so many people is saying this movie sucks because it is not history accurate. Hey it is just a movie. Can't you sit back and enjoy the movie and stop you complaining about all the history inaccurate thing?

Anyway, Pathfinder is about a boy who was left behind by his clan because he somehow doesn't fit in the clan. Later, he was found by a girl who took him into her clan. They took him in and called him Ghost. Years pass and he is raised by the clan. Everything seems so well until one day, Ghost's old clan came back. They came, they kill and Ghost wants revenge. Then they fight and fight and fight.

What I like most about this movie is the costume. After watching the movie, I want a toy company to create the Vikings. The armors are nice. I like the way they shoot the movie. Pretty cool. The script is somehow OK. It is good but not that good.

A cool movie. Worth watching if you are into swords and armors movies. Fans of Apocalypto and Conan will enjoy this. And stop listen to all this history inaccurate crap.

Vikings and Indians just got less cool

[dpogue21 · 1/10 · 7 August 2007]

Here we have a movie about a white guy who is raised by Indians and ends up choosing them over his own people. Sound familiar? It should, because it's the basically the same plot device used in The Last Samurai (with Japanese people instead of Indians), Tarzan (with jungle animals instead of Indians), The Last of the Mohicans (with Indians this time), and countless other movies, except that most of those movies managed not to suck. Speaking of which, who remembers the scene in The Last of the Mohicans where the guy who acts like a jerk the whole time because he's hopelessly in love with the lead female character sacrificed himself so that the other good guys could get away, and was then shot to death by his friends who wanted to put him out of his misery because the bad guys were burning him alive? Well the EXACT same thing happens in this movie. The only difference is that it's Vikings that are burning the guy alive instead of a rival tribe of Indians. Now you may be thinking, "maybe they never saw The Last of the Mohicans, and it's just a coincidence." Not so...and how do I know this? Because the actor that plays the old/wise Indian in this movie is THE SAME F***ING GUY FROM THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS. You'd think he would have told the producers, "Hey, I made this exact same movie in 1992 where I played this exact same role and we did this exact same scene, except that when we did it that time it didn't have Vikings in it and we did it in a way that didn't suck." Or actually, maybe he's the reason that scene is in this movie. Maybe he told the producers, "Hey guys, we should totally have a scene where the guy who acts like a jerk the whole movie because he is in love with the lead female character nobly sacrifices himself for the good of everybody else and then gets burned alive, but then his friends shoot him as they are fleeing so that he won't have to suffer any longer. Trust me, we have to have that scene or this movie will be terrible. I'm not doing this movie if we don't have that scene."

Basically, this movie is such a rip off of other epic action movies that it's not even funny. It's kind of like watching a lame child limp along and try to play with the other kids...he's trying to do what everyone else is doing, but somehow it's just not working for him. It's actually kind of hard to pinpoint why this movie doesn't really work. If you break it down to its essential ingredients, it actually sounds pretty cool:

• Vikings and Indians fighting each other – check

• Gratuitous sex scene with hot Indian girl – check

• Little kids getting their heads bashed in with axes and maces – check

And yet for some reason, this movie totally sucks. What's worse is that it doesn't even suck of its own accord; it copies other movies and then sucks at it. But if you like scenes where a guy who acted like a jerk the whole movie because he's in love with the lead female character redeems himself by sacrificing himself and getting burned alive until his friends shoot him to put him out of his misery, then this is the shameless rip off you've been waiting for.

Average movie

[suprez · 6/10 · 19 August 2008]

I just rented this movie after so much time it's been out.After the bad critic and the IMDb teen hate i decided to give it a try.

Has expected it's was not a super-movie.The acting and the dialog was average.Some scene although are better .Although i had that smirk of doom in my face which tell a lot about my appreciation of *x* scene.

The Viking here are portrayed has Savage brute who only live to kill,rape and destroy other people.While the Indian are weak,stupid and don't know how to fight.Except our hero , being a Viking himself .After a nice peacefully life and rejected by the tribe because he's a viking(Smirk) , become the legendary fighter(Another Smirk) and with super like strategy and swordsmanship prowess that the most rudless of fighter would pray to get , he kill most of them.I especially loved that scene where he throw a rock into the face of a viking 100 meter away.Aka they really need to go back to school and learn about physic , since that scene was completely surreal(smirk) The fight scene were bad.But most of the time they just show head rolling on the ground.If you know what i mean.It's mostly about gore and not much about action.

Historical it's was a complete mess.Viking were Pillager but they were not so simple minded.They pillaged to fund their war.Like i said.A viking would not travel 9000 miles away just to kill and rape some Indian.

So what's cool about this movie? Good question!

I don't know really . It's took me 3 day to watch it completely.I just could not stand it anymore after 30 minutes .Had to stop and restart later.I guess that tell you a lot.It's an average movie like so many other.Rent it at your own risk.

Uninspired action movie

[Jay_Exiomo · 2/10 · 15 March 2007]

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.

Are you not Entertained? Are you not Entertained

[zoofan9000 · 7/10 · 19 August 2007]

I bought this movie because I thought it looked cool and when I got home I looked it up here and was disappointed by the reviews. I put off watching it because I feared how bad it would be. I am glad husband finally decided we should watch it. While it wasn't a great epic movie (it wont take home any Oscars, I thought it was quite good. I think it is human ego to pick apart a movie, editing, language, character chemistry. Just watch the movie. There wasn't anything dull, it never dragged. Not historically accurate, but so what. Blah, Blah, Blah. It's a movie for crying out loud, get a grip on yourselves, or get over yourselves. I, for one, was entertained, even if I wasn't moved, or uplifted, or enlightened.

Hilarious!

[themowg · 2/10 · 25 April 2007]

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.

Don't think of this as a 'history lesson' ... just enjoy the story.

[Michco · 8/10 · 1 September 2007]

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 !

Rather good bloody action, however lots of dead scenes as well.

[Aaron1375 · 7/10 · 9 December 2007]

This movie was pretty good for the most part. Nice visuals and great action here and there. With that came a few pointless scenes (the strange dream sequences) and a conclusion that could have used a bit more sword fighting. The story, vikings have come to North America with seemingly no other purpose than to kill. What can stop them? Well looks like a storm took some out killing everybody on board a viking vessel leaving only a boy alive. He is taken into the care of the Indians. Well guess what? The vikings return and to their surprise one of the natives can take up a sword and slice and dice them. So what are you in store for, lots of head chopping and blood spurting. Unfortunately, at a certain point in the movie it gets a bit tiresome as the hero leads said vikings here and there trying to take out their numbers using nature. Not that it is all bad, but these scenes are a bit overlong and protracted. I preferred him hacking away with his sword. Still, it passed the time nicely and there were some great scenery shots too. The mountain looks particularly good. It probably helped that I watched this movie on blu-ray too, as this made the scenery shots really stand out. So despite its flaws and lack of any stars, for the most part this movie was entertaining and passed the time rather nicely.

The Worst Movie I've Ever Been Dumb Enough to Pay to See

[suntonova · 2/10 · 14 April 2007]

If for any crazy reason you saw a trailer for Pathfinder and thought, "hey, cool, a viking movie!" stop right there. This movie totally blew; it blew long and hard and I got no satisfaction from it at all. I actually found myself thinking, "hmm.... should we just leave?" I've never walked out of a movie theater, I still haven't, but that was the closest I've ever come.

The good parts- There was a scene where a guy got his face slashed and the eyeball fell out onto the ground and stared up at him... that was kinda cool. The viking costumes were kinda cool too. There was some good cinematography though- which leads me to the bad parts.

The bad parts- The editing was absolutely abysmal. My 6 year old niece could've done better with some safety shears and a roll of scotch tape. There were these massive avalanche scenes and some nice panoramic shots that quite obviously did not come from the same stock as the rest of the movie (picture Ed Wood's stampeding buffalo) Most of the fight scenes were so badly edited you weren't sure who was slashing whom and if a hit was palpable or not. In one Ramboesque sequence I wasn't sure if there were 3 guys or 21 guys that all looked like the same three guys. The score, while not technically horrible in its own rite, did absolutely nothing to convey the story. Character development was mediocre when it wasn't null. Acting- bad to horrible- though in some cases I wasn't sure if it was the fault of the actors so much as the Lucas quality script. Did I mention the horrible washed out filters they used? For a while I thought maybe I was watching a cam of the movie. I can see why they used the filters they used, to a point, all the snow scenes could have gotten overwhelmingly bright; that's why you add some color though- or at least you should. Even some face paint or blood or something.

Anyway, that's my rant.