He had so much beard, helmet, paint, and just plain armor and you couldn't tell who he was. The film attempts to depict a struggle between a noble Native American tribe and some vicious Vikings. The movie has the feel of a rush-job, from its violent montage over the opening credits to its sad cliffhanger of a climax, and is perfectly suitable to an immediate, unceremonious discount direct-to-video release. Now Vikings were violent, but this is absolutely idiotic. 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.
And yes, the script isn't great either, very poor. That pretty much sums up this worthwhile flick. Glossy cinematography and design aside, Pathfinder is a jumbled, hysterical muddle. 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. In a way, it's perfect: You can't imagine anyone seeing this mess and not feeling lesser for the experience.
Ghost may be the hero, but he doesn't say a single intelligent thing in the entire screenplay. Where Pathfinder really works is when the good guys use nature against the enemy. A lot of money was obviously put into the project, and I can't help but wonder where it all went. I'm from Norway and I know the original movie. 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. Images of the mayhem range from aggressively chaotic to slow-motion poetic, with repeated shots of spurting blood primarily from chests and necks. No sin was forgiven and no bad deeds went unpunished.
Aside from the heroic Ghost, I do not recall a single other character's name being mentioned in the dialogue. I enjoyed the 13th Warrior, I enjoyed Pathfinder, for 90-120 minutes I did not have to think about anything other than the characters in the film. After watching the movie, I want a toy company to create the Vikings. This movie is not as bad as some say. He reaches the neighboring tribe and is tended to by Pathfinder and his daughter.
The dialogue s is not the perfect one, but must resemble the simplicity of older times. The movie doesnt take itself historically accurate, so why did they say that? 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. Like really bad film bad! Instead, it's available for consumption on the big screen and best left to those with a good sense of humor. The film is so dark that you lose track of things often, and cannot tell who is fighting, or how many there are. If I remember correctly, it was first slated for release in January of '06. Come on, there were no horses in North America until the Spaniards brought them over after the Vikings visited. My other complaint is that all the Indians speak English.
Someone who had never seen an action movie wouldn't credit a minute of it. Buy Related Products Review by Mark Dujsik Pathfinder is history seen as legend, and legend processed through the Hollywood action formula. Like Apocalypto, Pathfinder blends non-stop thrills with ancient languages the Vikings speak in subtitled Nordic, the Native Americans in, erm, English. This film just lets the arrows fly and the heads roll. All the lines performed by the vikings seems like gibberish, except a couple of words here and there. Fans of Apocalypto and Conan will enjoy this. At that point you realized that if you go 500 hundreds meters away from sea level, you end up on top of a mountain.
Just keep changing the oil on time you'll do well! Stunning and gripping realization by Marcus Nispel. Vikings where no where near the brutish beasts they portrayed them as. First of all there is the storyline if any , then there is the fact that the vikings have horses and look like some characters from spawn or something. And who wants to watch a two-hour music video? He thought it was a waste of time, too. 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. Granted it's perhaps the case, but the direction of Marcus Nispel is heavily uninspired.
Pearl dabs the picture in blues and grays and whites and there's something dreamlike, otherworldly, about the proceedings. However, his film got the green light before the graphic novel could be completed. The acting is horrendous as well. I'm pretty certain the producers have only the faintest idea of what a viking really was. Unfortunately, many viewers, such as my friend, miss the point, as they in fact look for a point. The film's visuals seem to have gotten about as much attention as the dialogue, and often look dark and bland.
The action sequences are generally well done. This is the closest anyone's come to capturing the work of illustrator Frank Frazetta on screen. The thought of inner struggle and loftier redemption was lost in the midst of killing and vengeance. 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. Ghost Karl Urban is a Norse boy left behind aboard a wrecked ship.
My 6 year old niece could've done better with some safety shears and a roll of scotch tape. I was not expecting it to be a spectacular Hollywood production because it was on a more realistic Canadian budget. My objective in a film is not to pick it apart over every little costume mishap or geographic mistake but to sit and be entertained. There are about six words worth of meaningful dialog in this film. The bad parts- The editing was absolutely abysmal. Take a look at -- while the article is not very well-structured, it has a lot of references that help reflect what would be acceptable here.