Pathfinder (2007)

I usually force myself to watch a movie once I start and this one was no difference except that I used fast-forward which made it bearable.In some ways it reminded me of Apocalypto (2006) which I really enjoyed but this completely missed the mark.

Pathfinder is an action film that although has some well choreographed fight scenes, never does much better than that, and also the only reason I didn't rate it lower. With poor acting to contribute to the already negative sounding movie, you can't help feel whilst watching "who ever thought this or that was a good idea". At least it was a short movie, probably one more reason it isn't nauseatingly bad, I felt it was just about a bad movie, and here below is why so.The story is one that isn't always seen, but nevertheless is still played out very badly and never gets to the point I feel it wanted to reach. I did enjoy(slightly) some of the action scenes scattered around, mostly in the middle it has to be said, and they can actually make you want to keep looking at the screen. It could have been better if it had put in more action, it may sound like a terrible formula but even over the top fighting would probably have saved this movie just a little bit.Karl Urban is not the worst actor, and been in some blockbusters before, but here he seems out of place and very still like, almost as if they cast George of the jungle to be the main character. Russell Means as the Pathfinder is really quite good and is probably the only actor in this that puts in a serious display, sadly he is wasted in most of his scenes. Any chemistry the makers wanted never comes to fruition either, even when people are angry at one another they still seem to be good friends for some strange reason.The directing is pretty bad but not the worst thing seen here, some scenes at the end and of course any action is well done and so the director isn't all at fault. The writing is bad to say the least, just not one piece of dialogue seems to be any thing other than basic, the thing is some parts are set up quite well just to be wasted by the script involved. Special Effects are unneeded but used, instead of building sets which are pretty simple they decided to digitally do certain things, which make the film look very cheap but also ruin what could have been decent parts.I said before about the action, not too bad and well done in most parts when not ruined by effects or acting. One thing that is well done are the grim scenes, any part which is meant to be a dark and horrible bit is actually done quite well and you can at time feel genuinely bad for the people on the wrong end of the scenes. Other than those points and Russell Means acting, not much more positivity to give I'm afraid.If you want to see an action filled film, and don't care about the script, directing and acting, then this could be for you for sure. If you also like blood and guts, I guess partly this could be for you too, not so much guts but very bloody when in fighting. If you want to see a well worked drama piece then stay away, this is possibly a great definition of bad drama, working with over used fighting.Overall it is just about a Pretty Terrible movie and one that so nearly is just "Bad". As said It isn't long and so it means you aren't too annoyed you wasted your time viewing it by the end, although you may have a few choice words by the time it is finished. I must stress there are worse movies out there so don't think this will make you puke in disgust, well maybe you will a little.

Pathfinder ought to be a terrible film. It's about as historically accurate as Braveheart and completely unoriginal, being essentially a remake of the (very good) Norwegian film of the same name, with bits of First Blood, Kato's Land and Fuqua's King Arthur thrown in. But if you can stop yourself going "Dude, Vikings didn't have cavalry!"* and suchlike, you can enjoy it as a straightforward action/fantasy film. It's the usual story of the bad guys who burn the village and the hero who stops them, which means it has funky barbarian costumes, cool weapons** and traps, spectacular landscapes and of course lots of fight scenes, and the fight scenes are done really well. As a bonus, it's beautifully filmed.* OK, Vikings did sometimes use horses as transport, but they didn't take them on their ships; they stole them when they arrived, and in America there would have been no horses to steal. ** Including one-handed flails, which didn't appear until the late Middle Ages.

American quality, so it gives 10000% wrong image about vikings. Story was good, though. I also liked many things about this movie: awesome looking props, good acting, but vikings were just too unrealistic because vikings were not that violent (In real life)Battles in this movie are exciting and awesome. You can feel how awesome this movie is, when you look at backgrounds, villages and clothes. They all fit well in this movie. Only thing i didn't like was making vikings the bad guys and viking clothing was too unrealistic. And like i said, battles are amazing, like when they are fighting while sliding down the hill. This movie was OK but i have seen a lot better ones.