The Pathfinder

I had such high hopes! Not long after Russell means and Daniel Day Lewis last of the Mohicans, this had to be within shouting distance of that, right? With the caliber of cast and story, how bad could it be? It's like a middle school production. The scenery is gorgeous, but everything else just has that two dimensional cardboard feel. Graham Greene and Michael Hogan! Laurie Holden and Russell Means! Stacy Keach for god sake! Sometimes they sort of don't suck, almost like their natural talent accidentally shone through. All of these actors have done terrific work before and after this, so it must have been the writing and direction. You know when you're watching a bunch of kids doing a show and you keep waiting for the wig to fall off? Kevin Dillon, ladies and gentlemen...

It's hard to begin to describe how bad this movie is. While bringing great literature to the screen might not be the easiest of tasks, you would think the average production company couldn't go wrong with an action story. It's therefore remarkable - stunning, in fact - how completely this film fails on just about every level. It loses the audience from the get go, somehow managing to make a dangerous canoe trip down a roaring Niagara river as dull as ditch water.

The acting is woefully poor, with perhaps only Graham Greene approaching passable level. Most of the cast deliver their dialog so stiffly and with such tortured syntax (supposedly the writers felt it would be more authentic that way) that it's often hard to understand half of what is said, and impossible to care much anyway.

The whole production has the air of a reenactment, with none of the charm. This might even be an insult to the good folk who take pride in their amateur productions, because filming such a display would likely have resulted in a more engrossing film than this so-called professional effort. One of the very few plus points is that they used some authentic backdrops. It might have been better had they just had someone read a truncated version of the story over shots of the fort, river, lake, etc. On that point, the story is set up as being told as a bedtime story by a grandmother to two small children at a later date - a completely pointless and witless exercise, which does nothing but underline the idea that this film can lull the audience to sleep.

Added to the many technical failings are at least a couple of dubious continuity issues. The 18th century pistols sound like modern firearms when fired and the shots echo as if fired indoors while the characters are using the guns outdoors. In one scene, two characters tracking through the woods discover a shoe print that looks a little too much like a modern man's size 12.

Ultimately, this is a horrible film that should be avoided at all costs.

I too have seen this movie, although I saw it on like Austar or something. It would have to be one of the funniest movies I have ever seen....too bad it's meant to be serious. I have to agree that the acting was poor but it sure was fun laughing at the actors thinking they were really cool. The special effects were so lame, come on, I mean, an explosion was nowhere near these guys and you could actually see them jumping. The whole movie was a bit clichéd if you ask me, the whole 'hero saves the day' big tough guy thing. Pfft I gave this movie 2 out of 10, mainly because it was so shocking it was funny and I would buy it just to laugh at it.

You might come across this gem after viewing Mann's 1992 Last of the Mohicans or reading Cooper's book, and thirsting for more. Unless you're desperate in the extreme, however, I can't recommend it. The two mains look like they stepped out of an 80's musical, and the costumes are all Walmart specials, fresh out of the laundromat.

The one good part, which is why I watched it at all, was the occasional (not frequent) use of genuine scenery and "indians" running through the trees with muskets. As noted in other reviews, however, they are white and flabby, so it's a letdown anyway. As for story, historical reenactment, drama, anything redeemable, it's just plain absent from this show.

The Pathfinder is the third in plot succession of James Fenimore Cooper's Leather-Stocking Tales, a series of five novels depicting life along early America's northeast frontier, each of which features adventures engaging Natty Bumppo, called Leather Stocking due to his long deerskin gaiters, and are full of exciting occurrences, the author's love of the native forests, and scenes ripe for performing artists' insights. We should expect to be grateful for this adaptation, with its more than adequate funding, an outstanding director and technician, Donald Shebib, and proven cast members including Graham Greene, Stephen Russell, Stacy Keach, and Laurie Holden, but the work's very opening scene, depicting the oftseen Flabby Bodied Non-Indians Stripped To The Waist, Daubed In War Paint, And Jiggling Their Soft Bellies Through The Woods, is a harbinger of the sloppy production values to come. The cardinal problem here involves wholesale changes in the plot of the novel, apparently scripted by committee, which includes unrequited love and its effects, altered drastically among the roles, with other sharp alterations bringing about losses of logic, suspense and dramatic continuity, shabby stunt direction and ragged editing also adding to the visual disharmony. Some of the players are quite effective in this beautifully costumed production, actually filmed on and about the Lake Ontario locations of the novel, especially Keach as a French general, Greene as Bumppo's Mohican mentor, Holden with a typically sincere performance, and excellent stage-trained Canadian Russell as the principal villain; however, the remainder of the casting is quaint at best, remarkably so in the case of the film's lead, Kevin Dillon, far too young and lacking in range for the fortyish Pathfinder, who gives one the perception throughout that showing up for this one was the most unpleasant thing he'd to do for a while.