Pathfinder

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.

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.

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.

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.

I know movies plain and simple. Was this great... no, but was it pretty mindless entertainment...yes. My main complaint was that the original villain Kurgan Clancy Brown from the Highlander movie was barely noticeable through all of the film. He had so much beard, helmet, paint, and just plain armor and you couldn't tell who he was. Only way I knew him was because of his voice and Eyes. One of his best underrated and too soon canceled programs the Showtime series "Carnivale" showed just how good he is at being bad but at the same time kinda good. Anyway back to the movie, it's main problem is the awful editing, It had some pretty decent action scenes but they just cut so quickly and you never get a hold on what you are seeing! My other complaint is that all the Indians speak English. I can understand this happening 20 years ago, but are we really that lazy that we can't read subtitles? Especially in this day in age, do we have to put all films in English? It sounds ridiculous and remember "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" did over 100 mil. U.S. and it was subtitled! The script also seemed repetitive sometimes as well. And whose Idea was it to not give the main character any lines 15 minutes into the movie? Well just don't ask too much of the film and it should be OK.