Pathfinder

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.