Pathfinder Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Two Worlds, One War. The Ultimate Battle Begins.
An Untold Legend
A Viking boy is left behind after his clan battles a Native American tribe. Raised within the tribe, he ultimately becomes their savior in a fight against the Norsemen.
| Karl Urban | Ghost |
| Russell Means | Pathfinder |
| Moon Bloodgood | Starfire |
| Jay Tavare | Blackwing |
| Clancy Brown | Gunnar |
| Nathaniel Arcand | Wind in Tree |
| Ralf Moeller | Ulfar |
| Kevin Loring | Jester |
| Wayne Charles Baker | Indian Father |
| Burkely Duffield | Ghost – 12 Years Old |
| Ray G. Thunderchild | Elder #1 |
| Duane Howard | Elder #2 |
| Brandon Oakes | Elder #3 |
| Alain Hudon | Elder #4 |
| Cyler Point | Indian Boy – 7 Years Old |
| Marcus Nispel |
4.90 out of 10 (1944 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Potential that went unrealized,,,,,,
posted on 12 Aug 2009Based on the Vikings excursion to the "New World" long before Columbus. There is one lone man capable of stopping a Nordic invasion that will wipe out the native American population. Thats about all there is to the story, wanted more? So did I.To start off this movie really did have potential.I went in and really did want to like this. Unfortunately after viewing this I am certain that there was not one redeemable feature in the whole film.The lack of story and explanation really hurts the movie. Your sort of thrown into the middle of a random collection of battle scenes where an amazing amount of heads and other body parts are flung around but your never really told why. Why the Vikings are hellbent on killing every man, woman and child they come across. It is mentioned a couple times that they are there to colonize but not once do you see a Viking woman, child or cow for gods sake. Some little tidbit of information trying to bring some credibility to an empty story. Im sure not more than 2 lines of meaningful dialect is even spoken.And while were on that subject why was the Viking language subtitled and the native American language in English? Not a nagging detail i guess but still bothered me.All the Vikings look alike and are all bloodthirsty killing machines. Not exactly like you read from the history books but what do we know.The visuals were not even the best they could of been, the avalanche scene specifically looks like it was cut from national geographic.Overall if you want a hack and slash movie with no apparent meaning or message this will do but if you want something with a little more meat to it than a movies like 300 and Gladiator will provide a more fulfilling experience.
If you want it
posted on 10 Aug 2009Pathfinder was good in the sense that it wasn't stupid. They made a real effort to keep the movie from being stupid. You could buy it on DVD without fear of regretting spending your money. On the other hand, it wasn't great. There was little to no duologue. Karl Urban probably had less lines in this than in Riddick. It is about an hour and a half of just watching action irregularly punctuated with a conversation or two. However, if you get off on Viking pictures and you like yourself some He-Man/Conan/Barbarian action and you can't bide your time for Pitt to act in some reinvention of it, then it would be real good. It had some good action scenes in it. They actually had something like an 'action-based plot'. No subtitles needed for this flick. you could be stone deaf and still get as much out of this picture as the next man. But if you could content yourself with just watching Urban, spend your money and enjoy. If you want Sean Penn kind of duologue and plot, try elsewhere.
The Downfall of Karl urban
posted on 29 Jul 2009To start thing off i'd like to say that i "use" to like Karl Urban.. he was good in Doom and.... anyway.. after this movie I don't think he will find another serious movie role... Seriously i've 5h17 better things then Pathfinder.. i was so excited to see it.. but when i walked out of that theater i was almost determined to jack a band if that meant i could get my 7 bucks back.. The worst part of that movie aside from the horrible 1 slash fight scenes or the horrible sword fights or Tetris looking video game graphics (EX: the view of the frozen lake while transporting Urban).. was the ridiculous avalanche that they stole from Discovery Channel... I mean they didn't even acknowledge Discovery Channel for stealing their "BEEP"...it was overall a very sad, poor as p1ss put together movie.. i would have rather gotten my foot run over by a car...or lawnmower...!! =D
They didn't even take me out to dinner.
posted on 29 Jul 2009Before f***ing my heritage. The film starts out with a message to the viewer that reads something like "600 years before Columbus Vikings tried to conquer the new world." Well, that's close to what happened, but not quite on the money. See.. A few viking (AKA homesteaders) ships left Greenland to set up camp in Nova Scotia because the Vikings were in search of better lands.. Some hostile Indians killed one of the Vikings and so they went back to Greenland. Maybe this isn't the most exciting story to tell, so I can deal with some embellishment. But hold on now.Vikings that wear 50 pound horned helmets to look menacing. Vikings who speak bad Icelandic (I've only been studying it for a couple years and I could tell). Vikings who care not for plunder, but instead to simply destroy all that is beautiful in the world.I just want the reader to imagine a role reversal. Crazy savages bent on destruction invade a Viking encampment just to see what the blood of white skinned children tastes like. They dress in wolf skins, don't bathe, and laugh at any resistance while kicking over baskets of berries and burning everything in sight. You won't ever see this in a film made after 1940. Why? Not because it isn't entertaining, but because liberal Hollywood knows very well who it is PC to dress up as the villains. They know that sympathies for native Americans run deep because on some level Americans feel guilty about how they WERE raped and plundered by Columbus and his progeny of goons.Now is about when you are going.. Man.. You're taking this way too seriously. Look at it for it's entertainment value.First of all, people with this attitude disgust me. These are the types that think entertainment is more important than history. You are exactly the kind of person who is willing to be duped by Fox News propaganda and the country would probably be better off without you.But... Needless to say I did try to be entertained. The sled chase scene ala Willow was pretty cool, but it's hard to enjoy a film where all of its redeeming qualities were plagiarized. See:Pathfinder (the first one), Willow, Predator, Last of the Mohicans. etc.To sum things up this film was a cut and paste version of several other films. The acting was the worst. The editing was a close second. The plot made no logical sense and was something I would even call racist in the 300 sense of the word. Don't even rent it if you value the fruits of your labor.
Jeez
posted on 29 Jul 2009I don't know what to say about this film , except how awful it was. It cost me and a friend 20 dollars to see this heap of crap. The acting was "wooden" and unprofessional at best.The plot was thin to begin with stretching it even more by the plodding screenplay. It seems maybe the players were cast from a junior college drama dept. The only thing this film had going for it was the scenery....hardly a reason to watch a movie. The portrait painted of the Vikings was hilarious...they may as well have made them space aliens or monsters. I would pass on this movie once it comes to video as well,. I'd take a rainy Saturday afternoon watching golf or fishing shows over agonizing through this sh*t again!
Excellent addition to the sword and moccasin genre
posted on 13 Jul 2009I really enjoyed pathfinder.Like '300, Pathfinder is based very loosely on reality, so if a person has the expectation that it is a historical movie, they will likely be disappointed.Pathfinder's almost surreal styling come across as a legend as told by the same native people perhaps many generations after the original events. As a result the Vikings appear almost like mythical monsters whose barbarism and inhuman acts serve as a warning for current and future generations.One only has to look to current and past wars and conflicts to see examples of how enemies both real and perceived are dehumanized as a defense mechanism.Bottom line: A very effective action movie, whose influences are obvious, yet unique in it's own right all wrapped up with some great effects and sometimes breathtaking cinematography.
Not a bad B-movie
posted on 09 Jul 2009This 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.
One Man Versus The World
posted on 25 Jun 2009A Viking child raised by the very people his family kill for what seems like nothing other than pleasure. Actually sounds ironically cool but from the off the films kinda dull. Not gonna lie its not much better as it goes on. Depends what you look for, if your a fan of gladiator or 300 its easy to say this film will not be your cup of tea.The sets are small and cramped throughout, every things very close. The fights are brutal and gory but everyone seems to struggle to move the bulk of armour they all wear seems to stop everyone from making proper fighting movements.One man versus the world says it all, Its not very epic and you'l find yourself thinking this films very cheesy** Proper Spoiler **A James bond style sled fight down a mountain. Hundreds of warriors killed by one man who grew up with people who cant fight. Then of course the mountains of slaughtered natives who have done nothing to prepare themselves for any kind of attacks. Worst of all the vikings speak well wot iv heard to be Icelandic, through the whole film without subtitles, and yes i no a lot of people can say it works but with it lasting through the whole film and with 100 people pointing and shouting and waving around you don't really understand what their true intentions are ever.The whole film is based on a story that could of worked but the end result combined with poor dialogue, cramped simple fights and a rather silly feel to most of it id have to say.. Poor Film.
Karl Urban, how could you?
posted on 23 Jun 2009I titled this "Karl Urban, how could you?" for a reason. Karl Urban's done so many great movies and is an all around great actor. Okay, yes everyone loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But he's been great in many others too. And Clancy Brown was in Pathfinder too. How could you lose I say? I think you can tell I expected a lot from "Pathfinder". Well, it never delivered. Not even close!!! The acting was as good as it could be. But the writing (stay on strike, whoever wrote this) was awful. And worst of all, were the sound effects. The biggest sound effect joke came at one point when Karl Urban was running over some hills and in the background, from a distance, you hear grunting which, instead of reminding one of running, was more fitting for a porn movie!! It was purely dreadful.The whole thing simply didn't click. Pathfinder is a waste of your time and money. If you know what's good for you, you'll clear a path and find your way to any other DVD in the store or any other movies you can find in the trash bin.
Dances with Vikings
posted on 17 Jun 2009Nipsel and company basically hybridized the structure of Dances with Wolves with a not-quite-historical fiction (more like radical speculation) plot about interactions between Norsemen and Native Americans during the 12th century A.D.Ghost (Karl Urban) is a Norse boy left behind aboard a wrecked ship. He is adopted by the Clan of the Dog (the dogs who cohabitate with this tribe are historically inaccurate, but that's just one of many historical transgressions). As he grows up, Ghost's obvious difference and his history become something of a stumbling block for him, but he works hard to overcome them in order to be accepted by his adoptive people. Eventually, it seems, he must confront the demons of his past, and unfortunately, so must the Clan of the Dog.Pathfinder is played well by Russell Means, and Ghost's love interest - Starfire - is nicely portrayed by Moon Bloodgood. Urban has great physical talent, but this story did not lend itself to testing his ability to create drama and mood, so there isn't much to say about his performance. Likewise, most of the Norse characters were so under-developed and one-dimensional that it is impossible to comment on the performances involved.Although the story relies on stereotypes to develop both its Norse and Native American characters, since so little is actually known about the Norse colonies, this seems forgivable. What is not really forgivable, in my opinion, is the reiteration of the trope established in Dances with Wolves and other similar works which suggests that it takes a European to effectively fight off Europeans. Although the characterizations of the protagonists in both films are adequate to explain their behavior, the character and behavior of the Native Americans attached to them is less well developed, and there is a lingering, inaccurate and disturbing shadow of inferiority implied in their apparent inability to strategize and effectively lead in combat.However, Pathfinder refuses to touch reality with any length of pole, so, sit back and enjoy the action, costumes and sets.The film contains a lot of violence, most of which is convincingly shot. The costuming is excellent, and the sets are lovely. if you can get past the problems - which are several - you may just enjoy it.
What a piece of junk
posted on 15 Jun 2009Please, for your own sake if you are thinking about renting / buying / going to see this movie, DON'T. It's not as if I expected it to win any Oscar's when I set out to see it but I figured that if it had enough action it would keep me mildly amused.... I was wrong. The Plot was horrendous; I've never seen a cheesier story line. I'm not sure who wrote this thing but my guess is they haven't graduated grade school yet. And as for the editing, I think whoever was in charge of that probably was drinking on the job. I mean I'm no expert, but I figure someone should have caught the fact that in one shot there's ferns, moss and assorted vegetation all over the place and the next shot the whole place is covered with snow. I swear they didn't write a script but must have made up the movie as they went along. My guess is they just added the snow when it suited the story line.P.S. Adam, you owe me $13 for making me go see this piece of rubbish, that's money that could have been spent on beer.
I Lost 88 minutes of my life that I'll never get back
posted on 11 Jun 2009Okay, so I gave it a two. That is only because there was an attempt made to make the battle scenes exciting. That was it.This movie seemed to be an attempt to gather the best of some really good films and lump them together in a feeble try to make a blockbuster. Most notably "300" and "Conan The Barbarian". The movie is factually inaccurate on almost every level. Not to mention I found it extremely funny that while the Indian's were able to speak perfect English, slang included, the so called Vikings had to be sub-titled.At one critical moment in the film, critical only because my eyes were open at that time.....the lead character "Ghost" is asked whether the location chosen for their stand against the barbarians is a good one...is response is..."Yeah". Powerful! What writing!There is a moment where a young Indian girl is being chased through the woods by the barbarians, and at one point she pauses and turns to see her pursuers and gives almost the same exact look at you see from Macauly Caulkin in "Home Alone"....same scream, same look on her face, all that was missing was for her to slap her cheeks as she yelled.Swords floated gingerly down to the bottom of a lake....A wise Indian proverb is uttered...something to the effect that the only battle in a mans heart is between Love and Hate.What else to say? This movie had the potential to be a wonderful epic had they spent a lot more time on the writing, direction, music, and story in general.I wouldn't waste the cost of a Netflix transaction on it. You will come away with a blackout in time.
Karl Urban
posted on 09 Jun 2009While it is true not all film directors can envision and extract the best from the actors in their films, this Karl Urban performance was different from what we have seen him capable of as Vaako in The Chronicles of Riddick and as Eomer in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Karl as the Viking boy raised by an American Indian tribe gave a primitive and exciting performance but his portrayal of an Indian brave did lack some of the close up intensity we know he can deliver. In this story, the Vikings and American Indians were struggling for survival, so perhaps more action and less character development was called for. If battle minded Vikings landed on those shores, they would have taken the Indians by surprise, and then swarmed on foot, killing at will. If we were watching a film about Crazy Horse fighting George Custer at Little Big Horn, we wouldn't want character development to slow the pace of the battle; rich character development was not this film's goal. Having said that, we watch Karl Urban as he learns to conquer his fears and we see Pathfinder's daughter learn to trust Karl's character, the ghost. We have rich character development in film when those characters have more leisure time, not when they are fighting for the survival of their loved ones and their tribe!
Absolutely Terrible - Do not waste your time
posted on 07 Jun 2009I rented this movie through on demand even after I saw the bad reviews on this site. I thought to myself - it cannot be THAT bad. Afterall, the preview looked decent enough. I was wrong. It is THAT bad. This is simply a movie where nothing seemed to work. The acting is truly atrocious and it seems as if absolutely no effort was put into writing any intelligent duologue. The action scenes could have been a redeeming quality - vikings fighting Indian villages sounds interesting - but no, this was also botched. It is impossible to tell what is going on due to ill conceived camera angles and poor editing. It really is frustrating to watch. At any given moment the main character could've been fighting one viking or twenty for all I knew (i'd refer to the character by name but i'm not sure they ever established a name for him, and if they did it certainly wasn't memorable).In short, the movie fails on all levels and is very tough to sit through.
I never thought it was possible
posted on 03 Jun 2009Norway is not well known for making better films than Hollywood, but in this case they are. The Pathfinder is historical vomit and should never have been made under those circumstances. Vikings with bigger horns than swords. They looked like wrestlers on steroids. The action was boring, predictable and a mere copy of action sequences in b-films. The photography and lighting was cool. Except that the photography was so caught up in following the rules, that it was like watching a music video. And who wants to watch a two-hour music video? All in all, very little excitement. If you want to watch a better pathfinder - find the Norwegian version "Veiviseren". I got to go puke!
Not a terrible movie
posted on 30 May 2009Thought I would pick this movie up the other day, ( just one more to the collection ). I finally got around to watching it, and its not a terrible movie, it won't win academy awards, but it was enjoyable.Turned out to be a fairly bloody film, which is to be expected. The story was decent, acting was OK. My only downfall to the film, is I didn't know any character names. I never even heard his name was Ghost. Did I just not catch it? I have no clue.I guess you could watch the movie and guess how its going to span out, but then again today you could do that with most movies. This one snuck under my radar but like I said I enjoyed it, no love for it, but yet no hate.
could it been better! way better!
posted on 30 May 2009My best guess is that the event took place somewhere in Greenland and the battle is between some viking tribe and some Indian tribes from Greenland.At the beginning was something like Mel Gibbson's Armagedon in winter land jungle, with orc like dressed vikings and and naked Indians walking almost bear footed on snow. well, the new perspective of the vikings are nice, atrocious humans covered by heavy furs and heavy armour. i did like that! The story on the other part is poor, the action scenes are good, but made somehow in a hurry and not so many, some of the footage didn't belong there, like the avalanche.The atmosphere reminds me of "The 13th Warrior (1999)" but at a smaller scale.
Hollywood Propaganda at its most Hamfisted
posted on 30 May 2009No one writes a book or a film without some sort of angle. Most, especially those who are only marginally talented, will write with one overarching objective: to get his screenplay made into a movie and have a tidy payday. How to do this? Appeal to the powers that be who hold the purse strings. With political correctness raging world wide with an unassailability not seen since the Inquisition, few studio honchos would allow a film to be released that portrays Norsemen in a positive light. Whether it be by fashion or plot, White people can only be evil in Hollywood's eyes, and those of Germanic heritage, be they Norse, German, or English, are the very worst of all. The message of course is to feel BAD about yourselves, White Folks... you are all evil. Your only salvation is to fight against your fellow Europeans on the side of political correctness and kill your evil white brothers in the name of whatever "oppressed" race is the social liberal toast of the day. If you watch this film, you will find it very hard not to see it for the "hate whitey" propaganda it is, since it is really one of the more blunt and offensive examples of this I have ever seen. If you want to see another, watch King Arthur. Same sort of anti-Germanic dreck, though somewhat more watchable than this awful film.
We need a toyline
posted on 20 May 2009When the final movie is filmed and the list of the greatest movies of all time is released it is safe to say that Pathfinder will be nowhere to be seen. This is as it should be though, the director of Pathfinder wasn't setting out to make art. You won't finish this movie and be inspired to change the world, you won't look for this at the next Oscars. You might however be inspired to strap on every pot and pan in your kitchen and pretend to be a Viking.This is the gift of Pathfinder. In a world where every movie is expected to say something, win something or bring in more money than God, Pathfinder says NO. Instead Pathfinder says sit down, switch off and enjoy the ride. Huge scary Vikings attack Native Americans and it is up to Ghost, a Viking child abandoned by his own people and raised by the Native Americans to turn the tide in a series of great set pieces.You'll wish there was a toy line for the characters so they can take on your treasured Clash of the Titans action figures in a battle to the finish. This is a fun movie that you'll look back on fondly in years to come, but get the Unrated edition because, well, more gore is always a good thing.The performances are all solid and Karl Urban appears to be the inheritor of the Kurt Russell gift of aging to suit the movie you are in. This film is lots and lots of fun and this unashamed style of movie making deserves to be supported.
Horrible movie
posted on 26 Aug 2009Most of it made no sense. The vikings were one dimensional with no motive for doing anything, nor any consequence, good or bad. The thing that annoyed me the most is that the viking child at the beginning had blond hair and blue eyes. The chief even pointed this out in a scene. However, Karl Urban has very dark, almost black eyes, and very dark hair. He almost looks like the Indians. My husband and I went to see it today and we both have placed it on our list of worst films. And I like Karl Urban, but this movie is awful.There seemed to just be hack and slash with no plot. Was there a plot? If so, I couldn't find it. There was also no visual texture. Every scene looked the same, in a hazy blue filter with nothing to stimulate the eye, except some blood splatter.