jagc1969 The Norwegian original film is way too better than this remake. Bad acting, ridiculous script, bad filming... Even action scenes are not too thrilling really. Even CGI has poor quality. Hollywood seems to be running out ideas and they had decided to take others' ideas and adapt them for American market. Sometimes it works and sometimes don't. This time is a failed one. This film is only a waste of time and resources.Really disappointing. Watch the Norwegian original !

omorg-pub brutally torn apart by the official critics, Pathfinder is both my favorite Karl Urban performance and a classic story of the outsider finding his place and his identity in this world through courage and companionship. Anyone who can't identify with this plot has been through too little trouble in this world and little self-searching. It may be true that there is little originality, but has it not also been said there there are no truly new stories to be told in this world? and that was said many centuries ago. not the best film to be made in modern times, but far, far from the worst and there are more highly rated films and TV that are vastly worst.

nvjs From the start, Pathfinder was Bad. The direction was weak. Nispel clearly doesn't have the chops to do action. Which should say something since it requires the least experience to break into films. Nispel's other films were "Frankenstein", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and the re-imaging of "Friday the 13th". All horror films. Pathfinder hopefully will be his first and last attempt at making action films this bad. Like I've criticized Mark Steven Johnson for is the same as Nispel for printing the first and probably the only takes. The actors are of the amateur caliber under Nispel's direction with over/under doing it. But Pathfinder doesn't try to be anything it isn't. With that said, it doesn't try to make a concerted effort at the whole action theme either. What does salvage the film from being a total waste is Daniel Pearl's lush and rich color palette darkening that gives the film a moody and ominous look and feel. The art direction and production design are also to the film's benefit. The Vikings or Norsemen truly look feral and formidable with the anachronistic and faux pas goat horns and canine riddled helmets. This truly gives them a touch of aesthetics to help sell the idea that the Natives are over-matched.Clearly, Nispel felt that the less we know about either faction, the less sympathy we'd have for either. It seems the Natives were meant, merely fodder for gratuitous (yawn) scenes which are gratuitous for the sake of gratuity and to make you feel contempt for the Vikings. The whole "story" is that the Vikings, for sheer boredom decide to satiate their inexplicable desire to just kill "savages". There isn't any "McGuffin" here to help move the story forward, no exposition for the characters, little if any semblance for the hero, Ghost's dramatic arc where he learns something about himself for personal growth, and a page ripped from the Michael Bay book of film making: Tell the story without cliché'd words. Use action and random explosions as the characters,story, and plot. By the way, Michael Bay was a producer on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". So if Nispel's learned anything from him, it's how to emulate him. That is NOT a compliment.

bleeding_llama It's been five years. Five long, hard years, and me and my friends still joke about that day... that dark, unforgettably horrible day where we went to see pathfinder.There was nothing enjoyable about this film. I don't even need to review it. It was literally the worst day I've ever spent at the cinema.There are 'worse' films that exist. Some are 'so bad it's good', but sometimes you burst through that and fall into 'so bad it's utterly terrible'. This film falls into the latter category.It's been a while and I wasn't quite the film fan that I'm training to be today but the problems still linger in my mind even now. I'll break down what I remember into five, easy to digest problems. Problem one, the sound. The 'score' was terrible the entire film. I believe there's about 17-22 seconds of tribal drums that are on repeat throughout the whole film and that's it. There's very little dialogue (problem two) but no action to replace it so you better get used to that beat. Problem three is poor characters. Not much needs explaining here, we've all seen these sorts of films where the characters have less dimensions than the women of 1884 novella "flatland." I'll finish up briefly with: problem four, the final nail. Plot could not be more terrible.Do I recommend this movie? No. Do I dare you to watch it? Yes.