Pathfinder
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: April 13, 2007
5.0
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 56 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
20
Mixed:
13
Negative:
23
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
3
SnackyBearApr 30, 2007
The thing that disturbs me most about this movie is that I could not imagine how the vikings could fit their horses into their narrow-hulled ships, because as I saw from the movie, these were the kind of ships they used to cross the ocean The thing that disturbs me most about this movie is that I could not imagine how the vikings could fit their horses into their narrow-hulled ships, because as I saw from the movie, these were the kind of ships they used to cross the ocean and reach foreign land. I'm not familiar with Nordic history, but did the vikings rear and ride horses? Maybe they should have incorporated Led Zep's "Immigrant Song" into this movie to make it sound better because the dialogue was diabolical.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RoryT.Aug 1, 2007
Just a trashy movie no nudity at all that would have been good to have in cause the only good thing in there was the Vikings aumor and shit.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ChadS.Apr 13, 2007
If Ghost (Karl Urban) considers himself a full-fledged "Indian" and purports to have foresaken the Viking people that emasculated and discarded him, why is he able to communicate so effortlessly in a language that no longer has any daily If Ghost (Karl Urban) considers himself a full-fledged "Indian" and purports to have foresaken the Viking people that emasculated and discarded him, why is he able to communicate so effortlessly in a language that no longer has any daily relevance in his life? "Pathfinder" isn't meant to be an ethnographic study like the 1987 Finnish production(that documented the Lapp people); Ghost's ability to converse in his native tongue just makes it easier for the story to move along. This bit of screenwriting laziness, however, gave me the impression that Ghost keeps himself at a distance from his adopted people. He's so aloof, sometimes downright miserable. If "Pathfinder" made any overtures to complexity, in accordance with Ghost's reluctance to part with an old language, some doubt about his loyalty to the tribe(late in the film) might've been a minor improvement over what actually ensues. The official story behind the pangs of Ghost's heart is attributed to his undeclared love for Starfire(Moon Bloodgold), but his long memory for Anglo-Saxon grammar and syntax opens up the possibility that he never got over being ostracized(once a Viking, always a Viking). "Pathfinder" will turn you into an "exit-finder" because it's a much more welcome sight than this hideously photographed film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ByronMJul 31, 2007
An unwatchable mess made from a wretched script. Even a comatose patient would walk out of this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
FranklinT.Apr 16, 2007
If this had been generic fantasy I would have rated 4 for its hackneyed plot . But it was supposed to be semi-historical about a real clash of cultures and it manages to get everything wrong from costuming, weaponry and everyday modes of If this had been generic fantasy I would have rated 4 for its hackneyed plot . But it was supposed to be semi-historical about a real clash of cultures and it manages to get everything wrong from costuming, weaponry and everyday modes of life. It makes the Vikings .ook incompetent at their profession of plundering and the warriors of the amierican indians look even worse. Avoid this movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SteveL.Jul 18, 2007
The plot line was quite far fetched even including the "historical elements" of the film. In response to Franklin's claim about the horses on the boats, that part actually is true. Horses were expensive commodities and vikings would The plot line was quite far fetched even including the "historical elements" of the film. In response to Franklin's claim about the horses on the boats, that part actually is true. Horses were expensive commodities and vikings would bring them and any other practical belongings with them when they were going "a viking." Unfortunately, this doesn't make the movie any better.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
cspectreNov 23, 2012
Its hard to describe why this film is so bad. Its like every single element of the film is mediocre and this all adds up to it being one of the worst films I've ever seen.

The sound is poor - barely any dialogue, barely any music to buildIts hard to describe why this film is so bad. Its like every single element of the film is mediocre and this all adds up to it being one of the worst films I've ever seen.

The sound is poor - barely any dialogue, barely any music to build atmosphere.

The colour is poor - the whole film is filmed in the "boring dull colours" style, so its just depressing to watch and incredibly tedious after a while. Although some snow does appear to change the scene a bit.

The acting is non existent. There isn't really any dialogue, so no way for any characters to develop.

The action is pretty poor as well due to an overuse of slow motion. Some parts aren't bad, but the rest of the film is so poor that its difficult to get excited about any of it.

The filming is generally poor. In many scenes you find yourself wishing the camera would zoom out so you could actually see whats going on. The story is uninspired and really doesn't work as there are no characters to care about.

The film is also too long seeing as nothing really happens in it.

Having said all this, it really is worth watching to calibrate your opinion on other films. If you think a particular film is the worst you've ever seen and haven't seen this film, you need to watch this.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
hulkingmediaNov 23, 2022
This film has so much potential but all of it is thrown out the window.

There is so little dialog... Karl Urban is such a good actor and his talent is completely wasted in this film. Vikings with thicker armor than the Uruk-hai from Lord ofThis film has so much potential but all of it is thrown out the window.

There is so little dialog... Karl Urban is such a good actor and his talent is completely wasted in this film.

Vikings with thicker armor than the Uruk-hai from Lord of the Rings. I think you only see the faces of the Vikings once or twice. Then there's an over use of Film Grain. And bad acting in General.

The entire movie has a weird color pallet of Grey and green on top of the film grain.

Some cool action scenes here and there. There are scenes that transition so quickly you don't know what happened in between.

I don't know what to say... When I saw Karl Urban in a Vikings action movie I thought it would be a much better film :(… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

29 Critic Reviews

5.0 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL