Pathfinder (Unrated Edition) | 
| Director: Marcus Nispel
Actors: Karl Urban, Clancy Brown, Moon Bloodgood, Russell Means, Jay Tavare
Studio: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy Used: $0.73
You Save: $14.25 (95%)
New (57) Used (102) Collectible (2) from $0.73
Rating:  125 reviews
Sales Rank: 16980
Format: Ac-3, Color, Dolby, Dts Surround Sound, Dubbed, Dvd, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), Icelandic (Original Language), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Dubbed), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: Unrated
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 107 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: 2245032
UPC: 024543450320
EAN: 0024543450320
ASIN: B000R9U3B0
Theatrical Release Date: April 13, 2007
Release Date: July 31, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
Pathfinder is a curious, cross-genre movie with elements of horror, sword-clanging fantasy, historical fiction, and Native American mysticism. A classic story of an outsider-hero, Pathfinder is set approximately five centuries before Columbus' arrival in the New World, a time when Vikings were claiming real estate in Greenland and eastern North America. A young Norse boy is abandoned by his disapproving, conqueror-father and adopted by an aboriginal tribe. He grows up to become Ghost (Karl Urban), almost-but-not-entirely accepted by natives, yet a fierce swordsman and defender of Indians after a terrible assault on those whom he loves best. Clancy Brown (The Shawshank Redemption) plays the fiercest of the invaders, a merciless leader who tangles with Ghost's inherent prowess as a fighter, and engages in a psychological as well as physical struggle with him in the film's final third, which involves a harrowing journey through an avalanche-prone mountain path. Russell Means (The Last of the Mohicans) is a typically comforting presence as the all-wise Pathfinder, leader of a tribal nation and Ghost's supporter, while Moon Bloodgood (Eight Below) is outstanding as a love interest with nerves of steel. Marcus Nispel (who directed the 2003 remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) guides the brutal if often exhilarating action as if it were amplified history. He makes the point for a contemporary audience that Vikings were as terrifying a danger to those whom they conquered as, say, Klingons are in Star Trek--precisely by making his Vikings seem so reminiscent of Klingons. --Tom Keogh
Beyond Pathfinder 
Pathfinder (Paperback) | 
Pathfinder Soundtrack | 
Norse Mythology Products |
Stills from Pathfinder
Product Description
The heroic story of a young Norse man raised by Native American Indians who wages a personal war against the Vikings that barbarically raided his tribe.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 120 more reviews...
 Action that requires a little wisdom. June 26, 2007
J. Detrixhe (New York, NY USA)
218 out of 249 found this review helpful
I find it interesting that reviews of this film either love it or hate it. My thinking is that people who dismiss PATHFINDER out of hand require a certain amount of their cinematic product spoon-fed to them. The fantasy must be easily palatable and simple to digest. Typical actions fans don't want to actually feel afraid, nor do they want to think. They don't want to use their own imaginations; likely they are impoverished in this regard. PATHFINDER requires a minimum awareness of the horrific potential for cruelty, as well as the ability to cherish and protect, that lies within human beings. Absent here are Schwarzenegger-style one-liners upon dispatching an enemy, abundant cleavage displays and other ubiquitous actions motifs which temper any actual feelings of fear and help remove the viewer from an experience of real connectedness to the characters. In other words, extreme violence is okay, as long as there are enough farcical elements to make it "fun".
PATHFINDER eschews farce. This is not a cartoon. It's straight up action, firmly rooted in the tradition of John McTiernan. It's like the director grew up watching PREDATOR and decided, you know, this would be perfect without the jokes. The film is structurally quite similar to DIE HARD: lone warrior facing impossible odds. You think there's no way he's going to make it, maybe he'll take out one or two of the bad guys and then he's going down. But the film, with mathematical precision, defies your expectations and the result is thrilling. You don't understand how he's possibly going to survive, thus there is real suspense. And the fun thing is, it's really more about the hero's wits than his brawn.
I think the most profound achievement of the film is the cold, hard anthropological nature of the script. The Native Americans are not ecologically savvy hippies with hearts of gold, nor are the Vikings blonde studs with braids and clashing beer steins. All our modern conceits and politically correct reinterpretations of history are abandoned for the terrifying truth: the Indians are Stone Age farmers eking out an existence on the cusp of survival, while the Vikings have steel armor and weapons. The Vikings are bent on claiming new land and they consider the Indians vermin. The result is a blood bath. Instead of the warm and fuzzy "roller coaster ride" offered by your typical action fare, PATHFINDER leaves you sitting there with eyes wide, thinking, This is not a fantasy, this is how it would have been. It's like a stylized documentary of Thomas Hobbes' LEVIATHAN. In other words, horrifying.
Particularly so is the scene where the little Viking boy first arrives in the New World. Again, it's not fantasy, it's not action, it's pure anthropology. Steel against wood and stone. It's more like snuff; you are reminded that this is the director they picked for the CHAINSAW remake. Fans of the lighter action fare were probably horrified by this scene, felt existential twinges they were uncomfortable with, or perhaps they didn't understand what was going on; thus the negative reviews. It's not the cartoonish chest-thumper that is 300; PATHFINDER makes CONAN look like BACHELOR PARTY; NEW WORLD is a sopping wet Merchant-Ivory spoof in comparison. Further, I think complaints about the cinematography come down to a more basic failure by unschooled audiences to understand what's going on in the film. They can't follow the story due to a personal lack, so they blame the filming.
I also find it asinine that reviewers are so critical of the dialogue. Are people deaf? Is everyone so ADHD afflicted that unless it's blah-blah-blah every minute they can't focus? PATHFINDER's dialogue has a simple poetry designed to express the elementary tongues of these early peoples. The characters don't speak often, but when they do, the words are important. And people speak from the heart, without irony. Maybe this straight-forward genuineness is what some viewers find so hard to take. But come on, people. It's like Sergio Leone movies in which characters speak minimally. In this setting, words are almost useless; actions speak louder than. What do people want? Vikings ranting like Mamet? Indians sassing back like Tarantino?
Frankly, it's unbelievable to me that people could miss out so completely on what's cool about this film. It doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator, apparently. Fails to slop the hogs sufficiently. I don't have space here to convey all the things I really dug about PATHFINDER. There are important messages about racism and identity. I think the film has real cult potential as the main character's assertion of self, "Eth Bay Quer Eh Kem!" (I know who I am!), could be the rallying cry for a generation of disaffected teens. The love story is quite moving, as well. The characters actually have chemistry. Human emotion in general is well conveyed. But again, you have to be receptive. When a brave refuses to shake the main characters hand, your mind has to move on its own and consider the deadly consequences for yourself; the film does not pause and explain. There is no accompanying PowerPoint presentation. Apparently that's what people need.
And the problem is, all these negative, unthinking reviews. People will not see this movie. Thus, they will not make another like it. To me, that's a shame.
You are the last of your kind in this cursed land February 17, 2008
Gunner (Bethlehem,Georgia)
26 out of 29 found this review helpful
The Pathfinder DVD
The Pathfinder is about a Norse/Viking boy around twelve years old who was abandoned or shipped wrecked on the coast of (I'm guessing Canada) where an young Indian woman finds him and adopts him into the tribe. He, of course, is not accepted by the tribe and has to fight to obtain recognition.
Without giving too much, away this move is full of action. Combining elements of Conan the Barbarian - Collector's Edition,Beowulf (Unrated Director's Cut), ]]Rambo First Blood Part II, [[ASIN:B00005JPLW 300 (Two-Disc Special Edition), and Jeremiah Johnson. Whew, a good movie for action movie fans.
Highly recommended for fans of for action movies, Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, Rambo First Blood Part II, the 300, and Jeremiah Johnson.
Gunner February, 2008
 Under appreciated, misunderstood film July 10, 2007
Ratspit (California, United States)
64 out of 77 found this review helpful
The movie going audience these days is not only sometimes fickle, but it is also spoiled. My wife and I saw pathfinder, and after some of the terrible criticizing reviews I heard I was bracing for a possibly terrible film. How surprised I was! Pathfinder was a fine film. If you grew up in the 1970's and 80's and like gritty films with hard action, and minimalist approaches, this pure and simple story of survival will probably be a breath of fresh air for you (it was for me) and a chance to take a break away from many of today's bloated, special effects laden blockbusters that are fine for what they are but really don't deliver much in the way of gritty harsh action. Is it perfect? No. But it's a grim story that is meaningful, entertaining, and worth seeing.
The story is not cliched and predictable in any more of a way than anything else is these days. It's simple, decent, and gets the job done of being entertaining. Sometimes I was surprised, sometimes not, but always entertained. My stomach just turns at the people who hate this film but go on to defend these bloated Hollywood CGI spectacles. The acting is fine, even superb in some places (Carl Urban did a fine job with what he had to work with and shows he is very capable). Visuals are great and sometimes breathtaking, filming style and editing is fine (minimalist, nothing too fancy, does not have a zoom or tilt addicted camera operator and does not look like an MTV video), dialog could have used some work perhaps, but dialog isn't the focus of this SURVIVAL film and it works well enough. The Vikings lines are subtitled, and the Native Americans just speak a simple English. Was this the best choice? Probably, though it may not be satisfying for some. Otherwise the whole film would have been subtitled and I think the director was smart enough to realize that this film was not offering that level of entertainment. This is not trying to be Apocalypto. The main couple has a decent enough chemistry more suited to the times portrayed and the violence they are in the middle of suffering then some of today's recent bloated blockbusters.
My one complain is that there is certainly a level of historical inaccuracy going on here, and the Vikings take the brunt of it. But the film is not supposed to be a work of fact and somebody has to be the villains. As far as villains go however, they certainly are some mean dudes in this film! All in all, everything that happened, the acting, the editing, the pacing, everything was understandable and done well and made this into an exciting film of a story of pure survival with some extra elements thrown in for good measure. If you're a nit picker, stay away from this film. If not, and the subject matter appeals to you, give it a try. I'm glad I did, and I'm looking forward to buying this on DVD.
Interesting premise but what they end up doing with it is rather disappointing August 16, 2007
Lawrance M. Bernabo (The Zenith City, Duluth, Minnesota)
12 out of 14 found this review helpful
The historical question is not whether the Vikings came to North America but rather how far South they came once they made it to Vinland (a Norse settlement has been found on the island of Newfoundland). There must have been interactions between the Norsemen and the "skraelingar" (Native Americans), and while there is no evidence that the two races engaged in a violent confrontation it does make a neat idea for a movie, which is why we have the film "Pathfinder: The Legend of the Ghost Warrior." Ghost is a young boy who is left behind after a previous Vikings raid and who grows up eighteen years later to be played by Karl Urban (Eomer in The Lord of the Rings" but also Julius Caesar on "Xena Warrior Princess"). When another Viking raiding party led by Gunnar (Clancy Brown) attacks his village, Ghost leads the fight against the invaders, hoping not only to save his adopted people but also win the heart of Starfire (Moon Bloodgood).
Basically what he have here is "Vikings and Indians" instead of "Cowboys and Indians." Couching the film in such terms, of course, is easily understood but not politically correct. But if you think about the latter in contemporary sports terms, the idea of the Minnesota Vikings taking on the Cleveland Indians is certainly in the ballpark for a key dynamic of this film, which features armored warriors against people armed with essentially sticks and stones. The idea of a war being waged in the New World a thousand years ago is pretty compelling: the concept trailer they shot to get the film produced makes that case quite nicely up to the point when the native warrior attacks the hulking Norseman and you see it is the Viking who has the ax and the lad in the buckskin is fighting with a sword.
The genesis for this 2007 film is the 1987 Norwegian film "Veiviseren" ("Pathfinder"), which is based on a Sami legend. The first full-length film in Sami, that movie was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. This version, written by Laeta Kalogridis and directed by Marcus Nispel, takes the basic story idea of a warrior leading the Sami to victory against a horde of invading Chudes and transplants it from Finnmark to the New World. The Sami become the nameless Native American people rather than the Beothuk people of Newfoundland and the Chudes are transformed into Vikings.
My major problem with this film, quite frankly, is that the hero of this movie is white and the subtext is that if it were not for the kindhearted son of a Viking who was raised by Native Americans the Vikings who come back in Act II of this film would have killed ever native inhabitant of the continent. Well, okay, that would not have happened unless the Vikings infected the local population with a disease that their immune systems could not handle, but you get the idea. At least this movie allows the title character, played by Russell Means, to come up with the obvious strategy that a people armed with Stone Age weapons fighting on their own turf would use against three dragonships worth of Viking warriors, because that is what I really wanted this film to be about.
"Pathfinder" never tries to pass itself off as history, which is a legitimate approach, but a bit more realism would not have hurt. The film was shot in British Columbia, which explains how they get from the ocean shore to snow capped mountains in a relatively short period of time, a direction dictated not by geography but because that is what happened in "Veiviseren." What they should have done was take the premise of a people fighting back against armored invaders in general without being tied to the specifics of the earlier film. Setting up the Vikings to be defeated on terrain and in weather more akin to the land from which they came ends up backfiring.
Whenever possible the film relies on images more than dialogue, although they do not end up going the "Quest for Fire" route. The color palette in the film favors the Vikings for most of the film, tending towards blue, black, white, and silver stressing night, cold, and metal. Eventually these colors overwhelm the film and works against the basic contrast of the Vikings warriors in the lush green forests that I found compelling. The Norsemen speak Icelandic, which is apparently close to the language of the Vikings, leaving English to be the language of Ghost and his tribe.
I ended up rounding down on this film because in the final act of the film the Vikings enter the realm of being too stupid to live. There is a scene that involves going around a frozen lake. Gunnar sees this approach as being an attack on the courage of him and his men, insisting on walking across the ice. At this point I turned to my daughter and said, "Gee, if only they came from a land of ice and snow, and knew something about when not to cross a frozen lake." Besides, I like it when the good guys win a lot more than when the bad guys lose.
 This movie couldn't be stupider if it tried November 20, 2007
Christopher Hivner (Dallastown, PA USA)
11 out of 13 found this review helpful
The story behind Pathfinder is that a crew of Vikings raid the coast of North America, killing all the Indians they see. One young boy, about 8-10 years old, refuses his father's order to kill Indian children and is left behind when the Vikings leave. He is then raised by an Indian woman, accepted but not entirely by the tribe. 15 years later the Vikings return and the boy now a man has to defend his adopted people.
What a load of stinking, festering garbage this movie is. Its affront to history is unbelievable, as is everything that happens in this film. The makers got absolutely nothing right with the Vikings. The swords and axes they are carrying are not authentic, but some cheap fantasy made up in a Hollywood prop house. None of them are carrying spears even though this was a favorite weapon of Vikings. One of them is using a flail which won't be invented for another 200 years. The helmets they are wearing are abominable. They are not the correct shape or size and Vikings did not wear horns on them. Some of them are wearing shoulder pauldrons and chest plates. Again, not used in Northern Europe for a few hundred years. Some of the Vikings were riding war horses. If this was raiding party, the ships they were using would be small and light to cross the water fast. No room for giant horses. The boy would not have been part of any raid. Why would a band of seasoned Vikings raiders, coming to plunder, rape and steal, bring along a 10 year old boy? Besides that Vikings never raided in North America. They tried to settle here and begin trading with the Indians. Hostilities eventually arose because of a language barrier and cultural differences. Because the Indians greatly outnumbered the Vikings, the Norse eventually left and gave up colonizing North America.
Even if you overlook the travesty of the Viking portrayal, this is still a stupid movie for so many reasons. When the Vikings come back after 15 years and have wiped out the village and the one they left behind is the only one left, they recognize that he is not an Indian. So they give him a sword to see if he can fight. Yeah, that's what you want to do. Deliberately arm your unarmed enemy. Then he kills one Viking and plucks anothers eye out with the tip of the sword. So somehow during 15 years with the Indians, who don't use swords to fight, he has become a master of the broad sword. Later in the film he is supposedly leading the Vikings to the next village so they can do some more slaughtering. An Indian woman he is in love with is angry at him for complying. To let her know that he is tricking the Vikings, he says something like "they come from the land of endless snow. They don't know about our spring." He then begins to lead them across a frozen lake that is thawing because of the rising temperatures and the ice breaks, killing several of the Norsemen. Newsflash: while it snows a lot in Scandinavia, it doesn't snow 365 days a year. They have spring there. They would know about lakes thawing out when it gets warm.
I hated this movie. It has a nice look to it and they obviously spent a lot of money, but the end result is putrid.
|
|
|
