Theatrical Review of Pathfinder

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

There are praiseworthy aspects to "Pathfinder," another in a growing list of movies this year based or inspired on some real life story (or in this case, legend). Foremost on that list is the script, which never makes the audience take leaps of logic; instead, it walks us through every action Ghost (Karl Urban) takes in trying to vanquish Viking marauders from North American soil.

As a young boy, Ghost was left behind after refusing to murder a Native American during a bloody Viking slaughter. Taken in by those same natives, he grows up as one of them, except everyone knows he is not a native. 15 years later, as a group of Vikings again show up to conquer the land, Ghost must use his knowledge of the ways of the land in order to protect his new home.

The main problem with "Pathfinder" (named after native leaders) centers on the action sequences. They aren't as artistic as the sequences in "300," as awe-inspiring as anything in "The Two Towers" or as desperate as "Saving Private Ryan." Really, they sit on the screen. Mind you, they look good while sitting there, but they don't ever pop off the screen the way they should. This is partly the fault of the cinematographer, who always feels two or three well-placed lights away from doing his job correctly. Even the action in broad daylight is so mired in blackness and shadow it's impossible to keep track of anyone outside of Ghost and one or two other characters. There is more in common with "Alien vs. Predator" in this department than "300." The fast paced editing also contributes to the problem. We're never allowed to linger for more than a second or two on any given part of a battle scene. It feels as if someone is afraid the audience is going to notice the stuntmen or wire work if the shot continues too long.

Ghost, our lead character, never has his name spoken out loud. Nor does Starfire (Moon Bloodgood), who is at his side for the majority of the film. Worse, there is little character development for anyone in this film. We never get an idea of why the Vikings are looking to conquer outside of the standard "We're EEEEvil!" cliché. I guess in a movie, which doesn't aspire to anything greater than basic good versus evil, it's not so much of a problem. But we expect more as an audience. What is so great about this land that Vikings have tried to take it over multiple times?

Yes, I did mention the script is one of the positive points in the film and, yes, I did just criticize aspects of the script. Here's the catch: astute viewers will know Ghost's plan before it happens on the screen because everything has been telegraphed well ahead of time. Take, for instance, the trek over a frozen lake. Early in the film, we see Ghost going across-alone-and the ice cracking. So later, when he leads the Viking armada to this same spot, his trap doesn't come across as half-assed; it is thought out and planned. (Don't worry: I won't spoil the rest of them.) Just because it's been telegraphed doesn't mean you're necessarily going to catch it. And that's part of the beauty of the film: no character tips the audience off they're doing or saying something that comes back later as a major point.

Don't get me wrong: the script is terribly light on dialogue and the plot is wafer thin. "Pathfinder" is your basic, run of the mill action piece. Squirting blood, rolling heads, absolutely no character development...Ghost is a one-man indestructible army. Almost single handedly, he kills the entire Viking army. Some through hand to hand combat, others with his assorted traps. But all while sustaining only one injury.

I understand this is a legend and, in legends, the hero is given greater than normal powers. Director Marcus Nispel wants the audience to believe this entire adventure happened as shown. If you're going to give one-character extraordinary powers, why not give them to everyone inhabiting the universe? The Vikings are all one note interchangeable characters; the Indians come across as undisciplined wimps. We never get to know any of them, which makes their eventual slaughter all the harder to care about.

It's probably not a good sign that I sat through most of the movie's 99 minute running time wondering what was shot on location in British Columbia. I felt the worst for Urban, who looks to wear the least clothes through the production. He's the one falling into the frozen lake and going through the film with chest exposed. For what he has to do (ie. not much acting), Urban does an okay job. Look, this isn't Shakespeare and he can run around looking serious better than most other actors. He's not known enough that we associate his other roles with this one. And he's not Mr. Muscles (like Arnold) or one of the pretty actors (Matt Damon, Leo DiCaprio). He is, for all intents and purposes, perfect for this role.

"Pathfinder" supposedly sat on a shelf for over a year. Whether we'll ever know exactly what the holdup was between filming and release was is debatable. I wouldn't doubt some executive at Fox decided there the promise of an action film hadn't been fulfilled in the original cut and mandated reshoots to boost the testosterone. The final scene in the film seems to bear this out, even slightly. There is no reason for a film, which stayed away from clichés for the most part to jump headlong into the most overused (and completely expected) sequence in movie history. No, it won't be spoiled here; but when it comes, you'll know what it is. Anyway, by using this scene, there seems to be a subplot completely absent from the film: the romance between Ghost and Starfire. If I'm right, that story would have served to flesh out Ghost, Starfire and the world they inhabited.

After the first dialogue-less sequence, which opens the movie, I started to feel "Pathfinder" would have worked better without dialogue. With the right composer (Jonathan Elias does an admirable job) and a couple tweaks of the plot, this could have been a rare silent film. Certainly the story isn't complex and could be told rather easily through the visuals. That would have been an exciting film, at least from a filmmaking perspective. As it is, "Pathfinder" doesn't build its tension because of its hero. He has to be someone the audience relates to, or, at the very least, believes can be hurt. As I said before, Ghost is close to superhuman and therefore nearly indestructible.

"Pathfinder" is nothing more than a glorified Sunday Million Dollar Movie. It's graphically bloody, prompting the R rating and isn't for the squeamish. It rates a 5 on the scale of 1 to 10.

---

---