Un jeune Viking se retrouve abandonné suite à un combat de clan contre une tribu amérindienne. Elevé au sein de la tribu, il devient finalement leur sauveur dans un combat contre les Norvégi... Tout lireUn jeune Viking se retrouve abandonné suite à un combat de clan contre une tribu amérindienne. Elevé au sein de la tribu, il devient finalement leur sauveur dans un combat contre les Norvégiens.Un jeune Viking se retrouve abandonné suite à un combat de clan contre une tribu amérindienne. Elevé au sein de la tribu, il devient finalement leur sauveur dans un combat contre les Norvégiens.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Wayne Charles Baker
- Indian Father
- (as Wayne C. Baker)
Avis à la une
A little boy is left in a strange land and he's adopted by an Indian family. But a merciless, ambitious and cruel barbarians(Clancy Brown, Ralf Moeller, among them) suddenly appear and they are cruelly murdered . The starring(Karl Urban) observes the massacre from a distance and he manages to flee these murderers and reaches a village with other Natives whose inhabitants are worried if he has been able to hide his leads. Afraid of the violent savage warriors ,they decide to flee. Meanwhile the protagonist falls in love with a charming Native(Bloodgood). The young stays alone to revenge his families killers but he gets captured by the Vikings. Unfortunately , they get him before he can do anything and force him to lead them to the other Indians. He guides them and agrees to lead to the hiding place of his fellow villagers but he has a scheme to destroy the cutthroats barbarians before reach the camp.
It's the second version based on ancient folk-tale from Lapland, the first and classic version was directed by Nils Gaup in 1988, winning several prizes. This new adaptation is an exciting picture plenty of action, thrills, chills, roller-coaster ride, violence and breathtaking fights. The brutal Vikings with horned helmets deliver the goods, their appearance is spectacular and creepy, including the majestic horses doing pirouettes. Furthermore the astonishing killings are gruesome executed and grisly graphic. Special mention to Russell Means , he was born Lakota Sioux, a good actor Native American, he along with Graham Greene, Rodney A Grant, Tantoo cardinal, Eric Schweitz and Wes Studi appear in all movies about Indian themes. The evil Vikings are characterized in similar style to the classic 'Conan' by John Milius, as when at the beginning appeared James Earl Jones in an unforgettable scenes . The sombre photography by Daniel Pearl with a sort of never-ending dawn and dusk time is truly awesome. It's a kind of light mingled in a moody and foggy atmosphere. Many frames including the combats and cliffs scenes are made in a ¨300¨ style adding computer generator backgrounds. Stirring and evocative musical score by Jonathan Elias. Stunning and gripping realization by Marcus Nispel. He's a video hits director and expert on terror genre such as he proved ¨ Friday the 13th, Frankestein, Texas chainsaw massacre¨ but none of his movies have been based on original plot.
It's the second version based on ancient folk-tale from Lapland, the first and classic version was directed by Nils Gaup in 1988, winning several prizes. This new adaptation is an exciting picture plenty of action, thrills, chills, roller-coaster ride, violence and breathtaking fights. The brutal Vikings with horned helmets deliver the goods, their appearance is spectacular and creepy, including the majestic horses doing pirouettes. Furthermore the astonishing killings are gruesome executed and grisly graphic. Special mention to Russell Means , he was born Lakota Sioux, a good actor Native American, he along with Graham Greene, Rodney A Grant, Tantoo cardinal, Eric Schweitz and Wes Studi appear in all movies about Indian themes. The evil Vikings are characterized in similar style to the classic 'Conan' by John Milius, as when at the beginning appeared James Earl Jones in an unforgettable scenes . The sombre photography by Daniel Pearl with a sort of never-ending dawn and dusk time is truly awesome. It's a kind of light mingled in a moody and foggy atmosphere. Many frames including the combats and cliffs scenes are made in a ¨300¨ style adding computer generator backgrounds. Stirring and evocative musical score by Jonathan Elias. Stunning and gripping realization by Marcus Nispel. He's a video hits director and expert on terror genre such as he proved ¨ Friday the 13th, Frankestein, Texas chainsaw massacre¨ but none of his movies have been based on original plot.
If you went to see the movie expecting something like Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, you will be disappointed obviously. But why would you expect it to be Apocalypto if you've seen the trailer? It tells a mythical tale of a legendary Norseman who was raised by native Americans. They called him ghost. And it's this ghost who ended up protecting the tribes from the destruction of the Viking Clang who shared the same lineage with him. The plot line is just that simple. What kept me entertained was the action sequence, absolutely stunning cinematography and the overall presentation and atmosphere. The overall tune of the movie is dark, mythical and menacing, fit perfectly well for the theme. Vikings are presented more like beast than man, with giant statue and equally ghastly giant armors and weapons.
Some may argue that the vikings in this movie kill senselessly without any purpose. Does having a purpose makes evil more sensible? I have good news for people who are looking for reasons behind evil: they all have purposes and reasons, so don't waste time seeking one for them. Bad news for you: it absolutely makes no difference! Throughout human history, all aggressors had plenty of reasons to invade, ravish and destroy other culture and lives, the list goes from Vikings to Hitler... and it will probably go on forever. But does having reasons and purposes to kill make the killing more sensible? Absolutely not.
In this movie, Vikings are symbolic evil. Giving it a reason to kill doesn't make any differences as I stated above: they all have reasons, pick one and get over with it. On the other hand, the movie was trying to suggest that not only there's this battle of good and evil going on in the physical world, there's also a battle of hate and love in one's heart. When asked: who would won, Ghost was given the answer: the one you feed the most. It's a very interesting theme that I wish the director would explore a little bit deeper. But in the end, violence prevailed the screen time. The thought of inner struggle and loftier redemption was lost in the midst of killing and vengeance. No sin was forgiven and no bad deeds went unpunished. Though it's a more satisfying end, but a shallow one.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie for what it is. I'm not looking for complicated plot nor deeper character development. For an action movie, its visually stunning, fast paced and immersing. It kept me interested throughout the 90 minutes and left me pondering about some unfulfilled premises. It's not as bad as some have painted it to be.
Some may argue that the vikings in this movie kill senselessly without any purpose. Does having a purpose makes evil more sensible? I have good news for people who are looking for reasons behind evil: they all have purposes and reasons, so don't waste time seeking one for them. Bad news for you: it absolutely makes no difference! Throughout human history, all aggressors had plenty of reasons to invade, ravish and destroy other culture and lives, the list goes from Vikings to Hitler... and it will probably go on forever. But does having reasons and purposes to kill make the killing more sensible? Absolutely not.
In this movie, Vikings are symbolic evil. Giving it a reason to kill doesn't make any differences as I stated above: they all have reasons, pick one and get over with it. On the other hand, the movie was trying to suggest that not only there's this battle of good and evil going on in the physical world, there's also a battle of hate and love in one's heart. When asked: who would won, Ghost was given the answer: the one you feed the most. It's a very interesting theme that I wish the director would explore a little bit deeper. But in the end, violence prevailed the screen time. The thought of inner struggle and loftier redemption was lost in the midst of killing and vengeance. No sin was forgiven and no bad deeds went unpunished. Though it's a more satisfying end, but a shallow one.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie for what it is. I'm not looking for complicated plot nor deeper character development. For an action movie, its visually stunning, fast paced and immersing. It kept me interested throughout the 90 minutes and left me pondering about some unfulfilled premises. It's not as bad as some have painted it to be.
What a waste.
The only redeeming feature of this movie were the well made action scenes (not all were good, but overall there were more enjoyable fight sequences than boring ones).
The story is clichéd and predictable. The acting is terrible (the main role is so horribly sketched out that you can barely blame the actor, the supporting roles all make a mark for their blandness). The main couple have no chemistry, the dialog is UN-enjoyably bad and the editing looks like it was done by a blind man. Scenes start and end with absolutely no flow. One scene was particularly bad (I wont spoil it for you, suffice to say its the one where the Indians charge into battle against the hero's wishes). That is the only scene when I laughed in the movie, and its supposed to be a sad/rousing scene.
The trailer of this film looked really pretty, but then again the consisted of mostly the fight scenes so I'm not surprised at all. The director seems to have had a good eye for visuals, but his effort has ended there.
Pathfinder = 5/10 Five for the fight scenes.
I was trying to find a path out of the theater at many times during the movie.
The only redeeming feature of this movie were the well made action scenes (not all were good, but overall there were more enjoyable fight sequences than boring ones).
The story is clichéd and predictable. The acting is terrible (the main role is so horribly sketched out that you can barely blame the actor, the supporting roles all make a mark for their blandness). The main couple have no chemistry, the dialog is UN-enjoyably bad and the editing looks like it was done by a blind man. Scenes start and end with absolutely no flow. One scene was particularly bad (I wont spoil it for you, suffice to say its the one where the Indians charge into battle against the hero's wishes). That is the only scene when I laughed in the movie, and its supposed to be a sad/rousing scene.
The trailer of this film looked really pretty, but then again the consisted of mostly the fight scenes so I'm not surprised at all. The director seems to have had a good eye for visuals, but his effort has ended there.
Pathfinder = 5/10 Five for the fight scenes.
I was trying to find a path out of the theater at many times during the movie.
While the story is good, the flaws begin to stand out.
Yes, all the little things that should have been important to the filmmakers in production and in filming.
Like - airplanes in the sky.
It seems to be winter or early spring but snow doesn't stick to anything, nobody's face or skin turns overly cold or white or purple due to it. Snow doesn't turn to water when collecting on anybodies's face, the pelts they wear do not freeze after they fall through ice into the river Natives have very straight, clean teeth and very clean hair and skin - even after going through battle.
Vikings wear heavy amour but move swift, fast and easily through the forest.
Climbing the edge of a mountain, nobody is freezing wearing virtually no clothing.
There are tire tracks in the mud.
Even though a slew of swords are used and arrows are shot, no horses get injured.
There are a bunch of things like that - after watching the movie, just begins to make you wonder how this can be thought out and actually given an OK.
Snow that blows all over the place, but in some areas of open space, there is none and then several feet away there is several feet of it.
Caves with light coming in from all directions.
Swords that seem to weigh as much as a can of pop - being easily flung across a field or lifted and swung without much force or effort.
I can go on,but I won't.
Yes, all the little things that should have been important to the filmmakers in production and in filming.
Like - airplanes in the sky.
It seems to be winter or early spring but snow doesn't stick to anything, nobody's face or skin turns overly cold or white or purple due to it. Snow doesn't turn to water when collecting on anybodies's face, the pelts they wear do not freeze after they fall through ice into the river Natives have very straight, clean teeth and very clean hair and skin - even after going through battle.
Vikings wear heavy amour but move swift, fast and easily through the forest.
Climbing the edge of a mountain, nobody is freezing wearing virtually no clothing.
There are tire tracks in the mud.
Even though a slew of swords are used and arrows are shot, no horses get injured.
There are a bunch of things like that - after watching the movie, just begins to make you wonder how this can be thought out and actually given an OK.
Snow that blows all over the place, but in some areas of open space, there is none and then several feet away there is several feet of it.
Caves with light coming in from all directions.
Swords that seem to weigh as much as a can of pop - being easily flung across a field or lifted and swung without much force or effort.
I can go on,but I won't.
This movie was gorgeous and everything I ever wanted in a "Viking" lands on North America film. I thought this film was very underrated and with the Judd Apatow dreck that gets called film-making these days this really stands up in beauty and depth of story. The cinematography of the Northwest coast was amazing and incorporating the dense forests and lush environments into the shooting process was simply amazing.
The acting was perfect and at times understated in wonderfully blocked scenes between the characters. I thought the action is unmatched by many films pretending to be the action blockbusters they are often sold as. I often marveled at the length in which the filmmakers brought the setting to us no matter how difficult the set-ups seemed.
I hope he keeps making films for years to come! Beautiful!
The acting was perfect and at times understated in wonderfully blocked scenes between the characters. I thought the action is unmatched by many films pretending to be the action blockbusters they are often sold as. I often marveled at the length in which the filmmakers brought the setting to us no matter how difficult the set-ups seemed.
I hope he keeps making films for years to come! Beautiful!
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe Native Americans the Vikings encounter historically were the Beothuk people of Newfoundland in Canada. There is a large historical site around the Viking settlements in Newfoundland for tourists to visit.
- GaffesWhen Ghost is shown as a child in the flashback, his back is severely cut from his whipping, yet, when the film moves ahead to him as a adult, there is no scarring of any type on his back, yet, the amount of trauma his back suffered would have left some degree of obvious scarring.
- ConnexionsEdited into Pathfinder: Deleted Scenes (2007)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Pathfinder
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 45 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 10 232 081 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 5 001 214 $US
- 15 avr. 2007
- Montant brut mondial
- 30 984 583 $US
- Durée
- 1h 39min(99 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant