Pathfinder : Le Sang du guerrier

Pathfinder was not nearly as bad as many people are making it out to be. True, the editing was mediocre at best, with the seasons clearly out of whack. There were some pretty odd incongruencies with language as well. The filmmakers relied on some trite Native American imagery and stereotypes...

But Pathfinder was obviously never about the plot or silly Viking outfits. Ultimately I think the filmmakers wanted to impress upon the viewers the starkness of the landscape of "uncivilized" North America, and how the people who lived there survived. One of the best lines in the movie is delivered when Ghost tells his lady friend that the Vikings know eternal winter, but "don't know our spring." I think the movie, in its own kind of botched way, did a good job conveying the awe, reverence and fear that the people who lived in N.A. had for the seasons and the natural environment.

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.

Nipsel and company basically hybridized the structure of Dances with Wolves with a not-quite-historical fiction (more like radical speculation) plot about interactions between Norsemen and Native Americans during the 12th century A.D.

Ghost (Karl Urban) is a Norse boy left behind aboard a wrecked ship. He is adopted by the Clan of the Dog (the dogs who cohabitate with this tribe are historically inaccurate, but that's just one of many historical transgressions). As he grows up, Ghost's obvious difference and his history become something of a stumbling block for him, but he works hard to overcome them in order to be accepted by his adoptive people. Eventually, it seems, he must confront the demons of his past, and unfortunately, so must the Clan of the Dog.

Pathfinder is played well by Russell Means, and Ghost's love interest - Starfire - is nicely portrayed by Moon Bloodgood. Urban has great physical talent, but this story did not lend itself to testing his ability to create drama and mood, so there isn't much to say about his performance. Likewise, most of the Norse characters were so under-developed and one-dimensional that it is impossible to comment on the performances involved.

Although the story relies on stereotypes to develop both its Norse and Native American characters, since so little is actually known about the Norse colonies, this seems forgivable. What is not really forgivable, in my opinion, is the reiteration of the trope established in Dances with Wolves and other similar works which suggests that it takes a European to effectively fight off Europeans. Although the characterizations of the protagonists in both films are adequate to explain their behavior, the character and behavior of the Native Americans attached to them is less well developed, and there is a lingering, inaccurate and disturbing shadow of inferiority implied in their apparent inability to strategize and effectively lead in combat.

However, Pathfinder refuses to touch reality with any length of pole, so, sit back and enjoy the action, costumes and sets.

The film contains a lot of violence, most of which is convincingly shot. The costuming is excellent, and the sets are lovely. if you can get past the problems - which are several - you may just enjoy it.

I wasn't expecting much when I started watching this, but that quickly changed thanks to the brilliantly lit scenes and grainy, pensive mood of filming. The acting, as well as the violence was well above average in quality and brutality respectively, and the story was refreshingly original.

I believe three things could have elevated this movie to brilliance: 1. A more sweeping, bold orchestral soundtrack. 2. More sweeping, cinematic shots to give us short escapes from what, at times, became a claustrophobic atmosphere. 3. Authentic native language with subtitles, as was given the Vikings. I realize the choice not to do so (point #3) was probably based on perceived audience appeal, or perhaps even on the psychological identification with the "good guys", but it would still have added an element of greatness.

Overall I give Pathfinder 8 out of 10 stars for originality, brooding (amazingly refreshing) filming, and an authentic truthfulness in telling what was a simple but bloody tale of revenge. I also appreciated the fact that the film took itself seriously, and did not toss in a heap of "humorous" moments that so many current action movies seem to rely on. This movie was relentless in its pursuit of telling a dark and bloody tale and, for the most part, succeeded in providing an excellent couple hours of escape.

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!