Pathfinder

1.5/4

Starring: Karl Urban, Moon Bloodgood, Russell Means, Clancy Brown

The version being reviewed is the Unrated version.  For the record, the theatrical cut is rated R for Strong Brutal Violence Throughout

I suppose it takes it takes a special director to make an action movie as boring as this.  By their nature, action movies have a lot going on on-screen, so even in the worst entries there is movement to catch the eye.  But not even that can save “Pathfinder” from being an utter snoozefest.  Not only is there zero plot or character identification, there’s almost no dialogue, and the action sequences (only one of which is mildly interesting) often don’t make any sense.

1000 AD.  A Native American Tribe is living peacefully on the coast of the future USA when savage Viking warriors invade and kill everyone they come into contact with.  By mistake, they leave a young boy there when they leave.  He is rescued and raised by a fellow clan, but the Vikings (who look like rejects from “The Lord of the Rings” injected with massive amounts of steroids), who want to settle on the land, will be back.  Which side will he choose?

For those of you who are wondering why movie quality has been going down the tubes of late, it’s because Hollywood is only interested in hiring music video directors (such as Nispel) to helm feature films like this.  The reason is because they want films to have a strong visual sense to attract a foreign audience.  Now there’s nothing wrong with that per se, but I don’t think there’s going to be a person alive who finds this crapfest enjoyable.

Nispel must have a thing for slo-mo, because about 90 percent of the movie is filmed in that way.  If a person moves, Nispel slows it down so we can “savor” every movement until the money shot, where someone shoves a sword into an enemy and they die in a dramatic pose.  Not only is it overused, it’s sometimes downright cheesy.  There are times when I was reminded of my computer games lagging.

I’ll admit that Nispel does have a knack for atmosphere, and Karl Urban has screen presence (Urban does have acting ability, but he’s not given much of a chance to show off anything but his pecs in this movie).  Still, a cool setting does not make a good movie.  Nor does having good source material.  I haven’t seen the original movie that “Pathfinder” was based on, but it was nominated for a Best Foreign Film Oscar in 1987.  I have my criticisms about the Academy like everyone else, but something tells me that there was a lot lost in translation.  

No one in their right mind is going to confuse this dud for an Oscar nominee.

This is action porn.  There’s plenty of violence, blood and gore, but there’s no point to it.  There is absolutely no reason to care about the characters or what happens them.  Now, complex characterizations don’t necessarily have their place in action movies, but a certain element of character identification is necessary for there to be any sort of excitement.  Without that, you end up with a stinker like this.