It's impossible not to think of
300 when you're watching
Pathfinder. Both are very loose accounts of historical battles that seem to be inspired more by video games than history. To be fair, this movie was filmed and finished long before the film adaptation of
300 was, as
Pathfinder has been sitting on the studio's shelf for almost two years before finally being released. This is also where the similarities come to an end.
300 was a gloriously stupid movie that still managed to entertain thanks to some striking visuals and well-staged sequences.
Pathfinder, on the other hand, is so murky and muddy you almost feel like you're watching the movie through a dirty window at times. There's very little story to speak of, and no real characters to give anything resembling emotion. All the movie gives us is some ineptly edited action sequences, and a lot of over the top gore that isn't even presented very well to begin with.
The film attempts to depict a struggle between a noble Native American tribe and some vicious Vikings. Because the Native Americans are the heroes, they speak English, while the evil Vikings are sometimes subtitled, but usually speak in grunts and bellowing demonic roars that sound like they were lifted from a
Godzilla movie. While exploring the ruins of a Viking ship, a woman of the Native American tribe discovers an abandoned boy that the enemy left behind. She takes him back to her village and raises him amongst her people, where he grows up to be an appropriately muscular and personality-free young man who goes by the name of Ghost (Karl Urban from
Doom) because of his pale skin. When Ghost's original clan returns 15 years later to continue pillaging and plundering the innocent tribal people, he teams up with a small band of survivors to fight back. Numerous heads are removed from their proper place above the neck, blood and limbs fly at the camera, and we can't help but realize how dull and uninspired it all is.
The only surprising thing about
Pathfinder comes during the ending credits, when we realize that the characters we have been watching for the past 90 minutes or so actually had names. Aside from the heroic Ghost, I do not recall a single other character's name being mentioned in the dialogue. Kind of makes it hard to figure out who played who at the end, since the entire cast is made up of faceless drones who all look alike and exist simply to be killed in the film's many action sequences. Besides not having names until the very end of the movie, the characters don't seem to talk much either. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that dialogue makes up maybe 40 minutes (and that's being generous) of the film's running time. The lack of dialogue make the characters impossible to identify with or even understand their slightest motives. Things keep on happening, but it leaves absolutely no impression on us. When the characters do open their mouths, what they say is often so laughably bad that we look forward to them being silent again. Ghost may be the hero, but he doesn't say a single intelligent thing in the entire screenplay. You get the sense that he's the lead by default, rather than for his personality.
All of this could have been forgiven if
Pathfinder's action sequences were anything special. Unfortunately, director Marcus Nispel (2003's
Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake) seems to have no idea how to stage or shoot a battle sequence successfully. He uses a lot of dramatic slow motion shots as the enemy approaches, and then whenever people actually start fighting, he suddenly shoots the battles so tight and so close to the action that we sometimes can't even tell what's going on. It's just a mess of blood and flying body parts that has been edited so sloppily that we can't tell who is decapitating who. A sequence where a man battles with a ferocious bear is particularly humorous in how badly the entire thing comes across. Since the fights make up a good portion of the story, I quickly lost interest and found myself asking why anyone would want to watch this. It is a 90 minute long black hole that sucks the time and money away from anyone foolish enough to venture into a cinema showing it. It can't be bothered to entertain or excite us, or even give us a very basic thrill. The film's visuals seem to have gotten about as much attention as the dialogue, and often look dark and bland.
At the very least,
Pathfinder is mercifully brief and manages to go in one ear and out the other without leaving too much of an impression. A lot of money was obviously put into the project, and I can't help but wonder where it all went. Watching this movie is a lot like watching money being burned right up there on the screen for no reason at all. It can't give us a reason as to why we're supposed to be entertained, so all we can do is wait for it to be over. When the end finally did come, I didn't feel relieved or happy. I actually felt about as indifferent as I did throughout the rest of the film.
Pathfinder accomplishes nothing at all and gets exactly the kind of reaction it deserves.
0 comments
It's impossible not to think of 300 when you're watching Pathfinder. Both are very loose accounts of historical battles that seem to be inspired more by video games than history. To be fair, this movie was filmed and finished long before the film adaptation of 300 was, as Pathfinder has been sitting on the studio's shelf for almost two years before finally being released. This is also where the similarities come to an end. 300 was a gloriously stupid movie that still managed to entertain thanks to some striking visuals and well-staged sequences. Pathfinder, on the other hand, is so murky and muddy you almost feel like you're watching the movie through a dirty window at times. There's very little story to speak of, and no real characters to give anything resembling emotion. All the movie gives us is some ineptly edited action sequences, and a lot of over the top gore that isn't even presented very well to begin with.
The film attempts to depict a struggle between a noble Native American tribe and some vicious Vikings. Because the Native Americans are the heroes, they speak English, while the evil Vikings are sometimes subtitled, but usually speak in grunts and bellowing demonic roars that sound like they were lifted from a Godzilla movie. While exploring the ruins of a Viking ship, a woman of the Native American tribe discovers an abandoned boy that the enemy left behind. She takes him back to her village and raises him amongst her people, where he grows up to be an appropriately muscular and personality-free young man who goes by the name of Ghost (Karl Urban from Doom) because of his pale skin. When Ghost's original clan returns 15 years later to continue pillaging and plundering the innocent tribal people, he teams up with a small band of survivors to fight back. Numerous heads are removed from their proper place above the neck, blood and limbs fly at the camera, and we can't help but realize how dull and uninspired it all is.
The only surprising thing about Pathfinder comes during the ending credits, when we realize that the characters we have been watching for the past 90 minutes or so actually had names. Aside from the heroic Ghost, I do not recall a single other character's name being mentioned in the dialogue. Kind of makes it hard to figure out who played who at the end, since the entire cast is made up of faceless drones who all look alike and exist simply to be killed in the film's many action sequences. Besides not having names until the very end of the movie, the characters don't seem to talk much either. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that dialogue makes up maybe 40 minutes (and that's being generous) of the film's running time. The lack of dialogue make the characters impossible to identify with or even understand their slightest motives. Things keep on happening, but it leaves absolutely no impression on us. When the characters do open their mouths, what they say is often so laughably bad that we look forward to them being silent again. Ghost may be the hero, but he doesn't say a single intelligent thing in the entire screenplay. You get the sense that he's the lead by default, rather than for his personality.
All of this could have been forgiven if Pathfinder's action sequences were anything special. Unfortunately, director Marcus Nispel (2003's Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake) seems to have no idea how to stage or shoot a battle sequence successfully. He uses a lot of dramatic slow motion shots as the enemy approaches, and then whenever people actually start fighting, he suddenly shoots the battles so tight and so close to the action that we sometimes can't even tell what's going on. It's just a mess of blood and flying body parts that has been edited so sloppily that we can't tell who is decapitating who. A sequence where a man battles with a ferocious bear is particularly humorous in how badly the entire thing comes across. Since the fights make up a good portion of the story, I quickly lost interest and found myself asking why anyone would want to watch this. It is a 90 minute long black hole that sucks the time and money away from anyone foolish enough to venture into a cinema showing it. It can't be bothered to entertain or excite us, or even give us a very basic thrill. The film's visuals seem to have gotten about as much attention as the dialogue, and often look dark and bland.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home