User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 43 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 43
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 43
  3. Negative: 19 out of 43
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 13, 2013
    6
    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 issues 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
    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 issues 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.
    Expand
  2. Nov 23, 2012
    1
    Its hard to describe why this film is so bad. Its like every single element of the film is mediocre and this all adds up to it being one of the worst films I've ever seen.

    The sound is poor - barely any dialogue, barely any music to build atmosphere. The colour is poor - the whole film is filmed in the "boring dull colours" style, so its just depressing to watch and incredibly
    Its hard to describe why this film is so bad. Its like every single element of the film is mediocre and this all adds up to it being one of the worst films I've ever seen.

    The sound is poor - barely any dialogue, barely any music to build atmosphere.

    The colour is poor - the whole film is filmed in the "boring dull colours" style, so its just depressing to watch and incredibly tedious after a while. Although some snow does appear to change the scene a bit.

    The acting is non existent. There isn't really any dialogue, so no way for any characters to develop.

    The action is pretty poor as well due to an overuse of slow motion. Some parts aren't bad, but the rest of the film is so poor that its difficult to get excited about any of it.

    The filming is generally poor. In many scenes you find yourself wishing the camera would zoom out so you could actually see whats going on. The story is uninspired and really doesn't work as there are no characters to care about.

    The film is also too long seeing as nothing really happens in it.

    Having said all this, it really is worth watching to calibrate your opinion on other films. If you think a particular film is the worst you've ever seen and haven't seen this film, you need to watch this.
    Expand
  3. Mar 2, 2011
    9
    Though it has some plot hole it's still a fantastic action movie, if you like gory action movies, this will not disappoint, it's a lot of fun to watch if your into this kind of thing.
  4. Oct 4, 2010
    7
    Great violence. . . Horrible plot. . . but still entertaining. This movie would have been epic if they dispensed with english throughout the whole feature and didn't elaborate on the plot details as much to focus on the good vs evil battle taking place in a farcical action movie way.
  5. JaredC.
    Aug 12, 2007
    10
    It may start off dumb, but you get used to its dumbness after a while, and in its own thrilling way its good. Well, at least I liked it.
  6. RoryT.
    Aug 1, 2007
    1
    Just a trashy movie no nudity at all that would have been good to have in cause the only good thing in there was the Vikings aumor and shit.
  7. ByronM
    Jul 31, 2007
    2
    An unwatchable mess made from a wretched script. Even a comatose patient would walk out of this movie.
  8. SteveL.
    Jul 18, 2007
    3
    The plot line was quite far fetched even including the "historical elements" of the film. In response to Franklin's claim about the horses on the boats, that part actually is true. Horses were expensive commodities and vikings would bring them and any other practical belongings with them when they were going "a viking." Unfortunately, this doesn't make the movie any better.
  9. SnackyBear
    Apr 30, 2007
    3
    The thing that disturbs me most about this movie is that I could not imagine how the vikings could fit their horses into their narrow-hulled ships, because as I saw from the movie, these were the kind of ships they used to cross the ocean and reach foreign land. I'm not familiar with Nordic history, but did the vikings rear and ride horses? Maybe they should have incorporated Led The thing that disturbs me most about this movie is that I could not imagine how the vikings could fit their horses into their narrow-hulled ships, because as I saw from the movie, these were the kind of ships they used to cross the ocean and reach foreign land. I'm not familiar with Nordic history, but did the vikings rear and ride horses? Maybe they should have incorporated Led Zep's "Immigrant Song" into this movie to make it sound better because the dialogue was diabolical. Expand
  10. FranklinT.
    Apr 16, 2007
    2
    If this had been generic fantasy I would have rated 4 for its hackneyed plot . But it was supposed to be semi-historical about a real clash of cultures and it manages to get everything wrong from costuming, weaponry and everyday modes of life. It makes the Vikings .ook incompetent at their profession of plundering and the warriors of the amierican indians look even worse. Avoid this movie.
  11. Scotty
    Apr 16, 2007
    6
    Ok, first off I have to say the Metacritic team pointed out like one flaw with the film and I am sorry if this offends you, but um, Its a freakin movie. Plus, he knew the viking language very well when he was eight, when he was abandoned. Stupid reviews aside, I think this might be the most underrated movie of the year. The cinematography, the sound, the focus on action rather than a lot Ok, first off I have to say the Metacritic team pointed out like one flaw with the film and I am sorry if this offends you, but um, Its a freakin movie. Plus, he knew the viking language very well when he was eight, when he was abandoned. Stupid reviews aside, I think this might be the most underrated movie of the year. The cinematography, the sound, the focus on action rather than a lot of dialogue were all merits. Not to over glorify the film, however, it is everything you expect violence, stupid dialogue when its there, some cheesy moments, goofs, and a somewhat cliche story. If you walk in with that mindset, hey you will probably enjoy the movie. Its everything you might expect, its just going to entertaining getting there. And you know what? We don't see too many movies about the vikings, so there has to be points given for that. Overall, Pathfinder is g a slightly above average movie that makes me wonder, by all the bad reviews, if the reviewers forgot what it was like to enjoy a movie. Expand
  12. ChadS.
    Apr 13, 2007
    2
    If Ghost (Karl Urban) considers himself a full-fledged "Indian" and purports to have foresaken the Viking people that emasculated and discarded him, why is he able to communicate so effortlessly in a language that no longer has any daily relevance in his life? "Pathfinder" isn't meant to be an ethnographic study like the 1987 Finnish production(that documented the Lapp people); If Ghost (Karl Urban) considers himself a full-fledged "Indian" and purports to have foresaken the Viking people that emasculated and discarded him, why is he able to communicate so effortlessly in a language that no longer has any daily relevance in his life? "Pathfinder" isn't meant to be an ethnographic study like the 1987 Finnish production(that documented the Lapp people); Ghost's ability to converse in his native tongue just makes it easier for the story to move along. This bit of screenwriting laziness, however, gave me the impression that Ghost keeps himself at a distance from his adopted people. He's so aloof, sometimes downright miserable. If "Pathfinder" made any overtures to complexity, in accordance with Ghost's reluctance to part with an old language, some doubt about his loyalty to the tribe(late in the film) might've been a minor improvement over what actually ensues. The official story behind the pangs of Ghost's heart is attributed to his undeclared love for Starfire(Moon Bloodgold), but his long memory for Anglo-Saxon grammar and syntax opens up the possibility that he never got over being ostracized(once a Viking, always a Viking). "Pathfinder" will turn you into an "exit-finder" because it's a much more welcome sight than this hideously photographed film. Expand
Metascore
29

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 23
  2. Negative: 12 out of 23
  1. Reviewed by: Jessica Grose
    30
    There is one redeeming skirmish -- the climactic fight involving a snowy cliff and an elaborate pulley system -- but from the guy who's directed videos for Cher, Amy Grant, Billy Joel, and Bone Thugs-N-Harmony? We expected more.
  2. A bizarre, bloody adventure movie.
  3. Makes "Conan the Barbarian" seem like Dostoyevsky in its complexity.