Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Rhett_Y, Apr 14, 2007.
I didn't see any other threads on this. Has anybody seen this? The trailer looks freaking cool.
I liked it. I thought the cinematography was really well done, and the action scenes were exciting. There were a few scenes, however, that reminded me of other movies like Predator, Rambo: First Blood Part II and Cliffhanger, they were a little distracting. I thought Clancy Brown was really good as the head Viking, while Urban did his best with an underwritten role. The other actors faired worse. My main problem with the movie was the lack of character developement. I didn't feel I really knew any of the characters that well, though just enough to keep me interested in the story. I wish we had gotten to see more about the Native Americans, their life style and how they treated Ghost (Urban), the left behind Viking child adopted by the NAs, as he grew up. I think the movie could have been a little longer to fill in more of the story of the villiagers before the Vikings returned. This is a pretty good action flick that had the potential to be a great Swords and Sandals movie. *** out of *****
Ron.. Thanks for the reply!
It would have worked better as a silent film, honestly. The action scenes are edited far too quickly and there are a few too lights allowing us to see who is who. There's no character development. However, the script doesn't take any liberties. All of the "traps" Ghost uses against the Vikings grow organically out what came before instead of making it up as we go along.
The graphic novel is very cool -- the art is stunning. From what I've seen, the two are very similar, as the gn grew out of the shooting of the film. I was excited to see it and still will sometime this week. My expectations are low.
Whatever they are...lower them further. I had to see the film. Vikings, Natives, swords. But the film does not work on any level. It's probably the worst film I have paid to see in years (though I skip a lot of stinkers). I usually am quick to share my reviews here. I saw this last Friday, and didn't want to revisit it even to write "IT SUCKS!". I do this now to spare you. I was bored out of my mind, and I had low expectations going in. 2/10 (for the concept and poster), Chuck
I enjoyed it, good action and cinematography, but the story was completely non-existent.
I enjoyed it too, lets face it, I did not go there for the writers capabilities! I went in to see an action flick with fighting scenes and gore! It delivers on those two themes fully, IMHO. Some of the scenery is stunning too. Some what similar to 300 in the films overall dark look, IMHO.
Wow. I'll wait to rent it...in a few weeks.
Me too.... LOL
My brother, who is a fan of this type of film, saw it and said that it was the most MTV style, rapid-fire, movie (in terms of editing) he has ever seen. When I heard this, knowing the types of movies he goes to see, I was amazed. Is the editing really that fast? I was kind of looking forward to this, but not anymore, after all of the mediocre word of mouth and the fact that the studio held on to it for so long then just dumped it when no one was really paying any attention.
I was interested, then my brother and a bunch of his friends saw it a week ago. The verdict was unanimous: it was bar none one of the five worst movies they had ever seen. Andy even showed me a text exchange with a friend of his in Dallas: Andy: "Whatever you do, don't see Pathfinder." Derek: "Already did. FUCK" Andy: "Does it get any better?" Derek: "No. Leave. Now."
I hope the world hasn't completely forgotten the brilliant 1988 Norwegian version directed by Nils Gaup. It featured the Lap language and had English subtitles and was filmed in 2.35:1. It was released as a horrible pan and scan mess on video cassette but never made it (that I know of) to laser and certainly isn't yet available on DVD. Another lost masterpiece, which someone like Criterion needs to resurrect.