Pathfinder - O Guerreiro do Novo Mundo

A ação é tão caótica que não se consegue ver o que se passa, e só descobre quem matou a quem ao ver quem se afasta vivo da luta. Nos dias das batalhas poéticas e claras no estilo de 300, tal incapacidade é imperdoável, especialmente num filme que se baseia principalmente na ação. E a narrativa e o trabalho com personagens para Marcus Nispel também é grego. O que é que este realizador realmente sabe? Neste caso, apenas envolver o ecrã numa escuridão emocionalmente plana. Um filme terrível baseado num argumento no nível de inteligência das piores adaptações de videojogos, que é completamente enterrado pelas cenas finais de cliffhanger, lembrando as técnicas de fazer filmes de Ed Wood (tomadas longas de uma avalanche cadente, tiradas de só Deus sabe onde). Depois de muita hesitação, tenho de o deixar cair para 1*. Isto não pertence ao cinema. (17/06/2007)

The positives end with the subject matter, which is quite decent (but incidentally stolen from the literary classic J. F. Cooper). The rest is a mix of retarded cluelessness of both the screenwriter (half a page of the main axis, about 10 lines for the main character’s dialogue, and a handful of terrible dialogues) and the director, who should have it explained to him that there is no darkness like darkness and that the de-colored filter, together with the chaotic editing and the constantly thundering music are not particularly in fashion. Pathfinder lacks charisma (Karl Urban is bored instead of being a tough guy), insight (there really is a lot of marble here), and most of all balls. The opening credits and the atmospheric prologue, which is relatively well handled, are perhaps the most interesting parts of this whole charade. This is probably the worst high-budget blockbuster currently available. (05/07/2007)

Norwegians, like a bunch of hobnailed predators, hippie Indians, and Karl Urban, half-naked, rides under majestic mountain peaks. Only old Homolka with a two-handed ax, praising the panoramas, is missing. Nispel is a loser who can scare you in all manner of ways, especially through his complete amateurism. Unwatchable bullshit. (17/06/2009)

A gritty fantasy tale that somewhat reminded me of Conan the Barbarian. It has about as much in common with the historical reality of Vikings as I, an atheist, have with the role of a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. Within the genre, it's clearly below average in terms of both script quality and direction. The only noteworthy aspect might be the costumes. Overall impression: 25%. (21/06/2007)

A bored Karl Urban in his least charismatic role to day, an interesting premise that is wasted, brutally heavy-handed fights (all of them in slow-motion!), awful-looking CGI blood in every other shot, a stupidly simple mythology and message, a plot that is not really worth talking about. In short, a brilliant example of a butchered high-budget and grandstanding project that has the soul of a hundred-year-old corpse. (17/02/2008)

Pathfinder is roughly halfway between Emmerich's 10,000 BC misery and Gibson's Apocalypto pageantry. The thing that definitely imprints the film on the mind is its brutality. No blood or dirt is spared, heads and limbs fly through the air and the whole film is actually one big battle from start to finish. But that's also its problem - killing Vikings (and being killed by Vikings) gets boring after an hour, so there's nothing to do but wait to see what else the filmmakers come up with. They come up with about a quarter of an hour of a boring passage with a frozen lake crossing (and make the Vikings look like major league morons), followed by a scramble over rocks and a final battle on the ropes. I thanked the filmmakers for it - it was quite imaginative and (maybe thanks to the ropes, hehe) it caught my attention. All in all (thanks to the nice visuals) I give it three stars.__P.S. The scene in the snow (the protagonist drives away on a shield, followed by Vikings on an Indian sled) was too much, I admit. (23/07/2010)