People are voting emotionally.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

I usually force myself to watch a movie once I start and this one was no difference except that I used fast-forward which made it bearable.In some ways it reminded me of Apocalypto (2006) which I really enjoyed but this completely missed the mark.

brutally torn apart by the official critics, Pathfinder is both my favorite Karl Urban performance and a classic story of the outsider finding his place and his identity in this world through courage and companionship. Anyone who can't identify with this plot has been through too little trouble in this world and little self-searching. It may be true that there is little originality, but has it not also been said there there are no truly new stories to be told in this world? and that was said many centuries ago. not the best film to be made in modern times, but far, far from the worst and there are more highly rated films and TV that are vastly worst.

Pathfinder is an action film that although has some well choreographed fight scenes, never does much better than that, and also the only reason I didn't rate it lower. With poor acting to contribute to the already negative sounding movie, you can't help feel whilst watching "who ever thought this or that was a good idea". At least it was a short movie, probably one more reason it isn't nauseatingly bad, I felt it was just about a bad movie, and here below is why so.The story is one that isn't always seen, but nevertheless is still played out very badly and never gets to the point I feel it wanted to reach. I did enjoy(slightly) some of the action scenes scattered around, mostly in the middle it has to be said, and they can actually make you want to keep looking at the screen. It could have been better if it had put in more action, it may sound like a terrible formula but even over the top fighting would probably have saved this movie just a little bit.Karl Urban is not the worst actor, and been in some blockbusters before, but here he seems out of place and very still like, almost as if they cast George of the jungle to be the main character. Russell Means as the Pathfinder is really quite good and is probably the only actor in this that puts in a serious display, sadly he is wasted in most of his scenes. Any chemistry the makers wanted never comes to fruition either, even when people are angry at one another they still seem to be good friends for some strange reason.The directing is pretty bad but not the worst thing seen here, some scenes at the end and of course any action is well done and so the director isn't all at fault. The writing is bad to say the least, just not one piece of dialogue seems to be any thing other than basic, the thing is some parts are set up quite well just to be wasted by the script involved. Special Effects are unneeded but used, instead of building sets which are pretty simple they decided to digitally do certain things, which make the film look very cheap but also ruin what could have been decent parts.I said before about the action, not too bad and well done in most parts when not ruined by effects or acting. One thing that is well done are the grim scenes, any part which is meant to be a dark and horrible bit is actually done quite well and you can at time feel genuinely bad for the people on the wrong end of the scenes. Other than those points and Russell Means acting, not much more positivity to give I'm afraid.If you want to see an action filled film, and don't care about the script, directing and acting, then this could be for you for sure. If you also like blood and guts, I guess partly this could be for you too, not so much guts but very bloody when in fighting. If you want to see a well worked drama piece then stay away, this is possibly a great definition of bad drama, working with over used fighting.Overall it is just about a Pretty Terrible movie and one that so nearly is just "Bad". As said It isn't long and so it means you aren't too annoyed you wasted your time viewing it by the end, although you may have a few choice words by the time it is finished. I must stress there are worse movies out there so don't think this will make you puke in disgust, well maybe you will a little.

Pathfinder ought to be a terrible film. It's about as historically accurate as Braveheart and completely unoriginal, being essentially a remake of the (very good) Norwegian film of the same name, with bits of First Blood, Kato's Land and Fuqua's King Arthur thrown in. But if you can stop yourself going "Dude, Vikings didn't have cavalry!"* and suchlike, you can enjoy it as a straightforward action/fantasy film. It's the usual story of the bad guys who burn the village and the hero who stops them, which means it has funky barbarian costumes, cool weapons** and traps, spectacular landscapes and of course lots of fight scenes, and the fight scenes are done really well. As a bonus, it's beautifully filmed.* OK, Vikings did sometimes use horses as transport, but they didn't take them on their ships; they stole them when they arrived, and in America there would have been no horses to steal. ** Including one-handed flails, which didn't appear until the late Middle Ages.