It's never a good sign when a movie sits on the shelf for too long, and to give you an idea how long Pathfinder had to wait before it could come to a theatre near you, consider this: The studio behind this film also produced X-Men: The Last Stand, and invited journalists to visit the sets of both films simultaneously while they were being shot in Vancouver. But the mutant-superhero movie, which presumably needed a lot more time in the special-effects lab once all the principal photography was done, came out almost a year ago, whereas Pathfinder, a simple revenge flick set during the Vikings' attempted colonization of America, is only coming out now.
Unfortunately for the film, this delay means it is coming out after the release of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto and Zack Snyder's 300, two films that it resembles rather strongly—and while Pathfinder would have been a bad film no matter when it was released, the inevitable comparison makes it look all the poorer.
Like Apocalypto, the new film concerns a man whose village is destroyed by brutish outsiders, and who fights back by retreating deeper and deeper into the forests that he knows. And like 300, the new film depicts a turning point in history when one civilization tried to conquer another, but ultimately failed; just think how different our world would be if the Persians had squelched Greek culture, or if the Norsemen had established a permanent base in North America centuries before Columbus showed up. However, unlike those films, which were engaging on all sorts of levels despite their crassness, there is little in Pathfinder that is all that interesting.
Like those films, Pathfinder also has a lot of violence—but it doesn't have a lot of action, and that is one of ...1