RyothChatty ridiculous rating

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

MiketheWhistle 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.

Bill I was incredibly disappointed in this film.I watched this expecting it to be a smart, historically-based film about what might have happened if the Vikings -- who we know settled in Newfoundland and New England for a time -- had left behind a boy to be raised by Native Americans. Would he be found years later by later Viking expeditions? Would he fit into Native American culture? What later conflicts might ensue? Or might he serve as a bridge between two cultures?Instead, the movie is a crazy mish-mash of over-the-top sword-based gore, and little else. The "Vikings" look NOTHING LIKE any actual Vikings at all, with costumes, gear, and helmets that are more inspired by Frank Frazetta fantasy paintings from the 70s and 80s than any actual Norse history. Their evil, ferocious behavior in the film is completely fabricated as well. These are just about the most UN-Viking people one could imagine. Moreover, their longboats are about three times larger than any actual Viking longboat found to date...just non-sensical. Even the Native American villages seemed to depart from known facts about them as well.The combat scenes were over-the-top, repetitive, and non-sensical as well, with little self-consistency or grounding in reality.I'm disappointed in Karl Urban for agreeing to act in this film and wonder if he ever read the screenplay before taking the role.I sincerely HOPE someone makes a decent movie about what might have been based on a bit more real-world facts about the known Viking settlements in North America. If anyone is interested in a SMART, dramatic, historically accurate, well-produced series about the Norse who conducted raids on England (i.e., went "viking"...it's a verb, not a noun, in truth), I strongly recommend History Channel's dramatic fictional series "Vikings." Even the acting kicks butt, with Gabriel Byrne playing a key role in most of the first season. The cinematography is breathtaking...especially in the second half of the first season. Moreover, the textured, nuanced portrayal of the peculiarities of the REAL-WORLD Norse culture of centuries ago are fascinating and, at times, shocking.

juhojeesus American quality, so it gives 10000% wrong image about vikings. Story was good, though. I also liked many things about this movie: awesome looking props, good acting, but vikings were just too unrealistic because vikings were not that violent (In real life)Battles in this movie are exciting and awesome. You can feel how awesome this movie is, when you look at backgrounds, villages and clothes. They all fit well in this movie. Only thing i didn't like was making vikings the bad guys and viking clothing was too unrealistic. And like i said, battles are amazing, like when they are fighting while sliding down the hill. This movie was OK but i have seen a lot better ones.

nvjs From the start, Pathfinder was Bad. The direction was weak. Nispel clearly doesn't have the chops to do action. Which should say something since it requires the least experience to break into films. Nispel's other films were "Frankenstein", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and the re-imaging of "Friday the 13th". All horror films. Pathfinder hopefully will be his first and last attempt at making action films this bad. Like I've criticized Mark Steven Johnson for is the same as Nispel for printing the first and probably the only takes. The actors are of the amateur caliber under Nispel's direction with over/under doing it. But Pathfinder doesn't try to be anything it isn't. With that said, it doesn't try to make a concerted effort at the whole action theme either. What does salvage the film from being a total waste is Daniel Pearl's lush and rich color palette darkening that gives the film a moody and ominous look and feel. The art direction and production design are also to the film's benefit. The Vikings or Norsemen truly look feral and formidable with the anachronistic and faux pas goat horns and canine riddled helmets. This truly gives them a touch of aesthetics to help sell the idea that the Natives are over-matched.Clearly, Nispel felt that the less we know about either faction, the less sympathy we'd have for either. It seems the Natives were meant, merely fodder for gratuitous (yawn) scenes which are gratuitous for the sake of gratuity and to make you feel contempt for the Vikings. The whole "story" is that the Vikings, for sheer boredom decide to satiate their inexplicable desire to just kill "savages". There isn't any "McGuffin" here to help move the story forward, no exposition for the characters, little if any semblance for the hero, Ghost's dramatic arc where he learns something about himself for personal growth, and a page ripped from the Michael Bay book of film making: Tell the story without cliché'd words. Use action and random explosions as the characters,story, and plot. By the way, Michael Bay was a producer on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". So if Nispel's learned anything from him, it's how to emulate him. That is NOT a compliment.