'Pathfinder' - High-Def Digest review

[jed]

Just posted Kenneth's review of 'Pathfinder.' Although he wasn't impressed with the film itself, he says this one make for a surprisingly strong Blu-ray release, boasting a striking video transfer, a robust DTS HD MA audio track, and a fairly decent smattering of supplements.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1097/pathfinder.html

[RandellG]

The movie did suck. I was like a bad 300. And I didn't really like it.

[cathexist]

I haven't seen the movie yet so it may be a rental. Definitely not a blind buy.

[Vincent Grayson]

I rented it...it was alright. Nothing great, but not too awful.

[LembasBread]

Wow... I'm utterly surprised at the video score on this BD. Seeing it in the cinemas I had nothing but dreadful thoughts of how this would turn out on Blu-ray. I remember there being a thick veneer of grain; in fact too much grain for it to be director's intent and I have no problem whatsoever with film grain. The cinematography was colorless and bland - it just looked awful on the silver screen. Oh well, maybe I was watching a bad print?

[taygan315]

Originally Posted by Vincent Grayson

I rented it...it was alright. Nothing great, but not too awful.

Same here. This film was given to me as a b-day gift. I thought I would give it a shot. Not going to win any rewards anytime soon and this movie is a one trick pony. Still....some of the imagery was beautiful,imho. Now 'Perfect Stranger'...that movie was BAD,imho.

[bodin]

This movie is a remake of the norwegian film "veiviseren" (pathfinder) and the american version sucked, even with it's fancy slow motion and effects. Watch the original instead.

[messin18]

The movie looks really cool though I want to get it but i guess a rent will do.

[supra2jzgte]

Originally Posted by LembasBread

Wow... I'm utterly surprised at the video score on this BD. Seeing it in the cinemas I had nothing but dreadful thoughts of how this would turn out on Blu-ray. I remember there being a thick veneer of grain; in fact too much grain for it to be director's intent and I have no problem whatsoever with film grain. The cinematography was colorless and bland - it just looked awful on the silver screen. Oh well, maybe I was watching a bad print?

the trailer was horrible. never saw the movie, probably never will.

[CaptainCanuck]

I tried to watch it a couple times and the thing looks good but i got bored real fast and quit.

[AndersT2]

What did the reviewer mean when he said this:

"'Pathfinder' certainly isn't the first movie to manipulate historical accuracy,"

If he refers to the vikings going to "america", that is actually true.

read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_c...f_the_Americas

[Scripture]

I'm going to definitely check this out, despite all the criticism the film seems to have drawn. I'll post back with my impressions.

[Floydt27]

this movie was like a poor mans knockoff of Apocolypto...there was a lot of violence but no great fight scenes, overall the movie was lacking in a lot of areas

[Copywriter]

Originally Posted by Randellg

The movie did suck. I was like a bad 300. And I didn't really like it.

And I thought 300 was so-so at best. This movie must really suck.

I don't care if the movie is the best looking/sounded thing on BLU. If the movie itself sucks, it's a waste of space.

[kak]

Originally Posted by Copywriter

And I thought 300 was so-so at best. This movie must really suck.

I don't care if the movie is the best looking/sounded thing on BLU. If the movie itself sucks, it's a waste of space.

I'm completely with you. I bought 300 for a demo disc on release day and was largely upset with what everyone calls 'director's intent.' 300 wasn't a ground breaking movie. It was cool, but the movie was pretty bad.

Pathfinder quite possibly could be one of the worst movies I've ever seen too.