Two or three months ago I was interested in watching Pathfinder, because the poster looked dark and fantastic (fantastic in its sense of fantasy, not in the sense of "awesome-ness"). As the months went by, and as I watched that poster over and over my e
xcitement about it waned. Then I watched the trailer, and it was interesting, it promised something good (except for the cliché at the end of it, with the sword at the middle of the screen behind the title of the movie, which foreshadowed the exact opposite).
So, I went to the movies with wary hopes, and with the recomendation from someone at work. And, by the 20th minute of watching, I had already decided that it wasn't good. Nope. It wasn't.
Pathfinder starts with the massacre of native american indians by the vykings. Among the vykings there's a boy who refuses to be as brutal as his people, and doesn't want to kill an indian child. The vykings leave him in the strange land. So, we all know where this is going now, right? First, he is rejected, but then they realize his one of them, but then, as he gets older, and as his skin color is different, and as his thoughts are those of vengeange, he is not considered by the leaders as "one worthy of" some thing. But then he proves to be a real indian and whatnot. Well, that's exactly the plot here, with the only difference that here is a story about vykings, woooooh, but it wasn't enough.
Specific problems I must point out.
One:
The previously refered clichéd story. It was completely predictable. The indians died. There was another indian village. They escaped on the past of the east "because on the west there is a threat of avalanche" (there was snow there). And so, the protagonist led the vykings through the west, yada yada, you've seen movies, you know... The movie comes complete with the token scene of the hero waving his sword around, as in karate practice. But, not only was that cliché, it even looked clumsy and unpracticed...
They should have watched Kill Bill II to see how that's done properly.
Two:
The lack of dialogue in the movie, makes for little interaction between characters, AAAND the dialogue that is there is really bland. Example: after watching an hour or so of vykings killing indians relentlessly and mercilessly, there is this dialog: (Ghost is the main character, his name is Ghost because his skin is pale, compared to that of the indians).
Ghost: "They are not men, they are beasts."
And I'm like: "DUH, dude, you don't say...! Come on! I've been watching the whole movie and I KNOW they are beasts, you dumbass..."
They should have watched American Beauty for a class on dialogue.
Three:
The photography of the movie was HORRIBLE! HORRIBLE! And I'll say it again: HORRIBLE. The movie has this gray, black, white, dirty, gritty look throughout, as if the environment was ever cloudy. And believe me, I LOVE cloudy days, and I love when huge amounts of rain fall, and I love the somber tones the gray clouds give to the earth and all things living; but instead of giving the movie a sense of gothic crudeness, it seemed like a defect, as if the shots weren't good enough, so they just took all the colors away and let it be black, white, brown, grey and dark green, so that you couldn't see its flaws. If they had made the movie IN black and white, it would probably have looked better... I mean, I couldn't see anything! I wanted to shove the brightness and contrast of the screen!! Things were so dark that you couldn't see details, nor small actions, or ANY action. In a movie, eyes are important (for they are the window to ones soul), and I think the eyes of people in this movie looked plain, unexpresive and devilish (for they had no bright spots), and that is IF you can even see them. They should have left some COLOR, gosh!, I didn't even see the red of blood, even after TWO indian massacres...
There are so many movies that are gothic, or film noirs, or just plain black and white, and you can see everything: Underworld, The Number 23, Sin City. And others are just plain dark: The Others, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (best HP yet), War of the Worlds, and they are awesome movies... They should have studied them better.
Four:
There is one thing that I REALLY hate in action movies, and it is the fact that the camera shakes and shakes and shakes when people are fighthing. I think it is a cheap, unimaginative, uninteresting and stupid way of filming action. Why would any director shake the camera when the hero knocks the villain? Why? Is it TOO violent to show it directly? Or did it look so bad and stiff on the set that you HAD to move the camera so you would have more movement on the scene? Fights are one of the most sublime things in movies (for it is "the struggle of life" translated into the physical and the visual). But, my God, that camera would never stop shaking violently, it was so annoying, and, again, I couldn't see how they were fighting, it was just a big mess of people falling around and screaming.
Movies they should have learned from: Lord of the Rings (best fights ever), Fight Club, Hero, Fearless, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (these Asians are awesome).
Five:
The SENSELESS violence. I have nothing against senseless violence, but the senselessness has to have some kind of sense. Kill Bill, Lord of the Rings, any war movie, Children of Men, and Terminator 3, and Pan's Labyrinth, and more recently "300", are the epitome of violence, and still their violence had a purpose. In Kill Bill, the bride had to be violent to be taken seriously by Bill. In Lord of the Rings, they were fighting to save their land. In Children of Men, the violence was what the protagonists were trying to get away from, it was part of their environment. In Terminator 3, it was to protect the future of the world. In Pan's Labyrinth the violence was raw, detailed and painful (and because of that visibility it would make you flich) and it was done to characterize the evil spanish captain. And in "300", the violence just looked good!, but the spartans were born and raised to be brutal soldiers, so it was understandable, expected and almost obligatory.
But the violence in Pathfinder comes without mercy and without any purpose. The vykings just come horseriding, killing everyone in overlong scenes, with many kinds of weapons, in different kinds of ways: troats cut, severed heads, crucified bodies, impailed heads, smashed chests... Still, it meant nothing. They were just killing for the sake of killing. And probably that was done to make us HATE the vykings for killing the poor indians, but actually, they never made us love the indians to care much (after all, some of the indians didn't like the hero completely; so why would I care?). So that, and the fact that much of the violence was blotted out by darkness and stupid camera shakes (notice that I didn't say "camera movements") made me actually fall asleep at some point. And THAT is a sin for a movie. It shall not be pardoned.
I have to make a final comparison. Pathfinder was supposed to be what they call "a ride", by that I mean (or THEY mean) that the movie's action never stops. I could recal the "300" again, saying that THAT was a huge ride, but as fast as "300" was on the "ride" factor, no movie has come close to being a COMPLETE ride than Terminator 3. It's true that the characters had already been develped, and that is a big relief to filmmakers/storytellers, because they can concentrate on the story, but still, if Terminator 3 had been the first instalment of a franchise it would have still been a awesome movie (I think). It starts with action (protagonists are chased by a friggin construction crane!! how awesome!), it's middle is action (they escape in a funeral hearse) and the end is action, it never stops.
I think the makers of Pathfinder wanted to make something like that, because the "action" in it (notice the "" in action) doesn't stop, except that it didn't move the story forward. The difference between Terminator 3 and Pathfinder lies in their execution: in Terminator everything was bright and detailed, in Pathfinder everything was dark, shaky, grainy and even unfocused. (I haven't checked the budget for the movie, so that could be an excuse...) (although I think it was a nice budget).
So, Joel, was anything good in this movie?
Yes, Joel, actually, there was something. The costume design was awesome. The vykings looked so interesting, that I wouldn't have minded if the movie was only about THEM (except of course, if it lacked plot and photography, then it would be as bad). So, yes, costume design was great, specially the helmets with the horns and the weapons. Aside from that, Pathfinder is a no-no.
Pathfinder's grade is: F+ (the plus for costume design, of course).
Ps. I just learned that Viking is actually with an "i" instead of a "y", but vyking looked more gothic to me, so I kept it after all.
xcitement about it waned. Then I watched the trailer, and it was interesting, it promised something good (except for the cliché at the end of it, with the sword at the middle of the screen behind the title of the movie, which foreshadowed the exact opposite).So, I went to the movies with wary hopes, and with the recomendation from someone at work. And, by the 20th minute of watching, I had already decided that it wasn't good. Nope. It wasn't.
Pathfinder starts with the massacre of native american indians by the vykings. Among the vykings there's a boy who refuses to be as brutal as his people, and doesn't want to kill an indian child. The vykings leave him in the strange land. So, we all know where this is going now, right? First, he is rejected, but then they realize his one of them, but then, as he gets older, and as his skin color is different, and as his thoughts are those of vengeange, he is not considered by the leaders as "one worthy of" some thing. But then he proves to be a real indian and whatnot. Well, that's exactly the plot here, with the only difference that here is a story about vykings, woooooh, but it wasn't enough.
Specific problems I must point out.
One:
The previously refered clichéd story. It was completely predictable. The indians died. There was another indian village. They escaped on the past of the east "because on the west there is a threat of avalanche" (there was snow there). And so, the protagonist led the vykings through the west, yada yada, you've seen movies, you know... The movie comes complete with the token scene of the hero waving his sword around, as in karate practice. But, not only was that cliché, it even looked clumsy and unpracticed...
They should have watched Kill Bill II to see how that's done properly.
Two:
The lack of dialogue in the movie, makes for little interaction between characters, AAAND the dialogue that is there is really bland. Example: after watching an hour or so of vykings killing indians relentlessly and mercilessly, there is this dialog: (Ghost is the main character, his name is Ghost because his skin is pale, compared to that of the indians).
Ghost: "They are not men, they are beasts."
And I'm like: "DUH, dude, you don't say...! Come on! I've been watching the whole movie and I KNOW they are beasts, you dumbass..."
They should have watched American Beauty for a class on dialogue.
Three:
The photography of the movie was HORRIBLE! HORRIBLE! And I'll say it again: HORRIBLE. The movie has this gray, black, white, dirty, gritty look throughout, as if the environment was ever cloudy. And believe me, I LOVE cloudy days, and I love when huge amounts of rain fall, and I love the somber tones the gray clouds give to the earth and all things living; but instead of giving the movie a sense of gothic crudeness, it seemed like a defect, as if the shots weren't good enough, so they just took all the colors away and let it be black, white, brown, grey and dark green, so that you couldn't see its flaws. If they had made the movie IN black and white, it would probably have looked better... I mean, I couldn't see anything! I wanted to shove the brightness and contrast of the screen!! Things were so dark that you couldn't see details, nor small actions, or ANY action. In a movie, eyes are important (for they are the window to ones soul), and I think the eyes of people in this movie looked plain, unexpresive and devilish (for they had no bright spots), and that is IF you can even see them. They should have left some COLOR, gosh!, I didn't even see the red of blood, even after TWO indian massacres...
There are so many movies that are gothic, or film noirs, or just plain black and white, and you can see everything: Underworld, The Number 23, Sin City. And others are just plain dark: The Others, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (best HP yet), War of the Worlds, and they are awesome movies... They should have studied them better.
Four:
There is one thing that I REALLY hate in action movies, and it is the fact that the camera shakes and shakes and shakes when people are fighthing. I think it is a cheap, unimaginative, uninteresting and stupid way of filming action. Why would any director shake the camera when the hero knocks the villain? Why? Is it TOO violent to show it directly? Or did it look so bad and stiff on the set that you HAD to move the camera so you would have more movement on the scene? Fights are one of the most sublime things in movies (for it is "the struggle of life" translated into the physical and the visual). But, my God, that camera would never stop shaking violently, it was so annoying, and, again, I couldn't see how they were fighting, it was just a big mess of people falling around and screaming.
Movies they should have learned from: Lord of the Rings (best fights ever), Fight Club, Hero, Fearless, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (these Asians are awesome).
Five:
The SENSELESS violence. I have nothing against senseless violence, but the senselessness has to have some kind of sense. Kill Bill, Lord of the Rings, any war movie, Children of Men, and Terminator 3, and Pan's Labyrinth, and more recently "300", are the epitome of violence, and still their violence had a purpose. In Kill Bill, the bride had to be violent to be taken seriously by Bill. In Lord of the Rings, they were fighting to save their land. In Children of Men, the violence was what the protagonists were trying to get away from, it was part of their environment. In Terminator 3, it was to protect the future of the world. In Pan's Labyrinth the violence was raw, detailed and painful (and because of that visibility it would make you flich) and it was done to characterize the evil spanish captain. And in "300", the violence just looked good!, but the spartans were born and raised to be brutal soldiers, so it was understandable, expected and almost obligatory.
But the violence in Pathfinder comes without mercy and without any purpose. The vykings just come horseriding, killing everyone in overlong scenes, with many kinds of weapons, in different kinds of ways: troats cut, severed heads, crucified bodies, impailed heads, smashed chests... Still, it meant nothing. They were just killing for the sake of killing. And probably that was done to make us HATE the vykings for killing the poor indians, but actually, they never made us love the indians to care much (after all, some of the indians didn't like the hero completely; so why would I care?). So that, and the fact that much of the violence was blotted out by darkness and stupid camera shakes (notice that I didn't say "camera movements") made me actually fall asleep at some point. And THAT is a sin for a movie. It shall not be pardoned.
I have to make a final comparison. Pathfinder was supposed to be what they call "a ride", by that I mean (or THEY mean) that the movie's action never stops. I could recal the "300" again, saying that THAT was a huge ride, but as fast as "300" was on the "ride" factor, no movie has come close to being a COMPLETE ride than Terminator 3. It's true that the characters had already been develped, and that is a big relief to filmmakers/storytellers, because they can concentrate on the story, but still, if Terminator 3 had been the first instalment of a franchise it would have still been a awesome movie (I think). It starts with action (protagonists are chased by a friggin construction crane!! how awesome!), it's middle is action (they escape in a funeral hearse) and the end is action, it never stops.
I think the makers of Pathfinder wanted to make something like that, because the "action" in it (notice the "" in action) doesn't stop, except that it didn't move the story forward. The difference between Terminator 3 and Pathfinder lies in their execution: in Terminator everything was bright and detailed, in Pathfinder everything was dark, shaky, grainy and even unfocused. (I haven't checked the budget for the movie, so that could be an excuse...) (although I think it was a nice budget).
So, Joel, was anything good in this movie?
Yes, Joel, actually, there was something. The costume design was awesome. The vykings looked so interesting, that I wouldn't have minded if the movie was only about THEM (except of course, if it lacked plot and photography, then it would be as bad). So, yes, costume design was great, specially the helmets with the horns and the weapons. Aside from that, Pathfinder is a no-no.
Pathfinder's grade is: F+ (the plus for costume design, of course).
Ps. I just learned that Viking is actually with an "i" instead of a "y", but vyking looked more gothic to me, so I kept it after all.
2 comments:
joel - gracias por ahorrarme los $6 de la peli. tenía mis dudas si sería mala o no y ahora ya no las tengo =)
me alegro que te haya ayudado
Post a Comment