Pathfinder

A long time ago, a Columbus scholar came to my undergrad college to continue a debate about the significance of Columbus' discovery of America. I, being the snarky student that I was, asked a question around the Viking discovery of America: why didn't the Vikings mention battles with the skraelings (the Viking name for American Indians) more?

The professor's response: "They came from fish and ice and when they got to North America, it was more fish and ice. The skraelings were more of a nuisance than anything."

I always thought the notion of battles between Vikings and Native Americans would make a good movie. Sure enough, along comes Pathfinder about precisely that.

Almost.

Of course, Hollywood had to go and muck up the idea. So instead of the plot really being about a Native American warrior fighting Vikings, it's about a Viking (read: a white guy) raised by the natives. Instead of portraying the Native American warriors as worthy opponents, they're cast as complete morons incapable of detecting a simple pit trap constructed by our protagonist. Instead of crafting a compelling tale about a clash between two very different cultures, Pathfinder turns into every Hollywood cliché imaginable, from a lone warrior leading his enemies onto thin ice to skiing down a mountain slope on a shield.

Pathfinder is far more interested with its cinematography. The movie is shot like scenes from a Frank Frazetta painting, with faceless horned warriors and rippling muscles wielding wicked-looking axes and flails overhead. Great stuff for paintings, not so great for a movie.

300 did all of this, from the digitally inserted blood to the culture clash, heroic speeches to demonized villains, only better. By the time stock footage of an avalanche appeared on screen, my hopes for Pathfinder were dashed along with the Vikings on the rocks.