Ryan ChartrandDirector Marcus Nispel must really want people to hate him.
“Pathfinder,” Nispel’s latest addition to his “how to become infamous in 10 years” project, marks the second film since his remake of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” that has made audiences want their money back 15 minutes into the film.
Through an introduction that feels more like a trailer for the film itself, the audience learns that before Christopher Columbus arrived in America, beastly Vikings with heads that fall off far too easily tried to eradicate the land of any natives. Yes, it’s historically ridiculous, but it gets worse.
One of the groups of Vikings left behind a boy who simply wasn’t into the beheading babies business. The boy, played later in man form by Karl Urban, grew up with the nearby Indians until the Vikings returned, which forced him to pick a path: return to the Vikings and live a life of merciless killing or protect the natives and try to win over the love of the cute girl through romantic dialogue like, “Hey, you shouldn’t be here.”
Unfortunately, the film takes an unbearably clich‚d path that allows it to now battle against “Premonition” and “Are We Done Yet?” in becoming the worst film of 2007.
In brighter news, Nispel and screenplay writer Laeta Kalogridis have developed a quick and easy three-step process to allow people to hate them in the most efficient method possible.
Step one: Forget character development. What good has it ever done for mankind, anyway? In fact, don’t even give any of the “characters” names. Make up one really cool name like Pathfinder and let multiple characters share it throughout the film.
Yes, it was a conscious decision meant to give some form of a point to the rest of the mess, but ultimately it’s about as pointless as basing a graphic novel off a screenplay. Oh, wait, the “Pathfinder” graphic novel did just that. Nispel and co. are on a roll so far.
Step two: Make all action sequences completely incoherent. There is no need for any of the action to make sense, as long as a head tumbles or an eye pops out at some point.
The action combined with some type of stylistic directing could have saved the film from its other weaknesses, but even it fell to the clich‚s that have been done dozens of times in the last year alone.
Whether it’s the out-of-place marijuana references, a sled chase to replace the overused car chase or the meaningless love story, Nispel is embellishing all the wrong places. Mel Gibson did it right with “Apocalypto” by creating a balance of history, Hollywood and well-filmed, creative and stylish action.
Step three: Limit all dialogue to a maximum of 12 lines per character. If a character has something to say, it better be worth the audience’s time. For example, if Urban is seeking a place to fight the Vikings, have him say something witty and unpredictable like “Yeah . this is where we’ll fight.”
Thankfully, the lack of dialogue serves as a small gift since hearing any “actor” speak is a horrific experience.
The voices of the Indians are either highly Americanized or extremely overdone with accents to supposedly help show that they’re the “good guys” and anything big, ugly, ferociously unstable and looking for a baby to kill should be considered a “bad guy.” Thanks for the tough to discern distinction, Nispel.
The one positive aspect of “Pathfinder” would be the beautiful landscape shots filmed in Vancouver, making the theater itself feel like it’s on ice at times. Unfortunately, the scenery and repetitive shots get old after 45 minutes of staring at the same setting.
When it comes down to it, Nispel would have been better off releasing a 1-hour commercial for the 2007 Nissan Pathfinder. Don’t worry, Nispel; your three-step plan still applies.
“Pathfinder” ultimately never finds its way, and while the blame for the film’s inevitable downfall should fall on every individual involved with the film, Nispel’s next film, an adaptation of the video game “American McGee’s Alice,” could be his last chance to avoid seeing audiences with pitchforks outside theaters.