Home > Adventure >

The Pathfinder

Watch Now

The Pathfinder (1996)

June. 02,1996
|
5.2
| Adventure TV Movie
Watch Now

In this sequel to The Last of the Mohicans, the Pathfinder (Kevin Dillon) defends a British fort under siege during the French and Indian Wars. His Indian father, Chingachgook (Graham Greene), and the lovely Mabel Dunham (Laurie Holden) are swept up in the battle, and the Pathfinder finds himself forced to choose between his father and the woman he loves. The film is based on last of James Fenimore Cooper's "Leatherstocking Tales."

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Lucybespro
1996/06/02

It is a performances centric movie

More
Smartorhypo
1996/06/03

Highly Overrated But Still Good

More
Adeel Hail
1996/06/04

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

More
Nayan Gough
1996/06/05

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

More
pemigewasset68
1996/06/06

I had such high hopes! Not long after Russell means and Daniel Day Lewis last of the Mohicans, this had to be within shouting distance of that, right? With the caliber of cast and story, how bad could it be? It's like a middle school production. The scenery is gorgeous, but everything else just has that two dimensional cardboard feel. Graham Greene and Michael Hogan! Laurie Holden and Russell Means! Stacy Keach for god sake! Sometimes they sort of don't suck, almost like their natural talent accidentally shone through. All of these actors have done terrific work before and after this, so it must have been the writing and direction. You know when you're watching a bunch of kids doing a show and you keep waiting for the wig to fall off? Kevin Dillon, ladies and gentlemen...

More
sbaird42
1996/06/07

You might come across this gem after viewing Mann's 1992 Last of the Mohicans or reading Cooper's book, and thirsting for more. Unless you're desperate in the extreme, however, I can't recommend it. The two mains look like they stepped out of an 80's musical, and the costumes are all Walmart specials, fresh out of the laundromat.The one good part, which is why I watched it at all, was the occasional (not frequent) use of genuine scenery and "indians" running through the trees with muskets. As noted in other reviews, however, they are white and flabby, so it's a letdown anyway. As for story, historical reenactment, drama, anything redeemable, it's just plain absent from this show.

More
BigLaxFan94
1996/06/08

Although I found this film to be historically accurate, I found it a bit odd that the British captain (I think he was the captain) was quite friendly with the French Compte. Me being quite the North and South American history buff, I never heard of such "personal alliances" between one British captain and a French Compte. Both nations were at war and they BOTH were only interested in USING the First Nations for their own selfish, evil gains!! It was bad enough that both sides just overlooked the fact that it was Native land they were fighting on! But they both forced the Natives to join either side so that they could defeat the other, and that's ALL that was!! But..... ANYWAYS...... that's why I gave this one a 7 out of 10.

More
NxNWRocks
1996/06/09

It's hard to begin to describe how bad this movie is. While bringing great literature to the screen might not be the easiest of tasks, you would think the average production company couldn't go wrong with an action story. It's therefore remarkable - stunning, in fact - how completely this film fails on just about every level. It loses the audience from the get go, somehow managing to make a dangerous canoe trip down a roaring Niagara river as dull as ditch water.The acting is woefully poor, with perhaps only Graham Greene approaching passable level. Most of the cast deliver their dialog so stiffly and with such tortured syntax (supposedly the writers felt it would be more authentic that way) that it's often hard to understand half of what is said, and impossible to care much anyway.The whole production has the air of a reenactment, with none of the charm. This might even be an insult to the good folk who take pride in their amateur productions, because filming such a display would likely have resulted in a more engrossing film than this so-called professional effort. One of the very few plus points is that they used some authentic backdrops. It might have been better had they just had someone read a truncated version of the story over shots of the fort, river, lake, etc. On that point, the story is set up as being told as a bedtime story by a grandmother to two small children at a later date - a completely pointless and witless exercise, which does nothing but underline the idea that this film can lull the audience to sleep.Added to the many technical failings are at least a couple of dubious continuity issues. The 18th century pistols sound like modern firearms when fired and the shots echo as if fired indoors while the characters are using the guns outdoors. In one scene, two characters tracking through the woods discover a shoe print that looks a little too much like a modern man's size 12.Ultimately, this is a horrible film that should be avoided at all costs.

More