Outcast

Outcast

Outcast

Outcast

The story centres around Petronella and her boyfriend Fergal. As their doomed relationship plays out, a Beast stalks the estate, killing locals, working its way towards our protagonists. Meanwhile Cathal and Liam, two mysterious travellers from Ireland use ritual and magic on a blood hunt. Mary, Fergal's mother performs ritual and magic of her own. As Cathal comes face to face with Mary in a vicious finale one thing is for sure, the Beast must die.... This film is an oddity, first things first, it's not a horror movie, it's in no way scary, and mercifully, the film isn't just a creature walking the streets at night, to be honest, the creature hardly features in it. It's more of a study of cultures, and how people can really become involved with their culture and really go back to the fire and brimstone times of the bible. We have two very different cultures living next door to each other, and then we have the outcast Nesbitt, who wants to clean up a mess he did in his culture. It's well acted, grittily made and quite intelligent. But I was looking for a sort of gritty council estate werewolf movie.

It's difficult to know what movie-goers want sometimes. Do they want the usual product with its anodyne plot line, CGI and names you've heard of? Or do they want something different that might challenge their preconceptions of what a good movie is? Do they want to praise a film for trying to be a bit different even if not perfect or do they look for signs of weakness in anything they see, delighting in the opportunity to trash something? Outcast has a lot of faults. The creature effects are a bit wobbly, it's slow in places and could do with tightening up, some of the acting is mediocre. And yet this does try to be different. It's horror mixed with social realism as some have already pointed out. It's visually striking and well photographed although shaky cam sometimes gets the better of it. Some of the acting is very good indeed – I was particularly impressed by the ferocity of both Kate Dickie and James Nesbitt and kudos to him for appearing in this low budget film yet not holding anything back. The story will make you work and it will help if you have some concept of how myths and legends operate (and who doesn't, it's in our psyche). There is a resolution which makes perfect sense in the context of the story. It's not a fun movie and probably not a date movie! Outcast is a brave attempt to make something different. It has lots of faults but they are ones I am happy to forgive because of the efforts and obvious good intentions of all involved in making it.

I just finished watching this, and I have to say I really liked it. OK, so it isn't the best film of its genre but there is something about it that I found compelling, at least compelling enough to want to watch it right through to the end. The story moves along steadily but surely and I was left wondering what's coming around the corner (or from the dark doorways) next. There are some terrific performances from some actors and actresses I had never seen before, Niall Bruton and Hanna Stanbridge, for example. The lighting was dark, and of course deliberately so to help capture the mood, and it is a moody kind of film. It is full of suspense too, which is exactly what you need from a movie like this. Would I watch it again? This is something I ask myself every time I watch a movie and for me this determines if it was worth watching in the first place. Hope that makes sense. Yes, I would certainly watch it again. A good film in my view and one I recommend to others. Please don't be dissuaded by some of the reviews you may have read.

The tale is outlined at first, then fleshed out. There is skillful employment of ambiguity. There is no formulaic plot here, although you know at the end there is going to be a showdown of one sort or another. Outcast has a dual meaning. There are disturbing elements of graphic violence, although they are strategic and never gratuitous. The review is dubbed as it is as the practices of the characters would appear to be those used in the fundamentals used in real witchcraft. The acting is solid. As others who have reviewed "Outcast" have noted, the film is not only about supernatural practices; there are cultural and age aspects to it as well. Cultural includes capturing the feel of the high rise projects (i.e. estates) and the busybody social workers that come with them. There are the tensions connected with melting pot clashes. Age aspects have young adults trying to find resonance with other young adults. A subject also breached is that of adults with developmental and cognitive impairments and differing views of where they fit into a culture. Aside from plot attributes, "Outcast" is a spell-binding (no pun intended) story that I felt compelled to watch until the end. Hoping to see more by this director soon!

This is the worst film I've seen in years. Others have covered the "written by a seven year old" plot so I won't waste time. Some points to note - (1) Dreadful camera work. Shaky, out of focus zooming, looks as though every scene was filmed using mobile cameras. It's just dreadful (2) Awful acting. Wooden, unconvincing script. Lines delivered with all the sincerity of a politicians pre-election promises (3) Special effects - make a 50's "B" movie look sophisticated...probably the worst combination of CGI / make up I've seen. (4) Casting - just awful. James Nesbitt as an "evil hunter" using magick to track down his prey? He should stick to playing drunken wife-beaters...he was clearly out of his depth here. Plus the "young man who was the star of the show"? For Christ's sake pick a leading actor who doesn't look like he suffers from terminal acne. Between some of the scenes he looked like he'd been squeezing his spots. AVOID THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE.

Very disappointing attempt at "Irish Werewolf in Edinburgh". Excellent and convincing acting and a pleasure to see ordinary looking people with warts and all, instead of the usual Hollywood plastic "Barbie doll" look which I find so nauseating and boring. Nice moody atmosphere enhanced by great audio soundtrack. Good that the producers were not squeamish. However, poor script, thin and predictable. The first time we see the "Beast" I knew it would be the witch's son, Fergal...which removed all suspense and horror from the story. Secondly, the boy's character was very shallowly drawn and one-dimensional, so I quickly lost interest in him. Overall, all the characters needed more depth...and a bit more back story. Basically, for me both the Hunted and the Hunters were evil, so I couldn't identify with either, and therefore I couldn't care less who lived or who died. Incidentally, what happened to the dog? The witch, Mary, took it for a walk and returned without it? Did she get rid of it because it was drawing too much attention to herself? The trouble with screen writing today is producers and directors think the tag-line or brief storyline IS THE SCRIPT, hence a 100 or 120 minute film is full of tedious padding in a feeble attempt to stretch very sparse material, with irritating wobbly camera shots and gimmicky editing, which takes you out of the story, alienating you from the content. Quite frankly, this story is more suited for a 45 minute episode of a British equivalent of an X Files TV drama series, rather than a proper full length feature film. Its a TV film...not a cinema movie. As for the "Beast". What a joke. Totally unconvincing. Very rubbery. I don't want to hear any more complaints about the rubber bat in my vampire feature "Morticia"(2009)also shot in Edinburgh, using genuine local actors. What annoys me most as a film-maker about this film is the producers had so much money to spend on the production compared to my measly £5,000 budget, yet they still failed to make a film not much better than mine. And yet, the budget for "Outcast" will in turn be a pittance compared to extortionately massive budgets of the studio pictures, which is a real squandering of money for what the value an audience actually receives. It is time, for example, for Hollywood stars to stop being paid millions for any one movie. A single star's fee could be the entire budget of at least five movies, giving work to hundreds, if not thousands of actors and crew. And the stars are not the only overpriced element of Hollywood movie-production. There is absolutely no need for film production to be so ludicrously expensive. Why should a single movie cost a $150 million, when for the same money, at least fifteen movies could be financed, giving audiences greater choice, and create many more jobs. In Britain, this sort of money spent on a single film would fund a year's worth of TV drama. The fact is, there is an inverse law that the more money you throw at a movie production, the less interesting and entertaining the film ends up. Its the arts equivalent of the "Law of Diminishing Returns". When are the film producers and financiers going to wake up to this most basic rule in economics?

First off, I don't understand why some people were so critical of this film. Having watched countless terrible so called movies from the horror genre this last year, very few could hold my attention. Yes, I will agree, it started of a wee bit slow, and yes at times you didn't know who to like more, the hunters or the hunted. Personally I thought this was quite refreshing. The setting was wonderful for an ex-pat Scot like myself, it's a pity more movies aren't made in Scotland. Of course there are parallels with Let me in, but the whole gypsy/druidic slant was nice and the acting on the whole was more than adequate and a lot better than low budget American movies where recently the actors seem to be hitting all time new lows in believability or likability. I thought this film kept my interest right up to the end, the ending wasn't as predictable as people make out, as the director really did paint quite a ambiguous slant to the main protagonist (or was that protagonists?). Anyway, for all fans of Edinburgh and people who want more from a horror movie than just another slasher psycho you should come away with few disappointments. Serious thrills are few, so I might well put this more in a supernatural category rather than horror. I think the problem with recent horror is it's hard to top the excesses of Saw and few have the storytelling genius of a director like Guillermo Del Toro to eke out a superb horror without an excess of gore. To sum up, a good attempt at a Scottish LET ME IN, not incredible but compared with recent dross a must see for horror fans who are waiting in vain for another great film like The Shining.