Review of Outlander (2008) by Jani H — 27 Jul 2009

There is no destiny. There is no Gods. It was just me... And I failed them.".

When you combine two different genres, sci-fi and Iron age adventure, the first question that comes to your mind may be: "Will it work?". For me, this underrated film worked perfectly. I saw it with an open mind and was genuinely pleased with the outcome.

The story combines two of my favourite genres, sci-fi and sword adventure. I do like other genres equally as much, but I'm trying to prove my point here... Jim Caviezel, my favourite Jesus, plays Kaidan, a man from another galaxy than the one we live in. He crashlands on 8th century Earth in Norway, the land of vikings. Onboard his ship is a terrifying beast that will unleash hell... Kaidan must win the trust of the vikings and join forces with them so that the beast, called Moorwen, can be destroyed.

Jim Caviezel is an actor that I've liked very much. He has done several good performances in the past, but he's only remembered by his portrayal of the ancient carpenter. His performance is yet again a joy to look at and fits very well to the part of the warrior from another world. The supporting cast is also pretty decent with some known names as John Hurt and Ron Perlman and some new faces to me, like Jack Huston. There's nothing bad that I can say of the cast. There are touch-as-fuck and comedic characters so you never really get bored with 'em.

The special effects aren't price winning material but when you combine the SFX's with the cinematography, all the lighting effects and so on, the outcome can be said to be very good. The creature looks amazing! Some imagination has been used... When the creature starts to glow with a neonblood color in the darkness... Wow. Simple as that.

The cinematography was something worth mentioning. A lot of nice images are given to the big screen and especially the dark scenes are something to be remembered. A very nice job by Pierre Gill.

The art department has also given a good effort on bringing the 8th century Norway to life. It's not like I've ever been there (time travel doesn't exist yet..) but the costumes and the buildings etc have nothing to lose to bigger budgeted productions.

There's only one thing that bothers me... Why didn't this film succeed (in the theatres)? The budget, 50 million USD's, was big enough to be able to compete with bigger names but managed only to get ca 5 mil back. Did 'the failing of The 13th Warrior' remind the distributors that maybe the viewers don't have any interest of these kind of films? My opinion is that 'Outlander' never got the chance it deserved. Back in 2008 there were hundreds, maybe thousands, of far worse films out there that got a wider release. 'Outlander' was mainly shown at film festivals.

'Outlander' is a film that has an exciting, quickly developing story, that succesfully manages to combine different genres, has good actors and good looks, even amazing at times. I liked the film very much and I hope that it will get more fans when it hits the rental and home markets. I'll definitely buy a Blu-Ray copy when it arrives to Finland next month. Recommended to those who don't give a fuck what critics say. Just look at 'em! Old farts with suits on... What do they know about entertainment? ;).