First things first.
Outlander looks amazing, the idea for the story is super creative and has a lot of potential, and for a B-movie the action scenes are top knotch.
This is all degraded by terrible dialogue, and cheasy fantasy moments. Now this isn't a real problem. Anyone who knows the name 'Ron Pearlman' will expect this, and live with it. I mean why not? And really only one moment stands out for being particularly cheesy and out of place.
The scene where Kainan walks into the King's court after killing the bear, the courtiers are all wasted naturally and very jolly, you know, causs when you drink in fantasy you get wasted, and violence is just good fun for the primitives. Anyways Kainan walks in, the crowd goes silent, and suddenly everyone's cheering his name.
Oh and the 'Shields' game was way overly anticipated. Everyone acted like it would be awesome, but it was boring and really shouldn't have been 5 min. long.
That stuff is all forgivable, like I said, it's a Ron Pearlman movie, you expect that.
What is unforgivable is the extreme run-time (almost 2 hours), and the terrible writing/pacing of the movie.
Early on they kill the aforementioned bear. Everyone in the audience knows the bear is not the moorwen. But no one in the movie does except Jim Caviezel, who no one believes anyways. Since the audience knows the Moorwen is not dead, you actually grow bored of waiting for it to come back. Which takes like 40 min. That is entirely too long and boring. They should've killed the Moorwen and then the surprise should've been the infant Moorwen. As it was made, there were no surprises, and the movie feels more like filler than anything else.
Waiiting for the villain to come back was excruciatingly boring and could've been handled much better. A 40 min. wait for the story to pick up, would've killed any movie, it slaughtered this one, gutted it, and left the bored audience waiting and picking up on every stupid detail that they should've been able to ignore.
So in short
1. Excellent looking movie
2. Great action scenes
3. Lame but forgivable fantasy elements
4. Boring script-writing that made the movie too long and slow-paced.
I guess you could say its very much like Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, except I never actually sat all the way through one of those.
Btw, LordPhidias, what did you think of it? I was not sober when I saw this movie (in fact, I rarely am when I watch movies), so that might've dampened my patience for needless expository.
Another disclaimer, the last Ron Pearlman film I saw was In the Name of the King, that might have soured his reputation a little in my eyes. Although that film wasn't as bad as Starship Troopers 2.
Last edited by wheelchairman; 09-30-2010 at 10:53 AM.
Originally Posted by T-6005
Tags for this Thread