REVIEW: OUTLANDER

There are some movies that get lauded with absurd amounts of praise wildly disproportionate to what they actually deserve (Little Miss Sunshine comes to mind, along with last year's The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionare - which is itself rising on my own personal hype-backlash list). My issue with these movies (or more accurately those that hyperbolically over-praise them) is that they deprive other, often better, tragically underseen films of the love and accolade warranted to them. Spread the love around, critics and filmgoers.

Outlander falls in the latter category: it's a film that to 90% of people would sound terrible, but to that movie loving, film savvy 10%, it's golden. The blurb on the DVD box describes it dully as "Beowulf meets Predator." If I were to offer a polish on the language, it would read: "The 13th Warrior meets Starman, except AWESOME." Intrigued but mystified? Outlander tells the epic story of Kainin, an alien soldier on his way home when his ship crash lands on Earth circa the 8th century A.D. In the crash, a monstrous alien dragon-wolf-monster-thing called a Moorwen is freed from the ship and unleashed upon the unsuspecting fur-wearing populous of Norway and only Kainin can stop it - that's right, kids, an alien helps the Vikings fight a bitchin' looking monster. If this appeals to you, you need to watch this movie. Yesterday. If it doesn't appeal to you, I offer my condolences for your never having experienced the joys of being a child with external genitalia, 'cause this movie was made for little boys (and little boys at heart).


Jim Caviezel (just occured to me his initials are JC - do you think that was a requirement for Mel? Would he have cast another actor instead? Possibly John Cho, John Cleese or John Carpenter?) plays Kainin and alternates his performance between stoic badass and tortured hero - nothing new here, but he does an admirable job. Kainin's interactions with the local Viking tribe proves to be the center of the movie and while far from original (the script borrows heavily from any monster-in-the-dark-that-we-must-outsmart-and-destroy movie -Alien, Predator, 13th Warrior, etc and flat out steals from Beowulf - both the text and the Zemeckis movie*), the cast elevates trite material to at least fairly enjoyable level. There's an altogether ridiculous scene featuring Kainin and Wulfric (Jack Huston) competing in the mead hall game "shields" has to the two running across upheld battle shields in a circle, performing various feats of balance and agility while the drunken crowd cheers; it shouldn't work, but miraculously does. It also might be the best scene in the whole movie, and that includes several gorey Moorwen attacks.

There really isn't an original idea in the whole movie, but the cavalcade of cliches are executed with enough conviction, style and the occasional, very knowing tongue-in-cheek to sell it. In fact, Outlander is pretty damned entertaining despite and in spite of itself. The action is well-shot and varied - there's nothing repetitive from set piece to set piece - and hits all the beats you want in this kind of movie. There's a few sword fights, a ton of scares and some genuinely fun, original violence. But never does the movie tread into overkill territory like Zemeckis did. Each action scene is, by contemporary standards, quite brief. Sword fights go on just as long as they need to and never longer, as do the monster attacks scenes - never did Outlander fatigue me the way most recent action pictures have. There's a familiar low-budget efficiency to the movie that I admired a lot, something lost now that most big Hollywood productions are actually B-movies with $200 million budgets. Outlander certainly looks cheaper than its contemporaries, but it plays cheaper, too, and that's a good thing.




*There are characters named Rothgar and Boromir - seriously? Also, furthering the Beowulf theft, the Moorwen has enough time to squirt out a baby Moorwen, which naturally bites it to better enrage the already vicious parent - Grendel's mother anyone?