Outlander

It's entertaining nonsense with major league special effects, larger-than-life characters and inventive monsters that draw on the "Aliens" and "Predator" models, being terrifying but also vaguely sympathetic.

An enjoyably goofy hybrid of extraterrestrial sci-fi and Iron Age action, Outlander boasts a super-serious Jim Caviezel in the title role

If only Outlander was as fun as the premise makes it sound on paper.

The nuttiest hunk of junk in many months.

Not helped by a wooden perf from Jim Caviezel as a humanoid alien who accidentally imports a real alien to eighth-century Earth.

In its second half, Outlander falls apart completely, becoming nothing but a violent, mindless monster movie along the lines of "Alien vs. Predator."

Writer-director Howard McCain bids fair to dethrone Uwe Boll as the king of crap action flicks, and every second feels like time on the cross.

Ignore ALL the critics who hate this film. The people who came up with this film had a perfect use of their thinking, intelligence and brainstorming to make this film. What is the monster, where it came from, and other details. This sci-fi creature feature that takes place in the Viking's time had made me like this film. A lot.

When i watched this movie the plot and at the start of the movie i got interested as the story went on, but after seeing the hole movie i felt that the sent all budget, effort and time on the first half of movie and the second half not so good, the second half felt like a washed out cheep version of the hole movie and that left me with a bad after taste. Like one glass of coke and the second glass of 1/4 coke and the rest with water and some food color and some bad sugar. What i think they did wrong is they should have a more quality stable than stretch it out with clips no one cares or likes. I would like 1 hour movie with interesting content and story beginning to end, than 2 hour movie that is very washed out that is very bad and boring. I give it a weak genuine point of 6/10

It did look good. The monster looked amazing. Although it did remind me a lot of the monster out of The Relic (1997). The sound was fine. I can't really remember it that much so it must have been a little bland. There were pacing issues. It was a bit boring with the Viking thing and much pointless talking and Viking fighting. The action was exciting enough. There were some cool scenes but ultimately very forgettable except for the pretty cool monster. Go watch The Relic (1997) instead; it's basically the same thing but much better.

An anomalous adventure, two parts Beowulf and one part Dragonslayer - maybe a bit of Predator, too. Outlander is an average action flick hiding some interesting, sometimes beautiful vignettes. Sadly, our only glimpses of these are shown through a dream-haze or verbal exposition. The Viking part is not done terribly well, and Jack Huston sounds way too much of a luvvie to be taken seriously as a Norse warrior. The "shields" sequence is ridiculous, as are countless scenes that seem to have little purpose other than to try and look "cool". Kudos to the writers/director however, for creating a sympathetic figure out of a beastie.

I can't believe I'm the first negative user reviewer. Like most, I listed to the critics and rented this movie from Amazon. The plot didn't seem all that great, nor did the **** I went with the positive reviews. I love sci fi, and consider myself a huge fan of series like BSG, Firefly, & Star Trek. I even have the entire series of Farscape on DVD. I can put up with a lot when it comes to imaginative sci fi stories, but this story was absurd. So basically you have this space man from some far away, advanced human civilization that crashes on Earth in Norway during the time of the Vikings. And somehow stowed away on that ship was a gigantic dragon-like thing. Then the space man and vikings fight the dragon-like thing after the space man conveniently loses his space man fireblaster in a waterfall. I just wonder who blackmailed John Hurt into acting in this heap of feces.