User reviews

I saw this film as part of the "Imagine" film festival 2011 in Amsterdam. The synopsis sounded promising, but the end result could have been much better, even with identical ingredients. Several story lines and related characters were not exploited fully, and the plot offered much more potential. There is also a plus side: the casting was very good, and the acting was believable throughout. For a film of this category, the latter is essential.

In the first half hour an overwhelming series of characters passes by, alas without proper introduction how they were related and what made them tick. The synopsis as published by the film festival, did not offer much to tie things together. And last but not least, the dialect did not help either (though considering myself reasonably fluent in English, part of the dialog escaped me).

The initial confusion disappeared later on. The story got some flesh gradually in the last hour, and something was beginning to happen. That was where the horror element became apparent. Unexplainable things occurred, but we were left in the dark what was underneath all those events. In other words, precisely what we came for.

I'm not sure about the explicit and uncontrolled violence throughout the story. For example, the audible breaking of someone's fingers one by one, in an attempt to extract information, is very unpleasant to watch and hear. We also saw a lot of self mutilation, with blood riddled results, but that was an inherent part of the story line, hence fitting its purpose. Nevertheless, I saw much more uncontrolled violence than I was prepared for, even in the context of this film festival.

All in all, when leaving the theater I gave a "so so" rating for the public prize competition. As said above, there were a lot of promising ingredients, but the end result was much less than could be achieved with a bit more thought on character exposition and story development.

What do you get if you cross the plot of Let The Right One In with the special effects of a budget Hulk movie, then set it all in Trainspotting territory, with a bunch of Irish Gypsy mumbo jumbo thrown in for good measure. Well, fairly obviously, you get low budget horror thriller Outcast.

Intense, witchy Mary and her teenage son Fergal (Kate Dickie and Niall Bruton) are on the run. But when they set fire to their van and accept a scummy council tenancy in a run-down scheme on the outskirts of Edinburgh, it appears that their days on the road are over. Big mistake, as mysterious, tattooed, radge hit-man Cathal (James Nesbitt) is hot on their heels, tracking them down using bizarre divining rituals involving pigeons' entrails. Well, it's hardly as if the reclusive pair are on Facebook.

But while Mary sets about weaving protective spells around their flat, Fergal is off getting to know his new neighbourhood, and in particular feisty 'teenager' Petronella (Hanna Stanbridge), who spends her days caring for her mentally disabled brother while her alcoholic mother lies sprawled on the sofa sleeping off the grog. But as a sudden, awkward and rather unlikely romance starts to blossom, Cal is closing in, having been given the go ahead by the local gypsy king or Laird (played, of course, by James Cosmo, as it is illegal to make a film in Scotland without offering him a part).

All sounds a bit strange. Well, it is, but it's also gory, gritty and weirdly compelling – although not always terribly convincing. Perhaps I just have trouble believing there's black magic taking place on my bus route. Or indeed that such cheesy, playground black magic could be so immediately effective – Rosemary's Baby this ain't.

But that aside, this is a brave film that's genuinely trying to do something different, and while the result is at times cheap and patchy, it's also like nothing you've seen before, a sort of dysfunctional Mike Leigh film for the Twilight generation.

Now where did I put my jar of blood and pile of dead birds? I'm off to cast a spell on a traffic warden…

See more of my reviews at www.elainemacintyre.net 8-)

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.

Some people reviewing this film have been complaining everything from the script to the actual film itself but I wonder how many films they have seen that live to their high expectations? This lowbudget supernatural horror film was a big surprise for me because I never heard about it before nor have I met anyone who have seen it.

The story about demon hunter Cathal(James Nesbitt) using irish "Pikey" or traveller/gypsy magic in order to snare a demon beast is slightly different from similar stories in the same genre. The hunt is not as easy as its seems and some people have a hidden agenda....

Using very ordinary locations, in this case, a rundown apartment complex in Edinburgh poses it challenges. A type of location used in many other films like Fish Tank (2009), All or Nothing (2002), or A Taste of Honey (1961)etc.

How to make such usual, cliché ridden location into something more menacing, chilling, more resembling the Gothic horror environment in an old abandoned castle for example? Director Colm McCarthy has the answer by using very little lighting, editing and very sparse use of CGI, makeup etc he creates a most chilling atmosphere out of a normal housing project.

However, being a lowbudget means that whatever SFX is used is not as good as bigger budget movie but Colm McCarthy does a very good job with it.

Story itself is reminiscent of some of Clive Barkers films, such as Lord of Illusions (1995), Hellraiser (1987), Nightbreed (1990). Mix this with irish traveller/gypsy magic and that type of culture (watch Ian Palmers doc Knuckle)and add some HP Lovecraft, especially themes from The Dunwich Horror and you will get what Outcast (2010)is about.

The acting is very good, James Nesbitts obsessed demonhunter Cathal, Kate Dickies Mary who has done a lot great performances in films like Red Road (2006) now mostly famous from Game of Thrones is just excellent.

The new faces for me are Hanna Stanbridge, Niall Bruton who are very good playing two teenagers thrust into a problematic situation that none of them seem to understand.

So, future viewers that like supernatural horror films, and don't mind lowbudget flaws, watch this film with a different approach to witchcraft, demons and sorcery.

Where to begin? Not only is that the question I have as a reviewer, it seems that was the question the director was asking himself for the first 20 minutes of this film. To call this film slow to start is an epic understatement. It uncomfortably squeezes it's way into a story arc, but never really doing so with a pace that keeps the viewers attention. After an extended wait we are introduced to our main characters, unlikeable as they basically all are.

The main character, although honestly the film barely commits to it, is Petronella. A girl from some kind of mixed race background, who, for want of a better word, is seemingly "easy". She meets the second character, this time from a gypsy family, Fergal. What follows is an incredulously quick, and exceptionally unbelievably whirlwind romance, wherein Petronella falls madly in love for no real discernible reason, and winds up trying to have sex with him repeatedly. However, Fergal's highly creepy voodoo style mother is obsessed with keeping him from doing the deed, so forces him to stay in his room. He gets out all the time though, but only when she's not around.

If this review seems disjointed, please, understand that this is what the film is like. You are introduced to characters whom you almost immediately share no compassion for, and are then forced to watch them form relationships that have no serious grounding. All under the story arc of Fergal being hunted by a random man, for undisclosed reasons. If it wasn't bad enough that the actress playing Petronella (Hanna Stanbridge) is indubitably too old to play a schoolgirl, then it's certainly bad enough that the gypsy magic sequences play out like a scene from Hackers. One party uses some ancient act by no doubt killing some form of animal, the other does the same to "block" this power. Who knew gypsy magic could be hacked?

Seriously, I won't even delve any further into this shoddy material. It was a waste of film, and left only one temptation at the end, that of leaving as soon as humanly possible. Grotesquely over done sex scenes, silly cast choices, absolutely diabolical dialogue. Even the chavs in the film are blatantly acting school graduates with Kappa tracksuits on. I wish this was better, as I often enjoy James Nesbitt, but he was wasted with a character barely given room to grow. Simply put, avoid, at all costs.

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.

Well, this movie was sort of interesting in some ways, and dreadfully boring in others.

The good parts about the movie was the setting, being in a run down apartment building, so there was sort of a gritty feel to the movie. And also the characters were quite interesting.

"Outcast" provides you with a somewhat good enough cast for the roles in the movie. Ciarán McMenamin, playing Liam (one of the two hunters) actually did a quite nice job in the movie. As did Hanna Stanbridge, playing Petronella. And despite having a really small role in the movie, then James Cosmo brought his usual grace to the movie. Just a shame that he didn't have more screen time.

The movie takes a long time to build up its thrills, and when they do climax, it is sort of a disappointment, because nothing much actually does happen. You sit around, waiting and waiting, but nothing fruitful happens. Now, I am not saying that the movie is all together bad, it just drags on for a very long time. And the story told in "Outcast" proved interesting enough in a way.

What killed off the movie experience for me was the time the movie took to get from A to B, with very little happening in between. Had there been more action and a quicker pace to it, this movie would have been awesome.

And the 'beast', well what little you did see of it actually looked promising enough, but not nearly enough was shown of the creature in my opinion, and that also brought down the movie a notch. I like to see what we are dealing with, not being kept in the dark with only rare glimpses of what is out there.

In overall, the movie had great potential, it was just killed off by its slow, dull pace. And that was a shame.

I guess Scottish cinema has gone downhill in the last fifteen years. In the mid nineties we had Shallow Grave and Trainspotting. Today, we get Outcast - a story about... actually, I'm not that sure.

A really annoying paranoid witch and her charisma-free son are on the run from... er, two blokes who kill pigeons. I don't quite know why, but, worse still, I don't care. These pigeon killers (who overact and come out with a script-full of 'creepy' lines) may be monsters, as there's one in there somewhere, but you only see it when it's dark.

I mentioned that the witch's son is pretty charm-free, however, this doesn't stop a beautiful local girl to pursue him relentlessly. I can only assume that the way to chat up a Scottish girl is to completely ignore them, barely look at them and follow them at a distance of about ten paces - apparently, according to this film, they love it.

Throw in the typical stuck-up English baddie and a mix of generally unlikeable stereotypes and you don't have an awful lot of fun in this slow-paced 'shocker' - if you want werewolves, go for Dog Soldiers every time.

On the plus side, fair play to the director for using some really bleak settings and shots to create a sombre atmosphere. Bleak settings = atmospheric, bleak pace = bad.

I just hope not that many innocent pigeons died to make this film.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

This was really just meant to be a filler film for me at the Edinburgh International Film Festival, I just thought I'd cram in as many films as possible and went along to a late night showing of Outcast.

It was actually really really good, and compared to the pap you get to see these days if you turn up at the cinema expecting horror fare, extraordinary. Successful horror plunges deep into fears that we have, here there's some really good stuff about sexual insecurity and fear of one's own burgeoning sexuality during adolescence, fear of pregnancy, fear of homelessness, anger about parental domination.

It's a story about Mary (played by Kate Dickie - the lead in Red Road) and her adolescent son Fergal (Niall Bruton). They're on the run and hiding in an Edinburgh housing estate. The mother clearly has supernatural capabilities and is being hunted by Cathal (James Nesbitt) who has been temporarily given similar supernatural capabilities. It's a ritualistic hunt. Nesbitt usually plays debonair blarney-spouting roles but is cast against type as the baddie here, which is quite refreshing.

There's some sort of underground feudalism going on as well, as Cathal crosses territory and has to ask a gentleman called The Laird for permission to hunt on his grounds. Maybe some secret yearnings for the feudal past going on here. What works well with all the supernatural stuff is that it's hinted that there are much larger issues at play, but these are left as mysterious.

Fergal wants to hang with Petronella, a lovely wee lassie with a short skirt who is intent on laying him from the moment he arrives on the estate. There's a good young love story here and as well a good sex scene. Mary is very keen for Fergal to stay away from Petronella and insistently suppresses him. There are some very creepy scenes where Mary dominates Fergal and warns him away from girls.

The special effects scenes work really well, but I don't want to spoil those for you, I would just say though that I felt they produced a good personification of some of the fears I've been referring to.

Anyway this is a film I would describe as a cauldron of angst and desire, I think it deserves to be seen, the audience applauded spontaneously at the end, if it didn't at least get a wide release in Scotland, that would be a tragedy. Walking back to my hotel that night (a long walk) was damned spooky given I was in the location of the movie!

If you want to sit with that who just farted look on your face then this is the movie for you. this claptrap has no discernible plot whatsoever. seems as though the cast are the only people in the whole damn city.. do yourself a favor and steer clear of this..

Fergal lives with his mother Mary who uses ancient Celtic runes and magic to hide in the lower class estates in Edinburgh. Fergal starts going out with local girl Petronella. Mary's former lover Cathal and his brother Liam use powers to track her and her son. Locals start getting killed by a mysterious beast. Mary warns Petronella to stay away from Fergal.

This has a nice bloody use of Celtic magic. It's very flesh and blood. The mystery of the beast is actually part of the problem. The rooting interest is geared towards Fergal but the beast is never far behind. It would be great to take all the dark grim bloody spells and combine them with a better story.

I bought Outcast cheap on DVD, looking at the cover I wrongly assumed it to be a werewolf movie. It does however feature a hideous, blood thirsty creature that is pretty similar to a werewolf, so that in itself makes it interesting. It is set on a tough housing estate in Edinburgh, Scotland and features mainly Scottish and Irish characters. Some non-British/Irish viewers may at times struggle with the thick accents and dialect but trust me it is worth sticking with. This tale features folk horror in the form of Celtic magic, a hideous creature (as mentioned), plus a heavy dose of very gritty drama. It is very well done, I don't understand reviews that state that there is no plot, or that it is incomprehensible. The acting is superb, it is very brutal with some good special effects and overall it is a very dark movie. The heavy rainstorms add to the atmosphere. I had not heard of Outcast until recently but I thoroughly enjoyed it and would certainly give it another viewing.

My Dad is a massive fan of werewolf movies . My own opinion is that you've seen one werewolf movie you've seen them all and they're very formulaic . So when my Dad gave me this DVD it could only mean one thing - a werewolf movie so bad my Dad had no inclination to watch it again . Never a gift horse in the mouth I did console myself looking on the DVD backcover to find it was directed by Colm McCarthy who made the recent hit THE GIRL WITH ALL THE GIFTS and who is in my mind a director to keep an eye on

Certainly McCarthy knows how to bring a bleak and brutal background to a visual story . OUTCAST is set on the council schemes of Edinburgh and filmed in such a way this Edinburgh is the anti-thesis seen in the festival brochures . It doesn't feel like the Edinburgh I know and love and this is in no way a criticism . Mood is everything and compared to this film TRAINSPOTTING is LA LA LAND

The underlying problem is that there's little beyond OUTCAST apart from its oppressive atmosphere . The story itself is often confusing and the narrative feels better suited to a Western where two tough gringos ride in to town looking for a runaway . When James Nesbitt character walks in to a bar I kept expecting someone to ask for soda-pop . There's not a lot in the way of werewolves either and the belated effects are faintly ridiculous which tend to bring the entire film down and makes for a painfully uneven movie

The defining feature of Outcast is its combination of supernatural horror with gritty social realism. It's fairly routine genre story operates within the backdrop of a deprived Edinburgh scheme. It's this combination that gives the film its one sense of originality. The seamier side of Edinburgh has been depicted before in films such as Trainspotting or The Acid House of course, but these rundown parts of the town have never to my knowledge been incorporated into a horror movie.

The story is basically about an Irish mother and son who move into this deprived estate. While a couple of mysterious 'hunters' appear to be on their trail. In addition, a local girl begins a relationship with the boy, much to his mother's disapproval.

Overall, this is a decent effort but no more. The setting is different - albeit very depressing – and provides the film with its strongest element. One of the main problems though is with the characters. None are particularly engaging; while the central love story is hugely unconvincing. This latter aspect really damaged the film, as the two leads really had no chemistry between them at all. On the other hand, the local neds were quite convincingly played but weren't integrated into the plot in a very interesting way unfortunately. So things ultimately boil down to the supernatural narrative which isn't overly interesting but serviceable enough. The film does have some gory set-pieces, and these are achieved via CGI which isn't especially great, although the monster is OK. Admittedly there are a few original little moments, such as the scene in the morgue but generally speaking there isn't anything especially new here besides the kitchen-sink setting.

OUTCAST is most likely one of the worst films ever produced, sadly released in the 21st century!

It's not about the genre, since crap doesn't qualify as a genre in itself yet. After thinking that The RAZZIES awards had been created for such horrific celluloid attempts, I've realized it's even too tragically awful for the Razzies.

What in the name of the cinema Gods led James Nesbitt to waste his talent and commit to such a bad bad bad film!?

I mean come one, did he even read the script? Was it a bet with his agent? Was the writer related to him? Did the producers promise Nesbitt to play Manchester United's legend -- George Best in the aftermath? Someone with a decent career needs not to be an OUTCAST at any cost! #Lemon²

I don't tend to be a huge fan of modern day British horror, so it's refreshing to see something this smart, original and entertaining. Writer/director Colm McCarthey has crafted here a supernatural kitchen sink horror that entwines both aspects with skill, unobtrusive social comment and psychological intensity. The film follows Fergal and his mother Mary, set up in a flat on a run down estate, though mysterious hunters are after them and both Mary and Fergal have things to hide, brooding concerns that unfold during the course of the film. I've kept this summary vague because a lot of the fun here comes in watching things unfold, but let's just say that spell-casting strangeness, mythology and violent death are involved. Beyond the plot mechanics lie the real interests of the film, brought out partly in setting and characters and as strongly in the assortment of fine acting turns at hand. The film is concerned with family and culture and their tensions, characters have an assortment of backgrounds, Irish, Scottish, Polish and less defined varieties of "other". Conflicts mount, based not on easy illustrations of racism but family ties, sexual fears and adolescence, the film has even its minor characters picking through a minefield and an ever present feel that its gritty locales could erupt. Speaking of gritty locales, the cinematography of Darran Teirnan does a great job of grounding everything in recognisable reality, with palpable run-down atmosphere. The character seeth as much as the setting, Kate Dickie is most powerful as Mary, high strung, unsettling in the clammy closeness of her concerns for Fergal and convincingly, even erotically pagan during her supernatural scenes. Niall Bruton is effective as Fergal, a quiet and haunted fellow with a certain inner grace, yearning and sympathetic edge. Hanna Stanbridge stands out as an earthy and foul mouthed but irresistibly attractive fellow tenant with the hots for Fergal, good contrast to the wilder goings on, while James Nesbitt is great as a grimly determined, ambitious and shifty hunter. Outcast moves at a quick pace, though horror junkies should note that the film is as driven by drama of the more conventional kind as it is horror hi-jinks. Gore and effects are used sparingly but to good effect, with the distinct advantage of being fairly unusual in their use. The only significant problem here is some of the shaky camera work used, though once or twice it is good at conveying an impression without showing too much, it detracts from the climax where a better view of proceedings would have been much appreciated. Altogether, I thought this one rather ace, it takes a little getting into and the contrast of setting and shenanigans will undoubtedly jar for a fair few viewers, but for me pretty well everything worked great. A solid recommendation from me then, 8/10.

Outcast is directed by Colm McCarthy and he co-writes the screenplay with his brother Tom. It stars Kate Dickie, Niall Bruton, Hanna Stanbridge, James Nesbitt, Ciarán McMenamin, Josh Whitelaw, Therese Bradley and James Cosmo. Music is by Giles Packham and cinematography by Darran Tiernan.

Mary (Dickie) and her teenage son, Fergal (Bruton), are being tracked by Cathal (Nesbitt), a man using dark arts to achieve his quest. But why is he after them? Can Mary's own witchcraft skills keep them protected? And how come the Scottish housing estate that is their latest home has suddenly started suffering brutal murders?

How nice to find an independant British horror bringing something refreshing to the genre, that of the occult in a modern day housing estate - and a depressingly bleak one at that. McCarthy and his team fill out their picture to a backdrop of urban decay, with narrative splinters involving doomed love, a battle of the black arts and a beastie secret to will out.

There's no rushing going on here, pic is purposely paced slowly, the writing giving us important information in increments. We are only given partial anatomy glimpses of what is comitting the bloody carnage. The key characters have interesting stories of themselves, with two fractured family dynamics at work, while the delve into cryptic rituals and arcane magic as a weapon makes for fascinating viewing.

The big reveal of the perpretrator is something of a let down, for although we are introduced to a new looking creature, the effects work is not great - leaving us hankering for a less is more approach. But it's a minor itch, with a cast on form (does Nesbitt and Dickie even know how to be rubbish in anything anyway), and the colour filters set at social realism, Outcast is a surprise winner of a horror movie. 7/10

This movie tries hard to copy the Dog Soldiers type of 'vibe'. But it turns out to be a jumbled, incoherent mess ! The acting is also appalling ! I've seen a five year old in a school play do better ! Don't bother wasting your time on this piece of junk.