IMDb RATING
5.3/10
2.9K
YOUR RATING
A beast stalks an estate where two lovers are breaking up and two magic users are on a hunt.A beast stalks an estate where two lovers are breaking up and two magic users are on a hunt.A beast stalks an estate where two lovers are breaking up and two magic users are on a hunt.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 2 wins & 2 nominations total
Daniel Portman
- Paul
- (as Daniel Porter)
Wendy Wason
- Barmaid
- (as Wendy Wasson)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
And what is it? It is a low budget horror movie and looks like people who put low ratings maybe think this is a Hollywood movie with meryl streeps in the lead role
But its not and I think they have done the best they can with small pockets, the story is good, different and clever, its slow but not in a bad way, you get trapped pretty fast in the movie and wondering whats it all about, perhaps its a bit sloppy time to time, little fast and shortcuts, but ok - the effects are well done and acting is british quality, the director might be the weak link in this, small mistakes, like what happends with the dog that suddenly was gone
Im pretty sensetive with low budget movies and dislike most of them , but this was a total ok movie with good efforts, worth watching twice.
But its not and I think they have done the best they can with small pockets, the story is good, different and clever, its slow but not in a bad way, you get trapped pretty fast in the movie and wondering whats it all about, perhaps its a bit sloppy time to time, little fast and shortcuts, but ok - the effects are well done and acting is british quality, the director might be the weak link in this, small mistakes, like what happends with the dog that suddenly was gone
Im pretty sensetive with low budget movies and dislike most of them , but this was a total ok movie with good efforts, worth watching twice.
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.
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.
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-)
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-)
Did you know
- TriviaThe book Mary gives Fergal for his birthday is "Titus Alone", the concluding volume in the 'Gormenghast' trilogy by Mervyn Peake. In the book, Titus, the heir to the castle of Gormenghast, decides voluntarily to cut himself off from his ancestral home and not to claim his heritage; rather like the choice which Mary is expecting Fergal to make in the film.
- GoofsThe flat offered to the couple near the beginning is completely squalid, containing dead birds, nests etc. No council would offer a home in this condition as they are required by law to provide safe and sanitary accommodation. They certainly would not say that tenants are expected to make 'an effort' to pass it off as suitable for use.
- How long is Outcast?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Вигнанці
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $179
- Runtime
- 1h 38m(98 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content