Outcast

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.

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 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.

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.

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.