One of the wrost movies I have ever seen

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

best movie i've ever seen.

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

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/

The story centres around Petronella and her boyfriend Fergal.As their doomed relationship plays out, a Beast stalks the estate, killing locals, working its way towards our protagonists. Meanwhile Cathal and Liam, two mysterious travellers from Ireland use ritual and magic on a blood hunt. Mary, Fergal's mother performs ritual and magic of her own. As Cathal comes face to face with Mary in a vicious finale one thing is for sure, the Beast must die....This film is an oddity, first things first, it's not a horror movie, it's in no way scary, and mercifully, the film isn't just a creature walking the streets at night, to be honest, the creature hardly features in it.It's more of a study of cultures, and how people can really become involved with their culture and really go back to the fire and brimstone times of the bible.We have two very different cultures living next door to each other, and then we have the outcast Nesbitt, who wants to clean up a mess he did in his culture.It's well acted, grittily made and quite intelligent.But I was looking for a sort of gritty council estate werewolf movie.

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.

Very disappointing attempt at "Irish Werewolf in Edinburgh". Excellent and convincing acting and a pleasure to see ordinary looking people with warts and all, instead of the usual Hollywood plastic "Barbie doll" look which I find so nauseating and boring. Nice moody atmosphere enhanced by great audio soundtrack. Good that the producers were not squeamish. However, poor script, thin and predictable. The first time we see the "Beast" I knew it would be the witch's son, Fergal...which removed all suspense and horror from the story. Secondly, the boy's character was very shallowly drawn and one-dimensional, so I quickly lost interest in him. Overall, all the characters needed more depth...and a bit more back story. Basically, for me both the Hunted and the Hunters were evil, so I couldn't identify with either, and therefore I couldn't care less who lived or who died. Incidentally, what happened to the dog? The witch, Mary, took it for a walk and returned without it? Did she get rid of it because it was drawing too much attention to herself?The trouble with screen writing today is producers and directors think the tag-line or brief storyline IS THE SCRIPT, hence a 100 or 120 minute film is full of tedious padding in a feeble attempt to stretch very sparse material, with irritating wobbly camera shots and gimmicky editing, which takes you out of the story, alienating you from the content. Quite frankly, this story is more suited for a 45 minute episode of a British equivalent of an X Files TV drama series, rather than a proper full length feature film. Its a TV film...not a cinema movie. As for the "Beast". What a joke. Totally unconvincing. Very rubbery. I don't want to hear any more complaints about the rubber bat in my vampire feature "Morticia"(2009)also shot in Edinburgh, using genuine local actors. What annoys me most as a film-maker about this film is the producers had so much money to spend on the production compared to my measly £5,000 budget, yet they still failed to make a film not much better than mine. And yet, the budget for "Outcast" will in turn be a pittance compared to extortionately massive budgets of the studio pictures, which is a real squandering of money for what the value an audience actually receives. It is time, for example, for Hollywood stars to stop being paid millions for any one movie. A single star's fee could be the entire budget of at least five movies, giving work to hundreds, if not thousands of actors and crew. And the stars are not the only overpriced element of Hollywood movie-production. There is absolutely no need for film production to be so ludicrously expensive. Why should a single movie cost a $150 million, when for the same money, at least fifteen movies could be financed, giving audiences greater choice, and create many more jobs. In Britain, this sort of money spent on a single film would fund a year's worth of TV drama. The fact is, there is an inverse law that the more money you throw at a movie production, the less interesting and entertaining the film ends up. Its the arts equivalent of the "Law of Diminishing Returns". When are the film producers and financiers going to wake up to this most basic rule in economics?