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?
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?