The Outlander

The Outlander

It is the early 20th century. A stranger arrives in the small, rural community and disrupts the lives of its inhabitants. The man, who refuses to give his name, is dubbed The Outlander. A traveller who disdains conventional behaviour and parochialism, The Outlander disturbs the villagers' complacency and scandalizes the community; he also elicits admiration and gains a woman's love. He ultimately leaves in the same manner he had arrived, but not before he has helped the villagers open their eyes to the larger world beyond their village.

It is the early 20th century. A stranger arrives in the small, rural community and disrupts the lives of its inhabitants. The man, who refuses to give his name, is dubbed The Outlander. A traveller who disdains conventional behaviour and parochialism, The Outlander disturbs the villagers' complacency and scandalizes the community; he also elicits admiration and gains a woman's love. He ultimately leaves in the same manner he had arrived, but not before he has helped the villagers open their eyes to the larger world beyond their village. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Outlander torrent reviews

Tim K (nl) wrote: Great "sequel/companion" to Gilliam's "Brazil." Not as great, mind you, but considering the latter mention is the director's best, this film does nicely to follow it up.

Thomas C (it) wrote: The comedy is inconsistent, sometimes good, sometimes awkward, but it manages to entertain and make you laugh most of the times. Tina Fey and Steve Carell are a well-assorted couple. Don't take it too seriously though, it's still a comedy.

Lee Anne W (br) wrote: Mike Nichols' 1920s farce tries for wackiness and misses, but it was still entertaining due to the three great actors in the leads, especially Jack Nicholson,turning in one of his patented devilish performances.

Ruchir J (jp) wrote: loved the scoring system in the movie...

The Fat Man Q (jp) wrote: As you may have figured out, I have trouble praising good films. There's just not much to say without ruining them. I'll do my best though. Fay Grim stars the Queen of Indie, Parker Posey. While she's fabulously talented, I just don't find her that attractive, and therefore I'm not as excited as I should be about her 16 films a year. But I digress, and I'm not sure why I even went there. Psychoanalyze me, psychos. This is actually my first Hal Hartley film, and I was pleasantly surprised by the twisting story and fast paced dialog. I think Fay Grim is probably a little too smart for most viewers - not Syriana "smart" where it throws unrelated facts at you for a few hours and then ends with a flash of confusion, but smart in that if you're rooting around in your popcorn, you might miss what's going on. There's no repetition, it just moves. I had the added bonus of hearing Hartley speak about his film at the Atlanta Film Festival. He didn't respond at length to many questions until someone asked about dutch angles. Then he started talking. He apparently loves them, in case you didn't figure it out by watching. He also spoke about his creative process on set where he acts out the movement he'd like to see, and then has his actors do their interpretation of how he was moving, and calls it a day. I'd love to be on set for a lot of that - fast moving and efficient film making. Go rent it, you won't regret it.

Frankie kyubi masta (kr) wrote: all new idea! body weapons damn! i spilled it! noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DJ V (br) wrote: Wagons East! isn't really so much a bad film as it is a film designed for a niche. The jokes take a certain brand of humor to appreciate, a type of humor that is somewhat rare. The film itself is similar to Blazing Saddles, in fact it could be classified as the Poor Man's BS, in a sense. If you liked Blazing Saddles, you just may enjoy Wagons East! as well.

people are people so do not expect much (gb) wrote: oh my gosh i love this movie so much i can watch it all day. i just love every song this is a classic doesnt get any better than this. i love everyone in this movie great actors great movie when you see it you will fall in love.

Frances H (de) wrote: One thing i have never understood is the fascination of films about the really seamy side of life, such as this one, The Godfather movies, Carnal Knowledge, etc. While this flick is well acted and directed, I personally find the plot unappealing. To me, a good movie either has something profound to say, or is entertaining, and movies such as this one fit neither category.

Neil P (ag) wrote: An arty mystery horror classic of its time but a tame affair by today's standards!

David M (de) wrote: Ah, another classic Hammer film, and one of the best of their "Frankenstein" flicks. Peter Cushing is excellent as always. Interesting twist this time around, involving the souls of the patients and not just sewn-together body parts.

Sevkat E (de) wrote: fragmani o kadar cafcafliydiki bende birsey cikacak sandim, film zaten fragmandaki sahnelerden ibaretti... Ali S:urmeli resmen figuran rolundeydi, topu topu 5-10 dakka zikir cekerken grundu o kadar.. Ne konuyla alakasi vardi nede bir daha kendisini gorebildik..

Rangan R (us) wrote: Fighting terrorist in the midst of monsters invasion.I am surprised for the production quality. It was comparable to those big productions, so no doubt the visuals played its part accurately. Then what makes this film bad? Well, the story is the biggest issue here. It is a confusion screenplay, not for the viewers, but seems for the writers. Looks they don't know how to develop and end it with their decent opening. It was more focused on the military operation than conflict between the man and the monsters. How come when monsters taking over the earth is not considered a threat, but fighting terrorism becomes the main preference. The same thing applies to the terrorists as well.No way near to the original. In fact, I don't know is it appropriate to tag it as a sequel to a film that earned a decent fame. The title says 'Dark Continent', but it takes place in the middle-east. Maybe it was the northern Africa, anyway, there's no clear picture about the location. This is the director's first feature film, but it was not a bad direction. The actors did decently as well and again, it is the story that bothered me. I feel it is an unnecessary sequel, so I say don't bother to watch it, because it is not worth, unless you can take a chance to find yourself how bad it is. 3.5/10

Chris C (de) wrote: Funny and charming, Serendipity delivers a match made in holiday heaven with solid and enjoyable performances by John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale.

Orlok W (es) wrote: Forgettable Story But Tracy, Widmark Shine--That Dysfunctional Deveraux Family!!

Tom H (it) wrote: A not very good time travel movie with a ridiculous looking year ca 3000 in it. The film"s premise is actually good, but the execution of it was below par. A fun watch if you're in a particular mood.