Outlander - AKA 'Vikings and Aliens'

I always find it interesting that a film that gave away its premise in the title, i.e. 'Cowboys and Aliens' was given such a hard time when it was released.  I enjoyed it!  Sure, it was no masterpiece, but it was fun! 'Outlander' by its very title suggests mystery, as if it's trying to hide what it really is.  And, what it really is is a blatant B-movie with enough of a budget to make you think that it may just be more than it really isn't.  And it isn't.  It's just good, harmless monster-munching fun with Vikings taking on one hell of a nasty alien.

You can almost imagine a group of studio executives sitting around in a meeting room, trying to come up with something new.  Zombies vs Eskimos?  Samurai vs Vampires?  Why not Vikings vs Aliens?  It was about that time they decided to give up and just go with the last.  A so a spaceman (Jim Caviezel) crashes on Earth during the reign of the Vikings, but only goes and brings a giant monster with him (which promptly escapes and starts chowing down on all that juicy Nordic flesh on offer).

What follows is a pretty ordinary story where Jim Caviezel is captured by the local tribe of Vikings where he's - naturally - disbelieved about who he is and the threat he's brought with him - until of course the bodycount rises sufficiently.  Plus there's the (cliched!) sub-plot regarding the Viking chief's (John Hurt) daughter (Sophia Myles) being forced to marry someone she doesn't want to, for the good of the tribe of course.  Then you have the (late addition) of Ron Perlman as a rival Viking chief and a small boy they constantly need to protect (who looks like 'Newt' from 'Aliens' for some reason).  All in all, not a bad cast really.  Granted no one is on the level of Daniel Craig or Harrison Ford, but they all do a decent job and, as long as you remember that what you're watching is a glorified B-movie then you can forgive any slightly clunky performances and uninspired plot structure.

Of course the 'real' star of the show is the monster and he's not bad.  Yes, he's probably created more via CGI than practical effects, but the digital stuff is good and the creature is kept hidden for a fair proportion of the film (probably to save money, but it does work to build up a bit of tension and, after all, it worked for 'Predator!').

About my main gripe with the film came towards the end.  I hope it's not too much of a 'spoiler' when I say that the monster's er, 'motivation' changes about what he's doing.  This appeared to be just so a certain Viking Princess could suddenly play the part of the 'damsel in distress' in order for our space-Viking to come and save her.

If you like your sci-fi B-movies and/or mindless monster-munching movies, then 'Outlander' is definitely worth a watch.  As I say, keep in mind what it is and at least you'll have to agree that it doesn't really try to be anything that it isn't.  It's actually quite fun (although I'd still pay money to watch 'Zombies vs Eskimos').

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that