The Outsider (2002)

I agree wholeheartedly with all the other positive reviews here. Watts and Daly have the chemistry; the movie is beautifully filmed, and the pace is excellent. What I'm thrown by is the references to the author; I see Penelope Williamson credited often. In my opinion, the only Penelope that should get a nod is Penelope Worth; she was the original name of the Quaker girl Gail Russell played in "Angel and the Badman", of which this is an unabashed remake. The story setup is the same: near-death gunslinger nursed back to health by the beautiful Quaker girl. Gunslinger has epiphany regarding peace and the "plain folk" and fights internally with the conflict till the end. Both play give-and-take. I think Penelope Williamson ought to thank James Edward Grant for being the REAL source material.

I'm currently writing a Western Romance script that involves two lovers from different cultures, thus I watched The Outsider as a study.It's interesting that fifteen minutes in I wondered if the script was written by a female. Not only was the script written by a female, but the book was also written by a female. I'm not mentioning this as a negative. In fact, perhaps this is more appealing to a female audience than your more gritty Eastwood western. I found the dialogue to be weak, the acting 'soap opera'ish', and several factors that were too unbelievable (8yr old turns into David the Giant killer?). My biggest beef with the movie was that there was absolutely not a thing that was a twist. From start to finish the movie was entirely predictable. The only thing unique about the movie was the exploration of the romance between two different cultures, which in this instance was not enough to carry the movie in my opinion.If you're into cliché romance novels, this may be an interesting movie for you. For me, this was the second worst Western I've seen in twenty years which is unfortunate because I've seen these actors shine in better written roles.

This film delivered on two things that the film world rarely does well: 1. the struggles of believers, submitted to God, in a world of violence and self-centeredness and 2. romance Both my husband and I enjoyed it.Critical to the success of the film was Timothy Daly's acting. He was fabulous! He made his character believable and interesting to watch. Naomi did a great job also. The setting (and the way it was filmed) was enjoyable also. I thought the script was good. The story moved along nicely while developing the characters. A person who was an orphan, who was tortured, without love, cut off emotionally, and involved in soul-scarring violence found love, a home, a family, and peace.

This movie travels such well-worn ground that -- despite the best efforts of the actors -- the stereotypes and plot clichés leave you wondering if the script writer or novelist should be sued for plagiarism. Jack Schaefer did this all (and better) in Shane.We have the same stand off between cattle rancher and homesteaderWe have the same relationship between the stranger/gunfighter and the homesteader's boy. We have the same journey into town and the boy witnessing a set piece between an aggressive cattle hand and the reluctant gunslinger.We have the same romantic interest between the homesteader's wife and the stranger (only this time the farmer is conveniently out of the picture so the tension built up in Shane is absent).The second stolen plot is from High Noon: We have the same good guy with the gun facing down the bad guys on his own with a pacifist wife objecting to the confrontation.We have the same good women who repents of her passive ways just in time to save her man -- having apparently just won the shoot out against superior numbers -- from a sneaky shot in the back.I could go on . . .the plot departures from these two great stories, rather than being a relief, are almost universally annoying. Most noteworthy are the miraculous recoveries from bullet wounds by the main characters so that love will prevail.