Outlander (2014)

:

Season 1
  • Network: Starz
  • Series Premiere Date: Aug 9, 2014
Season #: 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
User Score
8.3

Universal acclaim- based on 317 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 261 out of 317
  2. Mixed: 28 out of 317
  3. Negative: 28 out of 317
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. nilsy
    May 1, 2015
    3
    To much romance focus to do it for me.
    Big fan of time travel escapism but this just couldnt hold my attention from the get go. Tried my best to give it a couple of episodes to get going but it was painful to say the lest.
    Didnt have a problem with any of the actors they are "ok" to me not brilliant but not bad enough i mind. The visuals are good, the music is bad, clothes and setting    To much romance focus to do it for me.
    Big fan of time travel escapism but this just couldnt hold my attention from the get go. Tried my best to give it a couple of episodes to get going but it was painful to say the lest.

    Didnt have a problem with any of the actors they are "ok" to me not brilliant but not bad enough i mind.
    The visuals are good, the music is bad, clothes and setting are good.
    Its the story that sinks the ship to me    … Expand
  2. dyrtyredd
    Sep 15, 2014
    0
    Wow! This show is horrible. There is nothing here worth watching for the average person. The whole thing is nothing more than a cheap dime store romance novel in video format. I'm sure there are literally gaggles of 12 year old girls that absolutely love this, but it falls waaaaay short of being a watchable show based on the merits of the story. They spend almost no time at all ON theWow! This show is horrible. There is nothing here worth watching for the average person. The whole thing is nothing more than a cheap dime store romance novel in video format. I'm sure there are literally gaggles of 12 year old girls that absolutely love this, but it falls waaaaay short of being a watchable show based on the merits of the story. They spend almost no time at all ON the story, opting instead to delve into the minutiae of the lives of the characters, with an emphasis on their romantic entanglements. They could have concentrated on the time travel aspect, or on some historical accounts but chose instead to make it a soap opera about nothing but romance. I wish there were a way to give a -10 for this drivel. I couldn't make it past episode 5.… Expand
  3. Justanopinion
    Nov 13, 2014
    3
    Starts out slow and goes downhill. It does provide beautiful scenery of Scotland and that is why I scored it as high as I did. Authentic but unintelligible Scot accents. No subtitles on the Gaelic. Two lead actor roles are poorly cast but supporting cast does a credible job. Claire comes across as whining and shrew like. Heughan as Jamie will be flexing his biceps and butt cheeks as hisStarts out slow and goes downhill. It does provide beautiful scenery of Scotland and that is why I scored it as high as I did. Authentic but unintelligible Scot accents. No subtitles on the Gaelic. Two lead actor roles are poorly cast but supporting cast does a credible job. Claire comes across as whining and shrew like. Heughan as Jamie will be flexing his biceps and butt cheeks as his primary contribution. Of course the legions of rabid Outlander fans will love everything about this series. Eight episodes was more than enough for me. I won't be back when it returns in 2015.… Expand
  4. DianaPK
    Sep 28, 2014
    0
    I have been a fan of this series for many years, so when I heard they were making a series I got really excited. I don't usually have opinions about casting unless the choices made are utterly vile. That being said I feel as if I have to put my two cents in. Sam Heughan, Graham McTavish (along with the assemble) give the only believable performances, although I believe Dougal is only 45I have been a fan of this series for many years, so when I heard they were making a series I got really excited. I don't usually have opinions about casting unless the choices made are utterly vile. That being said I feel as if I have to put my two cents in. Sam Heughan, Graham McTavish (along with the assemble) give the only believable performances, although I believe Dougal is only 45 years old in the book and he looks much older on screen. What has gotten me in a froth is the casting of Caitriona Balfe as Claire. In the book Claire is 5"6, buxom with golden eyes and whiskey hair. Caitronia Balfe is 5"10, emaciated with two sticks for legs and unattractive breasts. Every time she says "Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ," I cringe. I feel like she is playing Cate Blancett playing Claire. I've heard she doesn't have much acting experience which really sounds crazy given that that she has the lead. Lastly, those voiceovers are so flat it makes me want to turn the sound and just watch the pretty scenery.
    Tobias Menzies is a fine actor. I saw him in "Rome" and thought he was fabulous. That being said he doesn't fit what Frank is supposed to look like but he is good enough actor to get past the physical miscast. Just to recap and close, I understand casting a new comer if she really looks the part but, Caitronia Balfe neither looks the part or can act. I suggest she try a few more lessons    … Expand
  5. RudiV
    Sep 27, 2014
    0
    My wife is a big fan of the Outlander series of books so when the series aired she wanted to get Startz. I decided to watch it with her and we both were disapointed. I found the series extremely formulatic just like to the other Starz shows, a bit of history, some nice locations, some sex all strewn together. The characters were one dimensional and that leading lady was reallyMy wife is a big fan of the Outlander series of books so when the series aired she wanted to get Startz. I decided to watch it with her and we both were disapointed. I found the series extremely formulatic just like to the other Starz shows, a bit of history, some nice locations, some sex all strewn together. The characters were one dimensional and that leading lady was really dreadful. Not sure what she is supposed to be - Is she English or Irish, couldn't tell from that strange accent. My wife said the character (Claire) is supposed to be beautiful and a bit buxom. Sorry, but that gal looked like she hasn't had a square meal in a while. I don't think I will be watching anymore episodes… Expand
  6. gailolivieri
    Sep 22, 2014
    1
    I have read many of the Outlander book series and was very excited to hear that it was being made into a tv series. That being said I am truly disapointed after watching several episodes. You can not have a series of this magnitude with a weak leading lady. Caitriona Balfe is not a strong enough lead for the show and she does not get the essence of the Claire character. I cringe everytimeI have read many of the Outlander book series and was very excited to hear that it was being made into a tv series. That being said I am truly disapointed after watching several episodes. You can not have a series of this magnitude with a weak leading lady. Caitriona Balfe is not a strong enough lead for the show and she does not get the essence of the Claire character. I cringe everytime she uses the expletive "Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ" and really find her unbelievable. There are so many talented actresses out there who would perhaps even look a little more like the book version of Claire that I am truly shocked that she was cast.… Expand
  7. thisismyview
    Apr 17, 2015
    0
    Casting Caitriona Balfe as Claire was a ghastly choice. She is the opposite from the book description Balfe is not 5'6, buxom, or anything as described in the book. In the nude scenes, Balfe is so skinny that she looks like one of those kids from the USA for Africa videos so much so that I expected flies to start circling her... her bones protrude out her back and her boney legs are upCasting Caitriona Balfe as Claire was a ghastly choice. She is the opposite from the book description Balfe is not 5'6, buxom, or anything as described in the book. In the nude scenes, Balfe is so skinny that she looks like one of those kids from the USA for Africa videos so much so that I expected flies to start circling her... her bones protrude out her back and her boney legs are up in the air for a good part of each episode. While having the body of a tall 12 year old boy works for the runway, it looks like **** for this story. There is no depth to her portrayal of Claire I actually found myself rooting against her hoping the redcoats would just throw her irritating ass in a dungeon. I would hope they recast that character because I think the show would be better off if Balfe was replaced.
    Fitz was great casting as is Jamie.
    The costumes...ehhh you can tell the wife of the shows 'runner' was at the helm of those nothing especially noteworthy or that a first year art student couldn't come up. But lets all just **** over ourselves because it's Ron's behemoth wife doing them.
    The scenery is stunning...Scotland is truly one of the most stunning places on earth so they are doing a great job there.
    Not sure I am going to stick with this as Balfe's portrayal of Claire makes me not care about the story...recast!!!!    … Expand
  8. forthebest
    May 6, 2015
    0
    Nice woman fantasy, but it´s ridiculous to called that show historical drama. Acting is good from most actors, but I have to mute the main actress because of her stilted accent. Costumes are nice to look at, but are not typical for this time period nor for the Highlands culture. But the worse is the depiction of that time with stereotyps and the typical black/white image of the scots vs.Nice woman fantasy, but it´s ridiculous to called that show historical drama. Acting is good from most actors, but I have to mute the main actress because of her stilted accent. Costumes are nice to look at, but are not typical for this time period nor for the Highlands culture. But the worse is the depiction of that time with stereotyps and the typical black/white image of the scots vs. the english. Outlander is Braveheart of the 18th century. The Gaelic was a promising start, but not to use subtitles was a big mistake, but was probably made so that the extras and secondary actors didnt have to speak it, since most Highlanders spoke Gaelic and not English. The cinematography is beautiful, but the storytelling is mediocre full of holes and the directing looks sometimes very amateurish.… Expand
  9. hvail
    Sep 24, 2014
    0
    I just recently got Starz and thought I would check out some of the shows. I started to watch Outlander and was very disapointed. I just about got through one show and didn't want to watch anymore. The voiceover was really annoying as was the leading lady. I googled the cast and found out the the lead is an Irish supermodel with very little acting experience. Believe me it shows.
  10. Fastpoose
    May 16, 2016
    1
    Overrated rubbish, awful acting, slow boring script, out of place sex scenes...no wonder only 60+ year old grannys like it. Oh wait my sister does like it, but that is with much much wine...
  11. mac5
    Aug 26, 2014
    2
    Its starts at the end of the second world war when a married nurse and teacher visit the Scottish Highlands for a vacation and therein setting the scene for the debacle that is about to unfold. With mystical stories, eulogies of historical factual excerpts, solicited sexual encounters and a fortune teller/druid spewing tales of a world of wonderment and adventure and an ensuing disjointedIts starts at the end of the second world war when a married nurse and teacher visit the Scottish Highlands for a vacation and therein setting the scene for the debacle that is about to unfold. With mystical stories, eulogies of historical factual excerpts, solicited sexual encounters and a fortune teller/druid spewing tales of a world of wonderment and adventure and an ensuing disjointed lifeline is awaiting for the nurse.

    What follows is a blandest foray of circumstances that catapults the nurse into a different century and the story unfolds as she touches one of the ancient stone circles and suddenly all isn’t as it seems.

    It is just not as interesting as Sleepy Hollow as the lead actress wavering accent and combined vulnerability and stroppiness masks her lack of commanding status. Maybe an older actress would have been more compelling in handling her hostile environment that she is now aligned. I feel it would have been better as a radio play although we would miss out on the gorgeous visuals of the Scottish countryside.

    Overall it’s cheap and tacky similar to Salem and developing into Catherine Cookson/Mills & Boon romantic bile. If you watch it without expectation and you may like it.    … Expand
  12. DakotaFred
    Jun 1, 2015
    1
    Oh god... this really went downhill with the introduction of the gay capt. Randall. Hey! Lets show some nudity and gay sex to be edgy, cause we can! Why why why.. they've totally ruined the show with this move. NEXT!
  13. Rattazustra
    Sep 2, 2014
    3
    This series has one of the most horrid narratives I have seen in a long time. Pretty much every dramatical device that gets used is applied in the most amateur way. Foreshadowing is not foreshadowing, if it is slapped in the viewers face in chronological order and then, within the very same episode, it is actually revisited to make sure that nobody could possibly overlook anything. ItThis series has one of the most horrid narratives I have seen in a long time. Pretty much every dramatical device that gets used is applied in the most amateur way. Foreshadowing is not foreshadowing, if it is slapped in the viewers face in chronological order and then, within the very same episode, it is actually revisited to make sure that nobody could possibly overlook anything. It implies that the viewers are utterly stupid, which is demeaning. On top of that, the way the main character acts and allegedly thinks is anachronistic towards and in direct conflict with her own background.
    Choice of location is very nice on the other hand, as is costume design. Unfortunately that does not make up for all the flaws this series is seriously burdened with.    … Expand
  14. gwheaties
    Apr 19, 2015
    0
    This series is really dreadful. I really enjoyed the book series but sometimes a book does not transfer well to another medium. That being said I think the real problem is the casting. Catrionia Balfe is not a good actress, nor does she fit the image of Claire in the book. I don't why anyone in their right might would cast her. She doesn't even look appealing in the nude scenes. DoesThis series is really dreadful. I really enjoyed the book series but sometimes a book does not transfer well to another medium. That being said I think the real problem is the casting. Catrionia Balfe is not a good actress, nor does she fit the image of Claire in the book. I don't why anyone in their right might would cast her. She doesn't even look appealing in the nude scenes. Does she have any acting experience what so ever or is the case of her just knowing the right people. That being said, I ordered Startz for the purpose of seeing this series and now I plan on canceling it. Do us all a favor and replace her.… Expand
  15. KenyanCritic
    May 11, 2016
    0
    Any TV show that requires a sex scene within the first 25 minutes to draw in viewers is probably a bad TV show. The only way this show made it to a second season is probably because it was ordered in wholesale. Sincerely speaking it's time Scottish accents include subtitles, because I struggled through a few episodes before it became pointless. Oh yes, and there's more horrifying sexAny TV show that requires a sex scene within the first 25 minutes to draw in viewers is probably a bad TV show. The only way this show made it to a second season is probably because it was ordered in wholesale. Sincerely speaking it's time Scottish accents include subtitles, because I struggled through a few episodes before it became pointless. Oh yes, and there's more horrifying sex scenes to spice up the drudgery of sitting through a few episodes of Outlander. Should be renamed Outsider because there's nothing that would save this show from being canceled.… Expand
  16. amadeusamadeus
    Sep 14, 2014
    0
    HUGE disappointment they opened series with nakedness, don't know if they were trying to compete with game of thrones....o WHAT??? is a what went wrong on the casting. clair is suppose to have whiskey gold eyes. Jamie long unusally gold red amber hair. They cut it short as well az the height on the actor and put him in really scruffy clothes on the eve of hallows..I think I will justHUGE disappointment they opened series with nakedness, don't know if they were trying to compete with game of thrones....o WHAT??? is a what went wrong on the casting. clair is suppose to have whiskey gold eyes. Jamie long unusally gold red amber hair. They cut it short as well az the height on the actor and put him in really scruffy clothes on the eve of hallows..I think I will just re-read the book...… Expand
  17. JuliaGulia
    Aug 10, 2014
    1
    I have been a fan of this series for years. I've read the books at least three times around, so when I heard they were making a series I got really excited. However, that being said after I found out who had been cast I had very low expectations and was totally right about that instinct. I don't even know where to start. Sam Heughan (who plays Jamie), Graham McTavish (who plays Dougal) andI have been a fan of this series for years. I've read the books at least three times around, so when I heard they were making a series I got really excited. However, that being said after I found out who had been cast I had very low expectations and was totally right about that instinct. I don't even know where to start. Sam Heughan (who plays Jamie), Graham McTavish (who plays Dougal) and the rest of the Scottish rebels from 1743 give the only believable performances thus far, which makes sense because they are all mostly from Scotland. If I was going to be absolutely technical I'd say that Dougal is actually supposed to be a bit younger, with more hair and a handsome face. What is the most atrocious casting by far is Caitriona Balfe as Claire, who is the focal point of the whole story and who is supposed to be the strongest character. In the book Claire is 5"6, buxom, and feisty. She is supposed to have light brown hair and light brown eyes. I thought that because she was so far off from all of that being 5"10, stick thin,dark haired, green eyed and an Irish supermodel that she must be an excellent actress, but sadly that was not the case. Her performance was lackluster and failed to bring the character of Claire to life. Every time she said, "Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ," I cringed not from the use of the expletive, but because it sounded forced and unnatural. You can clearly hear the Irish roots in her voice, which half the time sounds very monotone and almost bored particularly in the narratives. The man chosen to play Frank and Jack Randall, Tobias Menzies was also another complete train wreck. Frank Randall is supposed to be delicately handsome in an almost feminine way, which is supposed to contrast with Jamie's obviously masculine and ruggedly handsome character. Tobias Menzies maybe a decent actor, but I'm sorry he definitely doesn't fit the bill in that way, and also the makeup job they did for his ancestor and counter part Black Jack Randall was so terrible that I laughed the first time I saw it, and every time afterwards. It looked like they just smudged a bunch of dirt on his face, in attempt to make him look more dashing and slightly different. (They did not succeed) And then there's the chemistry or should I say lack of chemistry between Claire and Frank, which they tried to counteract by adding unnecessary sex scenes. What makes the story so great is that the characters are so dimensional and tangible in the book. None of that came across in this first episode, it was unbelievable and felt flat. Despite their large budget the whole production had a cheap look and feel to it. Needless to say I was very disappointed, but will keep watching in the hopes that maybe Balfe will get better and everything else will get better. (I doubt it though)… Expand
  18. evaravenwood
    Jun 18, 2016
    3
    The first season was wonderful. I never read the books, so I'm new to it, and probably won't read the books so I can have this one experience. This second season is just too repetitive. Claire does something stupid, unfitting for the times, the deceit goes on and on, Jamie has to save her, and it is getting quite boring. Not enough variety to these adventures anymore. I'm afraid theyThe first season was wonderful. I never read the books, so I'm new to it, and probably won't read the books so I can have this one experience. This second season is just too repetitive. Claire does something stupid, unfitting for the times, the deceit goes on and on, Jamie has to save her, and it is getting quite boring. Not enough variety to these adventures anymore. I'm afraid they are about to lose me. I don't even get excited about seeing it anymore. If I catch it okay, if not, okay. I will say I'm glad they are out of France. That was downright ridiculous! But now they are simply going for more shock factor (decapitations, rapes, silliness and on and on) and not enough solid writing. I don't know how these people had time to fight a war, with all the rapes going on! They are too busy being degenerates! Boring. Ho Hum . . .… Expand

Awards & Rankings

56
#56 Best TV Season of 2014
16
#16 Most Discussed TV Season of 2014
20
#20 Most Shared TV Season of 2014

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
73

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 26 out of 34
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 34
  3. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. The New Yorker
    Reviewed by: Emily Nussbaum
    Sep 9, 2014
    80
    The show is more than tit for tat: it’s sheer pleasure, no guilt allowed.
    Read full review
  2. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Lori Rackl
    Aug 19, 2014
    75
    Some episodes chug along faster than others, but the stellar production values render even the slower-paced installments worthwhile viewing.
    Read full review
  3. Philadelphia Inquirer
    Reviewed by: David Hiltbrand
    Aug 11, 2014
    80
    The show is wonderfully conceived and executed (if a little pokey pace-wise).
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »