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. gemtwist
    Sep 13, 2014
    6
    I am trying so hard to like this series. I loved the books. While I think she is an excellent actress, Caitriona Balfe simply isn't Claire Beauchamp to me. She lacks a warmth that the Claire character has and Ms Balfe gives the impression of Claire being hard rather than tough. Physically she is completely wrong being willowy and tall while Claire is average height tending toward theI am trying so hard to like this series. I loved the books. While I think she is an excellent actress, Caitriona Balfe simply isn't Claire Beauchamp to me. She lacks a warmth that the Claire character has and Ms Balfe gives the impression of Claire being hard rather than tough. Physically she is completely wrong being willowy and tall while Claire is average height tending toward the plump. The scenery is beautiful. The plot is a bit plodding, but I think people who have not read the series might find it less so than those of us who have. Overall, I am hopeful that the series will improve once Claire and Jaime get married and the relationship between the two develops.… Expand
  2. Willemina
    Aug 30, 2014
    5
    As an ardent fan of these books I had been clinging to the Starz FB page for months leading up to Episode 1. I had several reservations about the casting, but put my faith in Diana and Ron not to let bad acting ruin all of their hard work and passion! I hate to say that my intuition was right. Furthermore I'm sad to realize that for as talented as Ron Moore is, there has definitely beenAs an ardent fan of these books I had been clinging to the Starz FB page for months leading up to Episode 1. I had several reservations about the casting, but put my faith in Diana and Ron not to let bad acting ruin all of their hard work and passion! I hate to say that my intuition was right. Furthermore I'm sad to realize that for as talented as Ron Moore is, there has definitely been something lost in translation between the book (which is extremely compelling) and the show (which truly is not)! I never wanted to put the book down! The show leaves no hook at the end, nothing to grab me in to see what will happen next. I will continue to watch the show and have my fingers crossed that it will continue on, because there is something wonderful about seeing the books I have loved for so many years come to life. And there is absolutely no denying that the scenery and sets are extraordinary, better than any full-budget Hollywood movie! They are a big part of what has pulled me back each week. But the truth is I'm no longer excited about the show, I am merely watching for the vague amusement of it. I had my husband and older female roommate excited to watch the pilot with me, and both have trailed off. Neither one of them wanted to watch beyond the second episode that I forced them to sit through! As far as specific feedback: 1) The pacing of the show is PAINFULLY slow. I fully understand this book could not be fit into a 2 hour movie. But 16 episodes is too, too many! As critic Tim Goodman said, "In many ways, this is a story well and thoroughly told but with almost none of the smart pacing of similarly dense fictions like Game of Thrones." SO TRUE. 2) Cat as Claire: First off, she is way too soft. When she gets particularly upset, she breaks into a whiney, cracking voice. Not cunning, not quick on her toes, not convincingly witty. Just… not. And yes, her waifish figure DOES matter!! A lot! She should have gained some weight for the show. Why not? Lots of actors do. All it does is add to her overall flimsiness. She looks like a strong breeze would knock her over. I want so badly to like her, but she is not my beloved Claire! And yeah, as others have said, her J.H.R. Christ's are painful to witness. She doesn't understand the phrase or its application whatsoever. 3) Sam as Jamie: Overall, he's doing an EXCELLENT job, way beyond my expectations! He is very charming and definitely holding his own in the role. However, I feel he is a bit too flirty with Claire. I don't believe for ONE SECOND that he is a virgin!! They didn't get that right. He lacks the innocence needed to be truly as endearing as Jamie. 4) Tobias as Frank: Major blah factor. I like his look, but had I not read the books, I wouldn't understand a word he said!!! SO mumbly, and SO monotone especially when talking history (supposedly, his greatest PASSION). As for the "chemistry" between him and Claire, there was none. She clearly loves him, but he seems to merely be tolerating her. I get that there is a disconnect between them due to distance and war. But there still needed to be passion tying them together! Boo. 5) Tobias as Jack Randall: Completely laughable!! Sorry to say it but it's true! That guy wouldn't hurt a fly. Between Randall and all of the clansmen, I have NOT ONCE, since the season began, honestly feared for Claire's safety or well-being. And that is really sad. 6) Lotte as Geillis: She has the potential, and the look, and the general idea. But holy OVER-ACTING, Batman!!!! I can barely stomach her performance. We are not supposed to know so much about her, so early on! Her evil is supposed to sneak up on us, like in the book. She is trying WAY too hard to be mysterious, and the directors aren't catching it which is especially concerning/disappointing! Also, 7) Laura as Jenny: WTH?!? Jenny is a FIGHTER, even as a young girl she wouldn't have taken crap from anyone! Yes, she would have been forced into subservience as a woman in those times. But she would not have been so doe-eyed and wimpy about it. She would have had her chin out and had a very willful demeanor. How could the directors have possibly gotten that wrong? I'm just a little confused how certain things could have been SO misinterpreted, especially when it has such a negative effect on the overall feeling of the story. :( So yeah… lots of good things I could say about the show as well, including many other actors cast well and doing great work. But it's nice to leave some honest and anonymous feedback. I'd be skinned alive for saying any of this on FB! Love you Diana!… Expand
  3. PJPJ
    Aug 19, 2014
    6
    I've read most of the first book, and I do find the first two hours not dramatically compelling. There doesn't seem to be reason to have put this on screen if this is the way it unfolds. It's just better to read the book. I think everyone but Claire fits. There is not enough conflict per scene to make the plot compelling as the article notes. The lead actress needs a little more energyI've read most of the first book, and I do find the first two hours not dramatically compelling. There doesn't seem to be reason to have put this on screen if this is the way it unfolds. It's just better to read the book. I think everyone but Claire fits. There is not enough conflict per scene to make the plot compelling as the article notes. The lead actress needs a little more energy to bring to the slowly unfolding scenes. I found myself wanting to go back to reading the book. The actor who plays Jamie does play just right and will probably the only reason I watch the rest of the series. Not to mention he's easy on the eyes. I just came back from Scotland and I'm not seeing enough of the great scenery in this show yet, either. It would be an improvement if they added subtitles during the Gaelic exchanges. Even most people in Scotland wouldn’t understand.
    If you haven't read the book, read it. It's definitely better, but also slow, but you get more of the travelog aspect of Gabaldon's work. If you want shows with Scottish scenery watch the TV series Monarch of the Glen.    … Expand
  4. jasperverfailli
    Sep 28, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What a tedious show! This is supposed to be a sci-fi/historical drama, but this far the only drama that happend ... actually, really nothing dramatic has happened apart form Claire being blasted back to the 1700's. Yes, there was the wedding and the midseason finale, but those aren't the big plot twists I was hoping for. The story seems to be going nowhere and after the 8th episode I really don't care what will happen.
    I have seen a good amount of tv series, but this is by far the most boring and tedious show I've seen in a long time. I could rant on and on and point out everything that I think is bad about Outlander, but I'll get to the point immediately and just list them. (Obviously beware of spoilers!!)

    Bad things about Outlander:
    - the annoying voice overs that ruin the fun of figuring things out yourself
    - Claire is a strong woman and the show has every intention of pointing that out at every given chance
    - it has taken this show 8!! episodes to show us what Frank has been up to since Claire has gone missing
    - the opening song, but why has everything about this show got to be so literal and obnoxious (including the theme song)
    - nothing happens!!! (there's an episode where Claire and the Scottish gang go out to collect taxes, literally)
    - Claire's constant outrage about the medical treatment in the 1700's (what did she expect really?)
    - Outlander doesn't play all its cards quickly, but there's such a thing as too much foreplay (see: sexual tension between Claire and Jamie). Also the payoff is not really rewarding.

    Good things about Outlander
    - good music by Bear McReary (except for the opening song)
    - great scenery
    - I haven't read the books so I don't know where the story's headed. This might be the only thing that motivated me to stick with Outlander till the midseason finale.    … Expand
  5. Becks88
    Apr 25, 2015
    4
    Seeing the promos for this show lead me to read the book and for that a I am thankful, because they are wonderful. The tv series however leaves much to be desired.

    My biggest issue is with the casting of Claire. In the books she is a buxom, spirited, youthful, 26ish year old woman. Catriona, is about 10 years too old, about 25 lbs underweight, and comes off more bitter and whiney. I    Seeing the promos for this show lead me to read the book and for that a I am thankful, because they are wonderful. The tv series however leaves much to be desired.

    My biggest issue is with the casting of Claire. In the books she is a buxom, spirited, youthful, 26ish year old woman. Catriona, is about 10 years too old, about 25 lbs underweight, and comes off more bitter and whiney. I cringe every time she utters JH Roosevelt Christ (wasn't a fan in the books either) I'll need to ask a man from the grandma's retirement center to say it properly to wrap my head around it. Because the Claire character is so hard to love the relationship with Jamie is just flat and is just about having sex to just get off, no passion.

    I do appreciate the decision to not add subtitles for the Gaelic within the show, as it puts the viewer in the same position as Claire who doesn't speak Gaelic. The acting from Sam Heughan really carries the show, and the rest of the main assemble does a fine job. The overall production quality is good. If there was a different Claire the show would probably get a 9.    … Expand
  6. Pier
    Sep 1, 2014
    5
    The constant voice over is annoying, the tone is bland, and the conflict became boring quickly. We lost interest after the second chapter. Nevertheless the acting and the production values are good.
  7. Rumpleforeskin
    Sep 16, 2014
    4
    The main character is the product of female supremacy writing and I find it extremely off-putting. She possesses no character flaws and is portrayed in the most wooden and difficult to identify with presentation I have ever seen. The 1st person narration sounds like it was read by the actress while she was half asleep and drugged.

    I went in expecting a nice historical fiction series and    The main character is the product of female supremacy writing and I find it extremely off-putting. She possesses no character flaws and is portrayed in the most wooden and difficult to identify with presentation I have ever seen. The 1st person narration sounds like it was read by the actress while she was half asleep and drugged.

    I went in expecting a nice historical fiction series and was inflicted with a trashy romance novel that felt like it was written by a Tumblr fanfic pseudo-intellectual.

    It's a a surprise to see such garbage on Starz! as this feels like it would be more at home on Lifetime.    … Expand
  8. Gadoosh
    Sep 22, 2014
    5
    I loved this series of books and was so looking forward to seeing the TV version. The characters are well cast and the settings are authentic and believable. However, I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding the English characters with heavy Scottish accents. Very distracting! I tried watching it with CC but that too distracts me from the screen action. I'm very disappointedI loved this series of books and was so looking forward to seeing the TV version. The characters are well cast and the settings are authentic and believable. However, I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding the English characters with heavy Scottish accents. Very distracting! I tried watching it with CC but that too distracts me from the screen action. I'm very disappointed with the production for this reason and do not think I will continue to watch it.… Expand
  9. harryajh
    May 31, 2015
    5
    starts off really good then descends in to episode after boring episode of male gay sex, really disappointing, hopefully episode 17 onwards gets it back on track - a real shame so far!
  10. mudslynger
    Jul 4, 2016
    5
    Although I love Diana's writing and devoured the whole outlander series, I cannot watch it on T.V because of who they cast as Jamie. Jamie is EVERYTHING to the story and while I think they cast a fine actor in Sam Heugan, I do not think he comes close to being able to sustain the kind of charisma, strength, gregariousness, intensity and masculinity that the character is imbibed with; thatAlthough I love Diana's writing and devoured the whole outlander series, I cannot watch it on T.V because of who they cast as Jamie. Jamie is EVERYTHING to the story and while I think they cast a fine actor in Sam Heugan, I do not think he comes close to being able to sustain the kind of charisma, strength, gregariousness, intensity and masculinity that the character is imbibed with; that we as the reader have been knocked over the head with!. I'm sure they had a battle in casting but really....the part for Jamie is a total shame. The actor cast does not have exude the 'wise beyond his years' nor the command of a room. The books go on and on and on and on.....about Jamie's character and this actor doesn't have it. That brings me to your site, if Jamie doesn't have the content, surely they could have cast someone with the height and breadth of the man they describe!! Surely they could have invested a bit into colouring his hair!!! I mean if I read ONE more line about the various tones of red and the shocking swatch atop his tall standing crown! The Beauty department has the ability to, at least, give him that to work with since he appears only a bit taller than "Old Claire". I don't really mind "Old Claire" although I find her voice a bit grating....I would watch her but I think you have presented us with SO many better physical options for 'Jamie' that I am totally confused as to WHY on earth Diana Gabaldon would have allowed them to so miscast 'Jamie". So sad because some of the other cast is great and the Production Design is FANTASTIC as if the Wardrobe department. Period Drama is the most difficult and to then live up to this beloved series of books....well it was a tough task and it seems they have really tried by hiring some astute professionals. Too bad the most important element for the show, is for me, a deal breaker and an epic fail.… Expand
  11. rockon
    May 23, 2021
    5
    It's historically ridiculous in many parts. The witchcraft business is nonsense. Because when the English and Scottish Parliaments united in 1707 they outlawed witchcraft trials.

    It's also incredibly redundant. They kept doing far-fetched things to put Claire (Caitriona Balfe) in danger. The "damsel in distress" thing was overdone way past the point of absurdity. I may be done with    It's historically ridiculous in many parts. The witchcraft business is nonsense. Because when the English and Scottish Parliaments united in 1707 they outlawed witchcraft trials.

    It's also incredibly redundant. They kept doing far-fetched things to put Claire (Caitriona Balfe) in danger. The "damsel in distress" thing was overdone way past the point of absurdity. I may be done with this thing after the first season. Because I'm sick of the "oh, she's danger, now she's captured, now she's rescued, rinse and repeat. I was wondering just how many times she was going to be taken prisoner by different people in the first season. I actually lost count. It was like five or six times. She's almost raped constantly, was even almost burned at the stake. It's ridiculous how much they overdo that. And why are they always, always traveling? Her husband probably tells 50 people "i have a price on my head." Why would anybody really with a price on his head keep telling people that? And wouldn't he might think about staying with the protection of his Laird instead of constantly traveling the countryside and dragging his wife along with a price on his head? She was also wanted by the British. There really is no logical or important reason for them to be traveling like that. It was completely insane. They rarely explain why they are always on the move like gypsies and why that is even necessary. But then, unnecessary and completely illogical travel was essential to the overdone "damsel in distress" nonsense.

    Claire's husband Jaime (Sam Heughan) gets some camera time and character development. But rarely does such a big production with a big cast revolve so dominantly around one actor as it does in this production. If I were other actors in this I'd wonder when I was finally going to get a line. Because if you use a stop watch, you might find that in all of Season One you can't go even 90 seconds without seeing Balfe's face close-up on the screen. She is absolutely dominant in scenes and dialog. So much so that it really prevents any other characters from being developed. If it doesn't work in a plot line directly involved with Balfe, they character doesn't get dialog or scenes. I can't remember anything I've ever watched like it. She's a scene hog, a dialog hog, and a camera hog. Was her husband directing or something? It reminds me of the kid in high school on the yearbook staff who was assigned to take candid photos of students for the yearbook. And every photo he submits is one of his girlfriend. She just doesn't put her face on the screen in every scene. She bares it all constantly. I think I saw her breasts twenty times in the first season. There's a ridiculous amount of obligatory sex. An unnecessary and excessive amount. You see Caitriana Balfe naked so much you can practically memorize every contour of her body and count the fine hairs on her behind. I've seen her hard nipples so many times i have their exact shape in my head. It's like they thought they were making soft porn.

    It is remarkable that they give this much face time on camera to a woman with such a limited range of expression. She's got only a couple looks. Her "mona lisa" look which is kind of solemn and mournful. She has that on about 80 per cent of the time. An unhappy scowl is another. You think if she smiles her face might break. Can't the lead character laugh in this thing? I don't remember her laughing once in the first season. She's just so glum. She doesn't even look happy when she's having sex. There's no humor to her, no joy in anything at all. Every time you look at Caitriona Balfe's face in this movie she looks like she's on her way to a funeral. Like she needs to be on anti-depressants or something. It's like they wanted the atmosphere of the thing to be sad and mournful. just as dismal as the Scottish weather. In this production I was relieved to see two actors exchanging dialog on the scene for 60 seconds without one of them being Caitriona Balfe. It's always a rare moment in the production. But refreshing nonetheless.    … Expand
  12. Tazcat2011
    Jul 5, 2016
    6
    I wanted to like this as the cast, photography and costuming is very good. I watched the first season and found the incessant "capture/torture/rescue" scenario to be way overused and quite off-putting. I was shocked to find that the source material was penned by a woman given how often rape is used as a plot device, and it happens A LOT. Also for a show/book series that is consideredI wanted to like this as the cast, photography and costuming is very good. I watched the first season and found the incessant "capture/torture/rescue" scenario to be way overused and quite off-putting. I was shocked to find that the source material was penned by a woman given how often rape is used as a plot device, and it happens A LOT. Also for a show/book series that is considered HISTORICAL FICTION it does a terrible job of it, it is really a romance story in a historical setting. The biggest sin was the witch trial which occurred 20 years too late in history and was only include because the author really wanted to have one in her novel. I get that this story is really just a "bodice ripper" romance and is squarely aimed at female audiences.

    I was curious as to how the story unfolded in subsequent novels so I read a detailed synopsis of each of them. I'm not going to spoil anything, but the direction this story takes is so weird and convoluted that I'm glad I have not become invested in it. Also with the big change that happens in book three it will be really odd to see how that is handled in a show where the main appeal is young attractive actors as the leads. I was also shocked to find that the fifth novel is 1300 pages long and fan consensus seemed to agree that not much happens to move the plot forward.

    As I stated prior the big appeal is Caitriona Balfe as Claire, she is very beautiful and quite talented but seeing her constantly being brutalized got to be a bit too much. The character of Jamie doesn't fare much better, every horrible thing that can happen to someone happens and will happen to him. It's a shame that the show writers didn't just take Diana Gabaldon's work and make it their own as there is a good premise underneath all the problems present in her novels.    … Expand
  13. glomman
    May 12, 2020
    6
    I just watched the first season and I must realise that I don't think this is a very good series. I found myself often bored to hell, mainly because the interesting aspects of the series, like the time-travelling, are almost dropped immediately. Also, the characters are often bland and one-dimensional, making them less recognizable and less believable.

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 »