I've been obsessed with Outlander's amazing conceit for ever since I first head about the movie, oh, two years ago. Back in early June, I posted this update, indicating that the movie still existed, albeit in the iron grip of the Weinstein Company.

Now we finally have a trailer, which confirms that the movie is, indeed, about a man from another planet who allies with the Vikings in 6th Century A.D. to kill an alien predator that he accidentally unleashed on earth. All of that remains as awesome as it was in 2006. Some of the footage in the trailer looks a bit murky and generic, which is disappointing, but at least it's clear that they don't back away from that killer plot hook. Jim Caviezel does indeed arrive in Viking-ruled Norway on a spaceship, and that's basically all I need to hear. Let the geek-out commence.

The movie, which co-stars Sophia Myles (ooooh), John Hurt (aaaah) and Ron Perlman (holy crap!), has no American release date, but I'd be stunned if it doesn't at least appear on DVD in the next year. Keep your eyes peeled. Meanwhile, I welcome estimates of the probability that Outlander will live up to the expectations I've set. Myself, I can't imagine it's over 25%. But we'll see.

Very cool of rowthree to catch the trailer appearing on the film's official website.

Hey, remember Outlander, the movie about Vikings fighting space monsters in 6th Century A.D.? I had forgotten all about it, until the sci-fi blog io9 brought it back to my attention yesterday. The film -- about a man from another planet (Jim Caviezel) who lands on earth in the year 509 and accidentally unleashes an alien predator on Earth, forcing him to ally with the Vikings to kill it -- played the Cannes market to mixed reactions. But the folks behind UK's FrightFest called it "an absolute joy to watch," praising the performances from Caviezel and John Hurt, the action, and the CGI. There are also some new stills, a couple of which you can find after the jump (a larger gallery is available here).

Alas, there is no American release date for Outlander. The Weinstein Company has the rights, and given their track record we may never see it. That would be a shame, because any movie with a concept that monumentally goofy should -- emphasis on should -- at least be interesting. Vikings vs. aliens has to be a genre film devotee's wet dream. Of course it could also somehow become a completely generic battle flick, which is what some of the photos seem to suggest. On the other hand, that image of what I think is Caviezel's spaceship underwater is awfully tantalizing...

After disappointing comic book fans everywhere with Catwoman, the mono-monikered director Pitof should have gone back to his day job. He is a terrific special effects man, particularly for his work with Jean-Pierre Jeunet on such films as Delicatessen and Alien: Resurrection. But for all his recognition for the effects work, he's going to be best known for guiding Halle Berry through one of the lamest movies of the 2000s (it 'won' four Razzies including Worst Picture, Worst Director and Worst Actress). While he hasn't given up his day job yet (he's back with Jeunet for The Life of Pi and he's working on the next Astérix and Obélix movie), he's also not giving up on directing. His follow-up to Catwoman has just been announced as an independent crime thriller called Only in New York, starring Jim Caviezel.

Caviezel has some problems of his own coming on to this project, as he does with any project these days. Many of us will forever associate the actor with his role as Jesus in The Passion of the Christ, despite the fact that he hasn't physically resembled that role in anything since. I don't know if Hollywood also sees the difficulty with such a connection, but in looking at his IMDb listing I noticed that since The Passion he doesn't seem to be getting as much work as he had been before. Of course, it could be that Caviezel is the one keeping low, staying away from the city he calls "a cesspool piece of crap." Or it could be that producers want to avoid the kind of accidental humor that showed up in Deja Vu. Either way, I could only think of the possible religious elements when reading the description of Only in New York, which the Hollywood Reporter says is about, "a recently paroled street hustler looking for a new life and seeking redemption."

As if Pitof's and Caviezel's involvements weren't enough trouble for the production, Only in New York will be marked by an ironic and bogus title. It seems the film can't be shot only in New York, because it begins filming in Toronto in June. The whole production would probably be better off aborting this project and getting to work on self-parodic shorts for YouTube. Anyone interested in seeing Catwoman vs. Jesus?

We all love to cry and gripe in our cocoa. This is definitely the case when it comes to our begrudgingly beloved Hollywood. We continue to patronize Hollywood movies, and people keep working on them, even though no one seems to be happy with how things are going. While doing press for his new movie, Deja Vu, actor Jim Caviezel became the latest to jump on the Hollywood-bashing bandwagon. When asked to characterize his career so far, the actor couldn't help but slide a dig at the system: "I spent 10 years living in Hollywood -- which is just a cesspool piece of crap -- and then I got The Thin Red Line."

It's a cesspool that's been pretty good to him, finding him roles in films like The Rock, Frequency and Angel Eyes. (Perhaps he was just too tarnished by his participation in G.I. Jane to be able to look at the land of stars in anything but a disrepectful manner?) Still, the words are a bit surprising from a man whose career was made in Hollywood. In addition to the Hollywood films Caviezel has made, he was also set to take on Cyclops in X-Men, which he had to back out of, and publicly lobbied to take over the blue tights from Christopher Reeve. Just like Seagal keeps making movies he thinks are crap, Caviezel will probably continue to cling to his spot in the cesspool.

There aren't any plans for an official sequel to The Passion of the Christ (unofficial is another story), but one Bible publisher is producing what seems to be a related product. This October, Nelson Bibles will release a 25-hour audiobook of the New King James Version complete with a star-studded cast, including Jim Caviezel as the voice of Jesus.

The rest of the Passion cast has been substituted with other big names, and there doesn't seem to be any affiliation with Newmarket Films or Mel Gibson, but obviously Nelson is using the connection to its advantage. Otherwise the real appeal of the audiobook, entitled The Word of Promise: New Testament, should be Terrence Stamp, who provides the voice of God, and Richard Dreyfuss, who plays Moses.

There will be a follow-up (or, should I say prequel?) to the audiobook that will be based on the Old Testament, and Stamp and Dreyfuss will return in their respective parts. Unfortunately, Caviezel's role will not be included. Neither will the parts played by Marisa Tomei, Lou Diamond Phillips, Kimberly Williams, Ernie Hudson, John Heard or Luke Perry (try to imagine Judas with Dylan McKay's sideburns).

When you watch enough movies, sooner or later you get the feeling that you have seen it all before. Then, if you're lucky, one comes along with a premise quite unlike anything else -- a pleasant surprise sandwiched between the same old repetitive shlock. Now, you would think that would be a good thing, right? Normally yes -- but in the case of the Sci-fi Viking film Outlander; I'm not so sure.

Martha reported on the movie back in August, but since then there hasn't been much press. Outlander stars Jim Caviezel as a mysterious man from space who crashes into earth during the time of Vikings, ultimately joining with them to fight an alien that has followed him there. (Wow, I felt stupid even typing that, imagine having to pay hard-earned money to watch it.) G4 recently spoke with designer Patrick Tatopoulos about his work on the film and have an exclusive look at this mysterious Viking-hating creature. Tatopoulous has worked on Independence Day, Silent Hill, and I, Robot, so he seems pretty comfortable with big rubber creatures and CGI equally. So far we only get a look at a model and -- what I can I say -- It looks like your run-of-the-mill monster. Therefore, I'm not even sure if top quality Special F/X can help a movie this goofy. If nothing else, pic will have the distinction of probably being the only Sci-fi Viking movie ever made ... and that's something, I guess.

When is it inappropriate to use Christ's name in vain? When you're around Jim Caviezel, of course. It isn't that the actor disapproves, but due to the fact that he played Jesus in The Passion of the Christ, cursing the name can have an unintended comical context that changes the meaning of such an exclamation. Tony Scott recently found this out during test screenings of his new movie Deja Vu and had to take out a line of dialogue as a result. During a scene in which Denzel Washington's character comes face-to-face with his foe, played by Caviezel, he says, "Jesus." At that moment, the test audience burst out laughing -- with good reason.

How did Scott and the rest of the makers of Deja Vu overlook such a double meaning with the scene? It is understandable that the line was probably in the script before Caviezel's casting and wasn't noticed after he came on board, but how could it not come to anyone's attention during filming? The only thing I can think of is that the production realized the gag, thought it was fine as a seemingly subtle throwaway and kept it in not anticipating the reaction it would receive. If this is the case, Scott and the rest must never have seen Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I, in which Comicus (Brooks) curses the name Jesus in vain, only to have the real Jesus (John Hurt) reply, "Yes?"