This Outlanderreview contains spoilers.
He happens to lookexactlylike someone who tried to rape her and whodidrape her husband.
The situation isnt anyones fault, but that doesnt make it any less intractable.
These be the breaks when you accidentally travel through time.
But something elseOutlanderhas also always been good at is understanding that life must go on.
This character trait is in full effect upon her return to 20th century Scotland.
She doesnt initially confide in Frank, nor Reverend Wakefield, but rather Mrs. Graham.
This is a different, perhaps more impressive kind of strength.
The episode lingers a bit too long.
If 1968 is our next 20th-century destination, then why not start there?
We not bring Frank along on that emotionally-revealing 1960s holiday to Scotland?
We could have learned everything about Frank and Claires post-time jump relationship i.e.
Many of the weakest parts of this premiere episode came inOutlandertrying to give us Franks perspective quickly and complexly.
We understand where Frank is coming from, but we dont know this Frank.
He has obviously changed in the years of Claires disappearance.
We viewers have been changed, too.
The episode does a good job of creating a sense of emotional distance in the 20th century.
For Claire, it is too loud, too judging, too Jamie-less.
More than that, they are imbued with a sense of purpose for our protagonist.
Though her marriage is haunted by the specter of Jack Randall, it is still a happy one.
It has hope a hope reflected in her unborn child.
A hope that spills over to her history-changing mission, inherent in the knowledge that shecouldchange the future.
Im going to enjoy it while it lasts.
Nothing stays gold for long onOutlander.
Rating:
4 out of 5
