Clearly your reviewer hasn’t read the books, or even the dust jackets.  I’m really curious what he’s referring to by ‘casting too wide a net’ because, again if you had done any book research you would know this, the juxtaposition of a 20th century life against the Scottish highlands of the 18th, is the whole premiss!
Speaking of…just because it’s set in a certain time and place doesn’t mean it has, should have or is trying to have any reference/influence to/from Braveheart whatsoever.  The fact that everything feels ‘odd’ or out of place against the well educated Claire is EXACTLY the point. 
Where you get that the ritual did anything to except establish a reason for Claire to be at the standing stones is beyond me; and more of an example of your lack of understanding and failure to research the item of which you’re writing.
As an avid fan of the books, this first installment of the long awaited film adaption was quite good.  Some parts were nearly word for word from the actual text and the nuances were not missed.
The casting is spot on and the sets, while at first blush seem a bit austere are actually quite fitting with the descriptions from the book and help to build a difference between the two time periods.
And finally, keep in mind that the first episode of any multi-episode story has to build a lot of information, back story and character establishment and Outlander, so far, has done this brilliantly.
It may not be your cup of tea, and that’s fine. Just keep in mind….the real story is yet to come!

I don’t think this reviewer even watched the episode.  Several of the comments in the 2nd paragraph are taken (word for word) from other reviews that I have seen.  Really?  Why bother writing anything?

Sandy and Linda are spot on. This reviewer clearly demonstrates that he has no grasp of the source material. That is evident in his observation that nudity and sex have been gratuitously added by the producers. Even if one could overlook that error, the remark that “sporadic violence and occasional rape (or attempted rape) seem at odds with the introspective voiceover provided by the well-educated Claire” proves that the reviewer does not get it - that is EXACTLY the point. Claire is very much at odds with the new world she’s entered. Lastly, the statement that “the show straddles too many lines, as far as tone and genre go” is the most incriminating comment. The genre-bending complexity of Outlander is at the heart of its brilliance. Perhaps the reviewer’s critique would be “exponentially stronger” if he actually understood the material. Diana Gabaldon put brilliance to page and Ronald D. Moore transposed it brilliantly and faithfully to film.

Zach, you are what I like to call, “wrong”. Read the books. They are full of history, adventure, a touch of romance, not a little sex, and quite a bit of darkness.

This is such a vague review that one must wonder what Zach Hollwedel was doing while watching Outlander. Zach, I think you should stop writing your reviews while you watch and allow yourself to be absorbed in the story Moore and Gabaldon are creating. You want action? Just you wait! It may be more than you can handle.

I am one of the last to comment, and I can see other commenters have not liked what this reviewer had to say.  I am piling on.

Read the books!  Get a clue! Do NOT write such an uninformed, misguided review.

Like the books, the show defies easy categorization. So much for your complaint that “he show straddles too many lines, as far as tone and genre go.”  I hope that now that you have perhaps seen the full first season, you have had an an epiphany and recognize this for the innovation and genius it is.

This reviewer is spot on. And to the other commenters, one shouldn’t have to read the books to watch, enjoy, or review a television show. That’s why we watch the show, to skip the book.