I apologise, we feel bad, but there's no trailer available. ~Ed.
The worst thing about this movie is the title, sounds like a Californian surf movie or a shark movie or something (though ‘Aramoana’ was rejected out of consideration for the town). Anyway, the rubbishness ends there in this absorbing thriller based on the true events of Aramoana, November 13 1990. It’s a stunner actually, successfully capturing a sleepy NZ town and the intense, abrupt horror its citizens faced when confronted with our country’s largest mass-murderer (13 died).
It taps into the whole ‘we live in idyllic islands in the Pacific, we’re safe, wacky Americans have guns we don’t, the beach is great, aren’t Kiwis cute?’ mindset, and cracks it wide open.
Probably the film’s greatest asset is that it possesses a realism (making it all the more frightening) and refrains from imposing a point of view on murderer David Gray, or the Aramoana residents. It doesn’t beef up the heroics of the police and residents, nor demonize Gray - because it doesn’t have to. It merely shows them, and their actions speak for themselves.
It begins by hopscotching across the town’s various characters going about their day. One clearly stands out: the reclusive and fiery Gray (Mathew Sunderland, Strongman in Woodenhead).
About half an hour in, Gray storms out of his house and scares the shit out of his neighbour’s children who’ve walked through his property. The kids’ father intervenes and a shouting match begins. Gray cusses, goes back inside, re-appears a second later with a gun, and shoots the man. It’s a great scene, if that’s the word. It’s shocking and chilling like a hard slap.
Few hints are given to the reasons for Gray’s violence. He’s got a fascination with the army, keeps guns in his fridge, is paranoid, and there’s an indication he’s schizophrenic. The point though, is his actions were inexplicable.
After that shooting, Gray’s temperament seems to calm. With a militant stare, he finds the kids cowering in their house and fires shots. Then he sets the house on fire. The fire acts as a beacon as concerned neighbours head towards it to investigate. As they do, Gray shoots them.
The police, unprepared for such an event, miss chances to take him down and he remains at large throughout the night. The residents are on lock down inside their homes, some watching as Gray walks about their properties with his automatic in hand. He even has the nerve to go home and take a nap. It isn’t until the morning he’s found.
The performances by and large are all good, notably: Karl Urban as a policeman who fails to pull the trigger, William Kircher as another cop, and Lois Lawn (a 74 year old film debutant) as a heroic senior cit.
Though at times beautifully photographed, the overuse of short depth of field & soft focus – particularly in scenes with Gray – are more distracting than insightful. And the sound design, looking to unsettle the audience, was irritating in the first half hour. But these things become minor due to the shear force of the sad, shocking story – as something that actually happened, and as part of our history. A must see, especially for New Zealanders.
By Paul Scantlebury, Flicks.co.nz
"Out of the Blue" may be suitable for a TV documentary with added footage and witnesses interviews, but on the big screen the script is too unsignificant. I watched it on TV and it is not memorable. On its own, the movie really struggles to take the viewer anywhere with its very slow pace and lack of everything: dialogues and general ideas. The storyline: a man loses the plot and shots his neighbours. From the first second of the movie to the end, the viewer already knows what is going to happen, so I am hoping for some in-depth character(s) development, maybe some flashbacks from his past, but nothing of that here. The Director gives me no hindsight whatsoever on the main character I am watching. A man turns into an improvised gunman after a minor outburst with his bank. Big deal. From here, the movie carries on with the same pace all the way. It is so excruciatingly slow, I take it as an admission from the Director that even he has nothing to say about David Gray, so why bother caring about the story at first place? Because it is the biggest mass murder (13 victims) in New Zealand, it is bound to be a sensible and popular subject. In other words: jackpot, commercial success guaranteed. That is how I feel when a movie presents nothing more than the original TV news from which this terrible event was made public. From the bank David Gray then takes us straight to the ordeal (the siege) shooting the victims one after the other and ultimately getting himself killed by the tactical team. Before it all ends, there are many close ups on various faces: victims, policemen and gunman all have their 15 minutes plus of... well, silencious fame. This is between long camera shots of the land, the wind on the long grass, the house in fire, the sunset, the laundry hanging... Okay I get it, it is moody so what's next? The Director tried so hard to make his picture photographic that he forgot to make it cinematographic. Some viewers might have been literally stunned by all the empty facial expressions in display, but I found it boring and unimaginative. The photo gallery kept on going: David Gray smoking a cigarette outdoor, David Gray starring at himself in a mirror without saying a word, an old lady olding her pet alone and terrified in her kitchen. Still no dialogues, no flashbacks, no nothing. Overall, I had a clear feeling that "Out of the Blue" was designed as an easy tear jerker. The characters sob a lot and look shocked as they should, unfortunately Robert Sarkies had nothing else in his bag. So here you are, a guy loses the plot and turns into a gunman. Who cares? Certainly not me after watching this movie. Put it this way, as terrible as it is, such tragedies are most common Woldwide. Unless the main character has an interesting background or story to convey, it remains a pointless exercise in style. Out of the Blue is pointless indeed and hadly stylish. Avoid.
I saw this last night 01/08/2009 on TV 3. As I said above, stunningly emotional! I was in my late teens when this happened and while it was shocking back then the movie brought it home in a way that only well-developed and balanced drama (and the maturity to appreciate such drama) can. I'm a bit of an armchair film critic and I absolutely love the classic cinematography technique (hardly used these days) that those conditioned to fast moving shoot-em-ups and over-the-top action movies (a la Michael Bay) may find too slow, boring and complex for their ADHD-affected attention spans. Out of the Blue has painfully-powerful film noirish undertones but falls short of being outright cruel because it revives us with pleasurable surges of nostalgia and an inexorable yet frustratingly-delayed climax. We feel that we have overcome but have been psychologically beaten up too much to enjoy the fruits of victory when they do arrive. I'm not kidding, I was absolutely drained emotionally by the time the end credits started rolling. Also big ups to Karl Urban and Matthew Sunderland for for the emotionally-scorching character portrayals, they sold it emphatically--merchandise and all. I will definitely be getting the DVD.
I loved this movie, it has perfect cinematography and great acting, this movie is really worth a watch. I knew little about the Aramoana Massacre before I watched this movie and didn't really look into it until after. I know the people at Aramoana were reluctant for this to be filmed there, most of the filming was done in Dunedin. No one will truly feel what the residents at Aramoana felt that day but at least this movie will help. My heart goes out to all those familys who suffered because of the random shooting.
I watched this film for the first time last night. Two aspects especially stuck out. The first was the building tension that gripped me to my seat as the film moved toward its terrifying and inevitable conclusion. The second was how the film portrayed the events of November 1990 in a way that neither glorified nor sanitised them. Highly recommended.
As someone who lived in Dunedin when this happened and knew Stu & Nick I think this film was excellent, my partner from the UK thought so too. Just one thing I want to know is, was the part where Nick hesitated to shoot David Gray twice true? Because that's what I was told happend. Cheers Faye
It can show us what it felt like to be there. And if that makes it a film to be survived more than enjoyed, it also means it's succeeded as one of the most powerful pieces of New Zealand cinema in an age...
In its distilled, composed articulation of tragedy amidst a prolonged drought of truly courageous local films, Out of the Blue can perhaps in time, be considered something of a watershed in New Zealand cinema. It is far too important to avoid, though may be too painful for some. It is at once paralysing and cathartic. I don’t think I’ll ever see it again...
1/2 A thoughtful and sensitive dramatisation of one of New Zealand's blackest days... Unfortunately, the filmmakers' desire not to offend means the emotional impact of the film is somewhat muted...
With Out of the Blue, Rob Sarkies cements his place among our great film makers, crafting, in my view, the most important new zealand film ever made...
An effectively harrowing and non-exploitative recap of real-life events... Chilling, often moving docudrama focuses not so much on the mayhem or murderer, but on the bewildered, occasionally courageous reactions of ordinary citizens caught in the inexplicable violence...
We've been told the NZ release date for this flick is Thursday, 12th Oct 2006.
Release date: October 12th 2006.
We haven't received times for this movie in this location yet. However these are updated as cinemas announce them, so check back soon. Hopefully the lovely cinemas in your location will choose to play it shortly. ~Ed.
