IMDb user comments for
Out of the Blue (2006) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

18 comments in total

---

39 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
Out of the Blue, 12 October 2006

Author: sonofmunson from New Zealand

On November 13 1990, David Gray, an unemployed recluse, shot dead 13 people in the small coastal hamlet of Aramoana near Dunedin.

There was much conjecture about whether it was a good idea for someone to make a film about this tragic incident but it has been made and, for the most part, it has been made well.

Robert Sarkies, in a return to form after his well received first feature Scarfies, has created an amazing work of art. The opening shots of Aramoana are breath taking, and the cinematography throughout the film follows suit. The beauty of the scenery only serves to juxtapose the ugly events which take place over those 22 hours of terror.

Using Bill O' Brien's book Aramoana, Sarkies and co-writer Graeme Tetley have crafted a screenplay which focuses on subtlety and nuance. Sarkies intelligently uses these subtleties in several scenes involving Gray. Blurred camera work when Gray is on screen not only show his blurred take on reality, but also reflects his reportedly poor eyesight.

The cast is above average but two actors stand apart. It would have been inappropriate to have displayed Gray as anything but a monster, but Matthew Sunderland is able to give Gray a certain sense of pathos. His portrayal of the paranoid schizophrenic shows the killer to be a shell of a man, who has been overtaken by a terrible disease. We find him chilling and repugnant, yet one cannot help but sympathise with a person who has become so inhuman he appears more animal than man.

The other standout performance comes from Karl Urban as policeman Nick Harvey - one of the first officers on the scene. His eyes display the mixture of fear, confusion and disbelief at what lay before him at Aramoana. Watching him cradle a young girl in his arms, desperately trying to comfort her after she has been shot, is perhaps one of the most touching scenes in a movie crammed full of profound moments.

It is strange to have such a beautiful film made about such a terrible moment in New Zealand history. However, the sensitivity and emotion shown to the tragedy make the film an important commentary on the horrors of modern society. Even in a place like Aramoana, seemingly untainted by the rigours of modern life, can the harsh realities of the world be found and in these moments the human spirit is tested. The people of Aramoana and the emergency services sent to help them are testament to the fact that in the end love and compassion will prevail over the hate and disgust of sick individuals like David Malcolm Gray.

---

37 out of 44 people found the following comment useful :-
Raising the bar in New Zealand cinema, 11 October 2006

Author: GardenStateFan from New Zealand

I was lucky enough to attend a preview screening of Out of the Blue at the Embassy theater. As the final credits rolled and the curtains closed I realized I had finally found the meaning to the word 'masterpiece'. This is unquestionably one of the best films I have ever seen. Period.

The portrayal of David Gray is haunting in every meaning of the word. Matthew Sutherland is an expert as his craft. I despised him throughout the film but at the same time felt pity; for what he was going through mentally was almost as scary as what he was causing the town to go through.

Robert Sarkies has proved to us that he has a genuine eye for directing, and that he is loaded with talent. Although he has already worked on several other New Zealand films/series, I believe that this could be his calling card for getting into the big-budget pictures.

The acting is incredible, and I really admire Karl Urban for returning to NZ and doing this low-budget film. Every single performance in this film is nothing short of spectacular. I have never felt as though I actually knew a bunch of people in a movie until now. It was genuinely the most scary thing I have seen when the town goes to hell.

I wish that this movie could get a wide theatrical release, although I am almost certain it wont because its story wont really effect anyone outside of New Zealand. However, if you live in New Zealand you must see this film when it is locally released in cinemas. In fact no; everyone should go see this film. Everyone. Twice.

10/10 This is what happens when you get a bunch of people together who love what they do to make a movie.

---

27 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
All was not well in Paradise, 24 October 2006

Author: Mountain-Storm from New Zealand

I remember very well the events unfolding in Aramoana as it was broadcast on the TV and radio. I was a Police Officer at the time and the death of a fellow officer was tough news to hear. Seeing the events recreated on screen for the first time brought the memories flooding back. Seeing how even in a relatively peaceful nation such as New Zealand, no-one is immune from random acts of violence was very sobering. I sat bolt upright the entire movie and didn't realise it. The theater was deathly quiet. This is a movie that pulls no punches and has not an inkling of Hollywood in it. It is a sad, dramatic, true to life retelling of the massacre. This type of film is one of the reasons I avoid many of the big budget Hollywood movies. There's no glorification here, no overly animated death scenes, this is movie making at it's best. The story is being told without embellishment and in a sadly beautiful way. A must see for New Zealander's, and for anyone else interested in seeing a powerful, compelling movie. New Zealand's movie of the year, without doubt.

---

20 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Sets the pulse racing!, 20 October 2006

Author: ColonelFaulkner

I went to see this having read a couple of books on the subject several years ago, including the one on which the film is based.

Wasn't sure what to expect as there's been a lot of hype & media publicity surrounding this film.

I must say I certainly wasn't disappointed.

This is an excellent film. I haven't seen director Sarkies' other film Scarfies but I was impressed with this. No doubt he's headed for bigger things if this film is any indication.

Take a bow Mr Sarkies, you've already got the NZ Film Awards sewn up.

This is the kind of film you don't see too often, shocking and extremely tense, but without relying on the graphic violence and bloodspatter far too prevalent in mainstream films these days. Add to that this is a true story and there's plenty of attention to detail.

A few other 'bigger' directors could take note from this that the audience aren't all idiots. They can figure out what's happening without squibs going off left, right and centre and spent cartridges ejecting from the chamber in slow motion.

As the cinema sat in silence, I swear I could hear my own heart pounding at times as my blood pressure went through the roof. A great movie going experience not felt too often.

I wasn't sure if If I was watching a reenactment or remastered old news footage as the specialist Police moved in on the town. It looked very authentic.

In spite of his dastardly deeds, one couldn't help but feel a tad of sympathy for the bad guy who is portrayed as a sad, lonely dysfunctional person who's mental health gradually deteriorates. More good work by the director and certainly different from the norm.

It wasn't perfect though, the pacing of the film seemed a bit out of kilter in a few places, while I thought some of the acting in the film was brilliant at times, but not quite so at others.

The up close gun fire as well probably fell a little bit short in the decibel department and could possibly use a touch up.

That aside, on a global scale it's a small budget film so any shortcomings are excused.

I give it an 8 because I'm a very tough marker, with a 10 being nearly impossible.

Given the subject matter, I don't think I could call this entertaining, but it sure is an experience & somewhat unforgettable, enough to make a grown man cry.

In short, see this film!

---

20 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Well produced drama, 14 October 2006

Author: penseur from Wellington

It was inevitable that - like the Stan Graham saga of 1941 made into the movie "Bad Blood" - the Aramoana massacre of 1990 would eventually be turned into a feature film. To their credit, the cast and crew of this have done a good job of it and perhaps just as importantly, the script writers have attempted to provide a little insight into why it happened, although the full background is something that people will need to read the two books that were written about it to get. The film starts in the morning of the day it started (the events lasted into the next day) and continues - with only a couple of brief flashbacks on the part of Gray - till a conclusion just after Gray is shot dead by police. It manages to keep fairly true with the actual events (as described in the two books) although there are some departures of varying importance. The film works well as a drama and unlike a Hollywood movie doesn't portray anyone as a superhero, or thickly apply sentimentality. The cinematography is also superb.

---

19 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Good portrayal of a tragic event, 21 October 2006

Author: blackrat1958 from New Zealand

It was refreshing to watch a movie that accurately depicted events without all of the Hollywood American-Pie. The acting and cinematography made this film feel as though it were a fly-on-the-wall documentary. I feel that the subject, and particularly David Gray, could have done with more of an introduction. The movie was 100 minutes long but I was so engrossed by the candid nature of the film, it felt much shorter. I didn't even finish my popcorn and drink! All-in-all, this is a hard-hitting movie about a tragic incident. It isn't glamourised at all and I came out of the movie feeling quite subdued. Worth a watch.

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Awesome Film, 16 October 2006

Author: Tim Devaney from Dunedin, New Zealand

I went to see this film on the day it was released. WOW what a awesome movie very powerful true and deeply moving. The way they have filmed it is good and its not as graphic as I thought it would be. Everyone in NEw Zealand should see this film but it is not one I recommended you watch alone as it is very sad. The actors in the movie play there parts great they all gave it 100% . One of the actors in the film is personally known to me and for the young age he is played his role very well considering what the film is about. I give this movie 10 out of ten for everything . Its a must see film .

T M D

---

10 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
must see, 26 June 2007

Author: peggyjane from New Zealand

I'm a somewhat elderly American, resident in New Zealand, and this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Everyone who appreciates truly fine movies should see this one. You needn't be a kiwi to get it. Photography, acting, composition, everything in this movie shines. As other viewers have suggested, this movie compares favorably to Hollywood and Hollywood-influenced movies (such as "Lord of the Rings", ahem) because it doesn't depend on special effects, mind-blowing battle scenes, guts or gore or gorgeous actresses to keep our attention. Regardless of what you do or do not compare it to, this one is riveting, a masterpiece.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Astonishingly powerful, 30 June 2008

Author: TrevorAclea from London, England

Released completely under the radar in the UK and only grossing a truly pitiful $728 in its one US engagement, Robert Sarkies' Out of the Blue is one of the most cruelly overlooked films of recent years. The material doesn't sound too promising – a true story about a eccentric loaner in the ramshackle New Zealand coastal town of Aramoana who went on a 22-hour shooting rampage and killed 13 people, including four children, in 1990. The crime was all the more shocking in a country with such a low crime rate: this was the sort of thing that happened in other countries. (Their previous worst mass murderer had been Stan Graham, who murdered seven people in 1942, the subject of 1991's excellent and similarly underseen Bad Blood).

The potential for exploitation or cheap TV movie of the week dramatics was certainly there, yet the film is made with such understated sincerity, putting the focus firmly on the victims and the community – not just Karl Urban's smalltown cop completely out of his depth as he's unable to help people he knows and loves but also unlikely real-life heroine in 72-year old Helen Dickson, who dragged herself back and forth through a ditch to bring help and comfort to one of the victims. It's the sheer ordinariness of how they cope that is so devastating. The performances are all naturalistic and utterly convincing, only adding to the power in a quietly heartbreaking scene in the back of a police car where Karl Urban's cop whispers a bedtime story to a wounded child as his partner blankly holds a dead child in his arms.

As a sidenote, it's interesting how much of the film works as a (presumably unintentional) critique of Paul Greengrass' cheapjack technique. There's an interesting use of sound design that occasionally briefly removes elements from the soundtrack to create a sense that something isn't quite right and an intelligent use of hand-held camera from Greig Fraser that doesn't equate slipping in and out of focus and constantly missing the action with veracity Paul Greengrass style but uses it much more subtly. While the townspeople and cops are shot with a hand-held camera as if it were mounted on a tripod or a dolly to give an understated slight vitality rather than advertise itself, the killer is mostly shot from a tripod in relatively static takes subtly setting him apart from the community he ultimately turns on. It's not about drawing attention to the technique (and by proxy the director) but putting you into the film, the style all but invisible and in the service of the story and the characters. Nor does Sarkies feel the need to demonise any of the victims (as Greengrass did in United 93 to a German passenger whose family chose not to co-operate with his film) to add some cheap fictional drama and conflict to make the film 'play' better: this isn't about producing a quick sugar rush at any cost, it's about ordinary, mundane human beings suddenly finding themselves thrown into a overwhelming situation they have no control over and its very real power comes from it's determination not to oversensationalize.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Chilling and should be sought out, 23 December 2007

Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York

New Zealand docudrama about the massacre that occurred in Aramoana when an angry gun nut opened fire on his neighbors and severely reduced the population.

Slow to start, I thought that this was going to be a typical story of a shooting with its pleasant vistas and the get to know the participants set up scenes. However once things got going things spiral out in ways that they can only in real life. The violence, which we know is coming, is at first explosive and in its way out of left field. Then as the neighbors and soon to be targets attempt to figure out what the "fireworks" are things becoming darker as the random acts of violence begin to pick up. What do you do when a nut job begins to open fire? Here's the answer.

Though far from perfect, its a tad too clinical for my tastes, this film really packs a punch, especially in the final scenes where there are a few decidedly haunting images that not only drive home whats happened but also turns so of what we've seen on their ear (The swat team in slo mo).

I thought it was quite good. However I'm not particularly pleased with the Weinstein company who is its distributor. No ads for the film in New York. Sure you screened it for critics, but no add other than in the general ad for the IFC center where its playing. Clearly you don't want anyone to see it or know it existed.(I caught it on IFC on Demand cable service.) I only gave it a shot because I saw the title in the Time Out New York film reviews. Clearly they don't know what they are doing since here's a film they should promote but don't, yet other things like... Doogal...they promote like mad even thought it belongs in the bottom of a charnel house's fire pit.

If you get a chance to see it do so, its too good not to be seen.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Parents Guide
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history