Out of the Blue

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.

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.

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.

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.

On November 13, 1990, the peace and quiet that once reigned over the picturesque coastal village of Aramoana, New Zealand was forever shattered when one of its residents, a 38-year-old madman, went on an extended shooting spree, indiscriminately massacring more than a dozen of his fellow citizens and neighbors - innocent men, women and children alike.

Artfully directed by Robert Starkies, "Out of the Blue" is most notable for the matter-of-fact way in which it portrays the events of that day. The movie spends the first half hour or so focusing on the townspeople as they go about the business of their daily lives, blissfully unaware of the grim fate that awaits them. It's an unnerving reminder of just how fragile a thing life is, as it can be taken away without warning. Without a hint of sensationalism or phony theatrics, "Out of the Blue" plunges us deep into the heart of a real-life nightmare, staying true to the ordinary folk - both the victims and the survivors - who suffered through the ordeal and to the innate randomness of the event itself.

For obvious reasons, we don't get to know the characters all that well before they fall victim to the killer, but that's in keeping with the near-documentary nature of the film. And once the shooting starts, the focus shifts almost exclusively to the local law enforcement officials who are frankly ill-trained and poorly equipped to handle an emergency of this magnitude. Yet, out of the ugliness and chaos, acts of extraordinary heroism, self-sacrifice and kindness are born.

Beautifully photographed and exquisitely acted, "Out of the Blue" is a thriller in the truest sense of the term, made all the more gripping by its adhering so closely to life as we know it. Hollywood movie makers could learn a thing or two from this film.