Out of the Blue
- 2006
- 1h 43m
IMDb RATING
7.1/10
4.1K
YOUR RATING
Based on the Aramoana Massacre that occurred on 13 November and 14 November 1990. Resident David Gray, an unemployed gun collector, went on a rampage in which 13 people were shot dead, befor... Read allBased on the Aramoana Massacre that occurred on 13 November and 14 November 1990. Resident David Gray, an unemployed gun collector, went on a rampage in which 13 people were shot dead, before Gray himself was shot by police.Based on the Aramoana Massacre that occurred on 13 November and 14 November 1990. Resident David Gray, an unemployed gun collector, went on a rampage in which 13 people were shot dead, before Gray himself was shot by police.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 6 wins & 5 nominations total
Matthew Sunderland
- David Gray
- (as Matt Sunderand)
Timothy Bartlett
- Jimmy Dickson
- (as Tim Bartlett)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
Sarkies does a brilliant job setting up the feel and mood of a small New Zealand seaside town in a slice of life style, giving us a brief but sufficient set up into the lives of those involved prior to the massacre.
Then, as the title suggests, out of the blue comes the dark and unexpected.
Sarkies doesn't shy away from the violence and terror, nor does he glorify it. His method of storytelling via following the first affected family, to the first initial killings with Gray then onto the first (and only) officer on the scene is extremely effective in showing how tense and unpredictable David was, and how the town had a night of horrific terror.
The acting is superb, the music effective, and the location beautiful (as it was shot at a neighbouring location to the actual town involved).
Stand out performances by the two leading actors, although the rest of the cast (relatively unknown) perform exceptionally too.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaChris Cole is wearing a T-shirt that says: "Save our beach. Stop the smelter." This refers to the late 1970s proposal to build an aluminum smelter at Aramoana, which would have destroyed the township and threatened a local wildlife reserve, and met with a lot of resistance from residents.
- GoofsIn the town scene, a Chrysler PT Cruiser is clearly visible. This vehicle was manufactured from 2001.
- Quotes
Garry Holden's Mother: No crime in being eccentric, or they'd lock up half the Spit.
- How long is Out of the Blue?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $1,477
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $728
- Oct 21, 2007
- Gross worldwide
- $739,865
- Runtime
- 1h 43m(103 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content