Out of the Blue
Out of the Blue is the latest film from director Robert Sarkies. The director best known for his work on the 1999 film Scarfies and the television show The Strip once again does not disappoint.
The film is based on the real-life events that happened in the South Island town of Aramoana in 1990. Most New Zealander's who were old enough at the time to have any comprehension of what was going on remember the horror of the 13th and 14th of November 1990. The country awoke to the news that, overnight, a gunman had gone mad and begun shooting up his town.
Robert Sarkies gives us an overview of the events leading up to the massacre and draws us into the horror of the people of the Aramoana township as they became aware of what was going on. As with most New Zealand films, some of the acting leaves a little to be desired at times. However, Matthew Sunderland excels in the role of killer David Grey. He has the audience believing right from the outset that he is a slightly deranged, not to be trusted man who is likely to snap at any moment.
Also, as is the trademark of a New Zealand film, the scenery in Out of the Blue is exquisite. There are plenty of long, lingering shots of beautiful lakes and hills, making you wonder if, in fact, you are watching a glorified travel ad. Of course, the content of the film soon assures you that you are not.
I had two major gripes about this film. One is that Sarkies and cinematographer Greig Fraser appear to have shied away from the use of a tripod. I'm not sure why this is, I personally love the tripod. The end result is a very shakey, slightly nausiating film as the camera moves around so much.
The second gripe I had is that, at times, it got very confusing. Time jumped back and forth a lot at the beginning. One moment David Grey would be sitting holding his newly purchased gun, the next he is at the shop purchasing that same gun, the next he is using the gun to kill his one-time best friend.
As well as the confusion with time I found the soundtrack slightly disconcerting and confusing. There were a number of times when you could hear the dialogue of characters who were not on the screen. This in itself is not usually a problem in film, the audience are smart enough to understand that conversations can be happening off-screen. What Rob Sarkies does wrong is to overlay conversation that is happening in an entirely different location. The worst example of this is when the killer is slinking around we can hear a police officer talking. I kept thinking the killer was going to turn around and start shooting the police officer, but it turned out the police officer was miles away in a car so in no danger of being shot.
Overall it was an excellent film. It certainly recaptured the horror of the events is it was based on. But, as with so many New Zealand films the production value leaves a lot to be desired.
The film is based on the real-life events that happened in the South Island town of Aramoana in 1990. Most New Zealander's who were old enough at the time to have any comprehension of what was going on remember the horror of the 13th and 14th of November 1990. The country awoke to the news that, overnight, a gunman had gone mad and begun shooting up his town.
Robert Sarkies gives us an overview of the events leading up to the massacre and draws us into the horror of the people of the Aramoana township as they became aware of what was going on. As with most New Zealand films, some of the acting leaves a little to be desired at times. However, Matthew Sunderland excels in the role of killer David Grey. He has the audience believing right from the outset that he is a slightly deranged, not to be trusted man who is likely to snap at any moment.
Also, as is the trademark of a New Zealand film, the scenery in Out of the Blue is exquisite. There are plenty of long, lingering shots of beautiful lakes and hills, making you wonder if, in fact, you are watching a glorified travel ad. Of course, the content of the film soon assures you that you are not.
I had two major gripes about this film. One is that Sarkies and cinematographer Greig Fraser appear to have shied away from the use of a tripod. I'm not sure why this is, I personally love the tripod. The end result is a very shakey, slightly nausiating film as the camera moves around so much.
The second gripe I had is that, at times, it got very confusing. Time jumped back and forth a lot at the beginning. One moment David Grey would be sitting holding his newly purchased gun, the next he is at the shop purchasing that same gun, the next he is using the gun to kill his one-time best friend.
As well as the confusion with time I found the soundtrack slightly disconcerting and confusing. There were a number of times when you could hear the dialogue of characters who were not on the screen. This in itself is not usually a problem in film, the audience are smart enough to understand that conversations can be happening off-screen. What Rob Sarkies does wrong is to overlay conversation that is happening in an entirely different location. The worst example of this is when the killer is slinking around we can hear a police officer talking. I kept thinking the killer was going to turn around and start shooting the police officer, but it turned out the police officer was miles away in a car so in no danger of being shot.
Overall it was an excellent film. It certainly recaptured the horror of the events is it was based on. But, as with so many New Zealand films the production value leaves a lot to be desired.
Labels: movie review, movies
share this: facebook
This entry was posted
on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 2:13 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment