"From the last place on earth comes a true story of courage and survival."

Such is the marketing tagline that accompanies Robert Sarkies' "Out of the Blue," a gripping docudrama that re-enacts the horrific events of a shooting spree in a small New Zealand town. Here's a summary of our CineVerse group discussion on this unforgettable movie.

IN WHAT WAYS WAS THIS MOVIE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU ANTICIPATED, AND DID IT EXCEED OR NOT MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS IN ANY WAY?

• This is a not a typical true crime thriller film in the Hollywood tradition where it’s either a police procedural, melodramatic re-enactment where we focus on one particular hero or character, solve-the-mystery-or-motive type story, a gripping true life study in horror, or even an inspirational tale of survival. Instead, the movie employs a detached approach that seems to simply present the facts, and letting the details unfold naturally without exploitation, sentimentality, or overt cinematic manipulation and without making moral judgments.

• It’s marketed as a possible strong lead vehicle for hunky up-and-coming action star actor Keith Urban—familiar for appearing in the Lord of the Rings, Bourne, and Star Trek films—yet he is neither the main character given the most screen time, nor is he the ultimate hero who takes down the gunman. He even has a chance to shoot the gunman dead in his sights but wavers. Instead, this picture doesn’t rely have any predominant star or indisputable lead character. There are several personalities whose stories coalesce to tell the tale.

• This movie is not focused on explaining motives or rationales; it doesn’t try to give us a back story, flashback elucidations, or expository dialogue that provides all the answers. By the conclusion, we still don’t know why the killer guns down all his victims or what set him off. Yes, we see briefly that he is disturbed by memories, visions or paranoid delusions, but we aren’t really shown or told what has brought him to this point.

• The picturesque New Zealand setting itself is presented as a major character and a paradoxical contrast to the horrific events that occur. Consider how beautiful and breathtaking the natural landscape is, and how long the filmmakers choose to linger on these natural amenities: arguably, the viewer is forced to ask, “how can such ugly, violent and disquieting human behavior erupt in such a beautiful, peaceful and quiet place?”

• The early setup scenes, depicting the happy, calm lives of the citizens, make the ensuing violence all the more shocking because it feels “out of the blue.” There is also no foreboding music meant to warn us. In fact, there is no music at all, save at the conclusion of the picture when the danger is over. Blogger Edwin Davis wrote: “Showing the gentle humor and wit of the people, as well as what will soon be lost, raises the stakes much higher than if the film had leapt right to the shooting…Not only is it shocking, but the film itself feels like it is in shock: There's a deadened atmosphere to the whole film that suggests the feeling of having experienced something without being able to process it. Sarkies really makes you feel every impact and share the fear of the people as they run for their lives, or try to stay as still as possible until the danger passes.”

• There is no stylized violence; we’re not shown gore or even as much blood as we could have been.

IF IT’S NOT MEANT TO EXPLOIT THE TRAGEDY FOR MOVIE ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS FILM AND THE MORAL TO THE STORY? WHY MAKE THIS MOVIE?

• It underscores the power and poignancy of a community’s response to violence and tragedy.

• Man’s inhumanity to his fellow man and the potential for violence and suffering can happen anywhere at any time, even in “the last place on earth,” as the film’s tagline phrases it.

• The film pays homage to the bravery and perseverance of the victims—ordinary human beings in an extraordinarily terrifying situation. Consider how the film actually names its characters after the real life people and lists their names in the closing credits.

DOES THE FILM DO AN INJUSTICE TO THE VICTIMS BY ARGUABLY HUMANIZING THE GUNMAN OR NOT TAKING A MORAL STAND ON THE WRONGNESS OF THESE KILLINGS?

• Note that we see the gunman crying before he wipes off his paint, we see him afraid of angry villagers and dogs pounding at his door (delusions, of course), and we see him writhing in pain and angst as the SWAT team celebrates a victory smoke.

• New York Sun reviewer James Bowman wrote: “If evil is something that comes "out of the blue," and not as a result of rationally explainable moral choices, then Gray must be as much its victim as those he kills. The film makes no moral judgments, here or anywhere else, preferring instead to enjoy the artistic prerogative of creating a tableau of tragedy and victimhood that can be appreciated aesthetically and emotionally. To me, that is a serious limitation, an abdication of moral responsibility.”

• Philip Matthews, critic for The Listener, suggested the following: “What is touching about Out of the Blue…is the pity that they seem to express for Gray. It’s there in two passing moments. One comes near the end, when Gray is finally caught and shot by the Anti-Terrorist Squad, and he’s on the ground, tied up like a pig and shrieking, and the Anti-Terrorist Squad guys look at each other and light up cigarettes, like hunters celebrating a kill. The other comes earlier, when Gray is hiding out in an empty crib in the middle of the night. He unpacks a radio and flicks between stations. None of us could have any idea what Gray chose to listen to – maybe he wanted to know what they were saying about him on talkback?”

OTHER FILMS SIMILAR TO “OUT OF THE BLUE”

• “Elephant”

• “United 93”

• “Karla”

• “Bad Blood”

• “Monster”

• The films “Dahmer,” “Ted Bundy,” “Gacy,” and “The Hillside Strangler”

• “Once Were Warriors”