Out of Blue (2018) Reviews

• A clichéd, predictable, tonally inconsistent mess

  Bertaut2019-03-10

  Part murder-mystery, part esoteric cosmological rumination, part metaphysical neo-noir, 's Out of Blue is a complete shambles. That this is so gives me no pleasure at all, as I'm a big fan of both and . Dreams, in particular, was a seismic gut punch of a movie, beautifully made, and thoroughly sobering. I saw Morley do Q&As for both films at the Dublin International Film Festival, and I've always found her to be articulate and insightful, so I was really looking forward to Out of Blue. Loosely based on 's 1997 novel Night Train, the film wears its influences very much on its sleeve, primarily (whose son, serves as a producer) and . Obviously designed as a puzzle, the story only ever seems half-formed, as if we're seeing it through gauze. Mixing tones, themes, and styles, the film tries to be many things at once, but ultimately ends up being none of them; far too simplistic to be a fully realised examination of the nature of existence, far too predictable to be a whodunnit, far too clichéd to be a noir. Set in New Orleans in an unspecified time period, the film begins with rising astrophysicist Jennifer Rockwell ( ), an expert on black holes and a proponent of the multiverse theory, giving a lecture on how humans are "made of stardust". The following morning, her body is found in the observatory in which she worked, shot three times. Homicide detective Mike Hoolihan ( ), a recovering alcoholic who lives for the job, lands the case. As she starts investigating, she learns that Jennifer had become increasingly disturbed by the nature of her research into black holes. The daughter of Vietnam War veteran and wealthy businessman, Colonel Tom Rockwell ( ), and his wife, Miriam ( ), Jennifer had a fraught relationship with her parents, and many of her colleagues. Soon, Hoolihan has two main suspects; Jennifer's shifty and seemingly perpetually nervous boss, Professor Ian Strammi ( ) and her boyfriend/colleague, Duncan Reynolds ( ), who, upon finding out that Jennifer is dead, doesn't ask "how" or "when", but "why". The investigation will ultimately involve quantum mechanics, dark matter, string theory, Schrödinger's cat, and the double-slit experiment, as well as forcing Hoolihan to confront a childhood trauma she has repressed, of which the murder seems to be evoking flashbacks, and an unsolved serial killer case from the 1970s; the ".38 Killer", who always killed women that looked a lot like Jennifer. I haven't read the Amis novel on which the film is based, so I don't know if Morley has been successful in transplanting the tone to film, but irrespective of that, Out of Blue attempts to connect the relative mundanity of human suffering to the vast unknowable mysteries of the universe. On the surface, this is quite similar to what does in . However, whereas Malick was essentially making the point that the birth of a galaxy is analogous with the birth of a child and that spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive, Morley sets our existence as a random and infinitesimal fragment in the impossible-to-conceive-of enormity of the universe. Although ostensibly set in a realistic milieu, the film has an undercurrent of Lynchian weirdness that seems to place it just ever so slightly outside normality, with Morley intermixing her larger metaphysical concerns with a mundane whodunnit. To be fair, she does give us clues that the murder investigation is not where the audience should be focused; for example, when Hoolihan first arrives at the crime scene, as a detective is briefing her, the sound fades out and the camera moves away, suggesting the details of the crime are irrelevant. However, this doesn't change the fact that the predictable outcome of the investigation has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with black holes and the multiverse, with the reveal of the killer seemingly overriding the film's more esoteric themes. Audiences will be left asking such questions as why is there so much information on Jennifer's research; is it all just an elaborate MacGuffin; is it simply that Morley was unable to find a way to dramatize it, thereby integrating the two strands of the film? The idea is obviously that in searching for the killer, Hoolihan is essentially discovering herself, played out against the backdrop of infinity, but the film never addresses why we should care, as it doesn't actually say anything interesting or significant about the connection between humanity and the strange goings-on of space-time. The quotidian nature of the whodunnit isn't helped by the fact that much of the acting is questionable, which seems unbelievable given the cast. Jackie Weaver appears to be in a completely different film to everyone else; James Caan is simply doing an imitation of in ; as novice reporter Stella Honey, and and as Jennifer's creepy twin brothers never manage to escape the archetypal noir parameters of the characters they play; and , as Hoolihan's boss and colleague, respectively, are basically extras; even Patricia Clarkson struggles with breathing life into the material, although it's certainly unfortunate that the film is being released not so long after 's infinitely superior , in which gives a similar performance. Much of the problem, however, lies with Morley's script, rather than the actors. Essentially refusing to allow the audience any kind of emotional connection with the characters, Morley instead reduces the performances to shouting and clichés. There is one excellent scene in which Hoolihan gets drunk and takes off her clothes onstage at a strip club, and it's excellent because it's the one scene where Clarkson is allowed to engage with the audience at an emotional level, evoking both shock and pity. Even the always-excellent is off his game, with his score failing to provide much in the way of texture or nuance, and occasionally seeming to actively work against what we're seeing. On the other hand 's cinematography is excellent, flattening New Orleans in the background, and essentially creating an oppressive and generic geographical location that could be anywhere and is always just out of reach, something which works in tandem with Hoolihan's repressed memories. With the identity of the killer proving so banal (and just so predictable), the film essentially tasks its metaphysical component with doing all the heavy lifting, and this certainly does seem to be Morley's main concern. However, despite creating a dream-like narrative, always receding from the viewer, Morley can't cut loose of the shackles of genre, with the film's last act falling back on melodrama and unlikely coincidences. Ultimately, we're left with a film where nothing emerges fully formed. If it's really about Hoolihan's existential discovery of self, why is psychological nuance utterly absent? If it's a murder mystery, why is it so predictable and trite? If it's an esoteric rumination about eternity and the universe, why are so many of the necessary components presented in such a simplistic manner? Morley's themes and tones end up tripping over and undermining one another, as she singularly fails to integrate the metaphysical concepts with the murder plot. All in all, it's a misfire for a heretofore promising director.

• Suicidal depression most acute from: a) pondering ones cosmic insignificance, or b) watching yet another failed Martin Amis adaption

  random-707782019-03-22

  Despite knowing "a" to be true for all of us, I have to say that it is "b." Can both be true? Can both be superpositioned like the state of that cat in the box? "Out of the Blue" proves this. Seriously, enough of Schrodinger's cat lite meets Chekhov's gun; Amis is barely a humorous fellow, but there is some humor in his novel "Night Train" on which this utterly awful film is based. Some of that humor at least may have made this tolerable -- but we don't even get that. Leave the box unopened, the cat resting, and skip this mess.

• All sounds good so far but.......

  markthomassintek2019-03-27

  REVIEW - OUT OF BLUE We are all made of star dust, we are everyone and everyone is us. For every decision we make the other decision exists in an alternate dimension. Critics have described this film as stunning, a masterpiece and an experience so I just had to watch. An astronomer is found dead in what seems to be strange circumstances and the film follows the police officers investigation into what happened. All sounds good so far but....... Very slow and I'm afraid to say very boring even when strange things start to happen to the police officer investigating, is it the dead astronomer making contact from an alternate dimension or illusions from....... Such a shame because the BFI (British Film Institute) have an amazing track record of making some ground breaking films but I'm afraid to say this isn't one of them. Rating 4 out of 10

• No Standard Police Fare

  Raven-19692018-09-22

  Dark matter in the distant reaches of the universe is mysterious and unreachable, but so are certain truths inside of us. When a young professor is murdered in New Orleans a veteran homicide detective (Patricia Clarkson) tries to unravel the clues leading to the perp. The more she uncovers the more unsettled she becomes, for the case is complex and difficult to crack, and yet eerily familiar. The instincts and companions she once trusted, lead her to dead ends. Little clues to the murder such as a scarf, necklace and music box, are also tied to personal memories. She begins to sense that the answers to the case are inside her as well as around her. We live in the universe and it lives in us. We are all made of stardust after all. Observation changes the result. This is no standard police fare, it is much better than that. The female detective relies on being wise and subtle to solve cases, not brawn and force. It took me a while to shift my perspective (expecting to see action, which seems part and parcel to every Hollywood detective story), and I must see the film again to appreciate it more. Patricia Clarkson is perfect for the role and wisely cast. Supporting actors including James Caan, are no afterthoughts. The director at the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival world premiere remarked that the main character is looking at other people and missing herself. This is refreshing for a police story. I was delighted by this intelligent and alternative exploration of police work, the nature of the universe and human nature.

• Terrible film.

  martinltalbot2019-03-29

  Terrible, terrible film. There really is no getting away from it. Saw this at the LFF and it was an awful mess, unbelievable dialogue, awful acting, portentous, pretentious, really really poor. I would rank it among the five worst films I've ever seen, I'm afraid. Yes it is brave and bold in choosing to place a female detective protagonist at the heart of the film, great choice of lead actress in Patricia Clarkson, it does also have a bold visual identity and there is an interesting idea in here. But it tries far to hard to be a Lynchian take on a classic detective story, when it should be focusing on the basics. Of course, Carol Morley is to be championed. She is a promising, bold British female filmmaker. And I suspect this is why she has garnered a few decent reviews for this film. But it is impossible to deny that this is a significant misstep.