Liquid Sky (1983)

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The look of Liquid Sky has been inspired by the David Bowie album cover of Aladdin Sane as well as the new romantic imagery of British 1980s electro pop such as Visage.It does feature a horrid synth soundtrack and some pretty raw acting from many one time only performers.Liquid Sky is an unusual, surreal, kitsch cult film starring Anne Carlisle (Margaret as well as another male character). Many of the cast have distinctive face paint. The screen turns neon and psychedelic when we see it from the aliens point of view.Margaret has been possessed by aliens who have landed their flying saucer on top of her New York apartment building who have come looking to boost their endorphin through heroin. Only that the aliens discover that they can get a similar hit when they have orgasmic sex through her body and their sex partner mysteriously vanishes.A German scientist is investigating the mysterious flying saucer.Liquid Sky is a bizarre avantgarde film with a slim story. It has been restored for Blu Ray and looks fantastic, almost like those clubs that sprung up in London in 1980, where members of Spandau Ballet and Culture Club used to end up in.

Besides being an excellent low-budget sci-fi flick about female New York 1980s punks dealing drugs and interacting with space-aliens, (kind of in the spirit of REPO-MAN, but more raw and gnarly) this film contains something you will not (likely) see anywhere else: heterosexual oral sex between a man and a woman BOTH PLAYED BY THE SAME ACTRESS, in and out of drag. The lovely Anna Carlisle's female character pleasuring her male character.We've come a long way since those clumsy split-screen scenes in TV episodes of shows like "I Dream of Jeannie" and "Star Trek" where someone confronted his/her evil twin and you could see the barrier between the halves of the split-screen!

1. Absolutely the worst music of any film, ever. I'm not convinced that anyone will ever create music worse than this, no matter how many chances they are given. I just don't think it is actually possible. It's in my head now, and I want it back out. 2. Worst editing, ever. The plot and characters of this thing are nearly destroyed by bad editing. Lots of scenes where nothing happens. Lots of scenes abruptly cut short for no apparent reason. No flow. At least a half hour too long, probably more.3. Acting. Was there any? I've seen better acting in discount porn.4. Writing. It seems to be just this side of really bad single-take ad lib. One thing I can say is the plot seems to be open to interpretation. The plot summary given on Wikipedia bears only superficial resemblance to the plot of the film I saw.5. Effects. I realize everyone had a Commodore 64 in those days, but that level of technology doesn't do for good film-making. Today, there are a lot of fans of 8-bit games, sound, and video, and I'm one. But if you're going to use such a limiting technology, you've got to give it to someone with actual talent.Frankly, I have a hard time imagining anyone enjoying this film without first being temporarily or permanently mentally impaired in some way. One of the other comments here said it's "multilayered" requiring multiple viewings to "work at" it. First, no it isn't. But second, if you are an average person, and you have to "work at" viewing a film, then it's a colossal failure. The filmmakers are the ones paid to do the work, not the audience.I give this a 4/10 because it's irritating, but I don't actively hate it. Just the music. It makes as much sense with the sound off, so I recommend watching it that way, if you decide you have to see it at all. But it's almost certainly the worst 1982 film I've seen, or am likely to ever see.I guess there are some good things I can say about it. A. There was at least an identifiable plot. B. The costumes and make-up were interesting.

Eighties New York New Wave scene. Here it is, in a perfect time capsule. You can watch Boogie Nights or 200 Cigarettes if you want, but they can't recreate the atmosphere that this film lives and breathes.It is a low budget movie, which will put some viewers off. The story jumps around and can be confusing, which will bother even more. Put on top of that the odd music and disjointed visuals, and you have an acquired taste of a film which is loved dearly by a cult following and reviled by anyone with preset notions of what a movie should be.The story follows Margaret, an aspiring model, over a day or two as she goes clubbing, gets high, and prepares for a fashion shoot. Meanwhile, aliens are setting up camp nearby, searching for heroin. However, it is explained in a subplot involving a German scientist, that the aliens have found a substitute for opiates: a chemical in the brain produced during sex. And so, Magaret's sexual partners begin to die to feed the aliens.I think it is worth noting that the actress who plays Margaret gets a writing credit on the project. For me, it gives her performance another dimension. It is unusual storytelling, but remains a fascinating document for those who allow themselves to be transported to another time and place.