Prismark10
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.
lobofoam
Liquid Sky is set against the 80's punk scene, with most of the main characters working as avant-garde models. If the movement had been as bizarre as what is depicted in the film, I have no doubt it would still be around today. For a film with such a low-budget, the acting is surprisingly good. Anne Carlisle (who also worked on the script) plays dual roles. She stars as the main character, Margaret, a small town girl who moved to New York City seeking fame and fortune. While Margaret realized her dreams, life as a successful model seems joyless and empty. She has a monologue near the end of the film that is truly heartbreaking. These moments of cinematic magic occur when terrific acting meets terrific writing. Carlisle also plays Jimmy, a gay male model who serves as Margaret's antagonist. Paula Sheppard is perfectly cast as Margaret's girlfriend, a lesbian drug dealer. ...Then the aliens show up. While the special effects are a constant reminder of the film's 500,000 budget, they do possess a certain rough charm. The aliens themselves are never seen, and their spaceship is roughly the size of a dinner plate. Sometimes the film is shot from the alien's point-of-view, a cheap effect achieved by polarizing the film stock. What turns Liquid Sky from a mere curiosity into a cult classic is the deft direction of Vladislav Tsukerman. He creates a rich sense of mood and character through the use of unexpected and original camera angles and framing. With the help of some precise editing, he juggles a myriad of characters and subplots that don't converge until the end of the film. The overall effect is interesting, never disjointed. Admittedly, the downstairs heroin addict is given too much screen time and he has little to do with the overall plot (despite the fact that his drug of choice provides the film with his name.)
Claudio Carvalho
In New York, a small flying saucer lands on the roof of a penthouse seeking for heroin. In the apartment, the cocaine addicted model Margaret (Anne Carlisle) is a promiscuous bisexual androgynous woman that lives with her lover, the drug dealer Adrian (Paula E. Sheppard). Margaret has sex with many partners asking for cocaine in return. The aliens discover that the sensation of the orgasm is equivalent to the heroin and they suck the brains of Margaret's lovers, killing them first and then making their bodies disappear. Meanwhile, a German scientist is chasing the extraterrestrial beings and arrives in a building in front of Margaret's apartment to observe the creatures. "Liquid Sky" is one of the weirdest films that I have ever seen. When I saw this low-budget cult-movie for the first time in the 80's, I remember that I liked it a lot. However, now I have just watched it on DVD I have found the plot dated and the image needs to be restored. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Liquid Sky"
rgcustomer
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.
AD
