Liquid Sky (1983)

The Age of Commercialism

Purely Joyful Movie!

Overrated and overhyped

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

I saw this when it came out and was intrigued, and wondered if it would become a cult movie. Seeing it again, I see clearly why it never did.The premise, that aliens might be tiny and feast on our endorphins, whether from drugs or sex, was novel then. The (16-colour?) computer graphics to illustrate it were all we knew, and androgyny and sexual freedom were just beginning to be overshadowed by the AIDS epidemic.In hindsight, the film is amateurish: the characters and dialogue are as stilted as porn (or so I'm told). The music sounds like it is played on a Commodore 64, with an emphasis on square waves that hurt the ears, and Marin Marias' "Sonnerie" has never been so boring. The plot line makes little sense. The aliens leave glass daggers in the heads of two of the characters they kill, and the daggers vanish. The next two corpses themselves vanish, one in front of many onlookers who soon seem to forget the event. While the five deaths are all presented as if from the aliens' viewpoint (and all very similarly), we gain little insight into them or their modus operandi. Most of the human characters are unlikable and one of the two who is (albeit tedious), comes to an unjust and unhappy end.Rocky Horror (1975) did androgyny, camp, face-painting, sex, drugs & alien invasion vastly better, and with wit and songs. It's sad to think of what this might have been.

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.

The time is the 80's. Everyone is either A. on cocaine, B. a rapist, or C. a model. Those who are class B and C. are also class A. Everyone is dressed like extras from "Flash Gordon" with more fish-net, and all the music comes out of a Casio. Two androgynous bi-sexual models named Adrian and Margaret compete in the New York fashion underground for who is cattiest bitch and the most stylish a$$. Both characters are played surprisingly well by the same actress, to heighten both the androgyny of "the scene" at the time, and the repetition. Margaret is the main character, described by her male incarnation Adrian as "...an uptight WASP c*#t from Connecticut.", bookending the film, but being largely absent from its mushy middle. Amidst the usual backstabbing, s*^t talking, runway stomping, and sexual assaults (virtually the only kind of intercourse the film displays) visitors from beyond the stars have also taken an interest in the sordid little events.These aliens live in a tiny, largely invisible UFO, positioned on top of our heroines apartment where they can observe the events inside through a heavily pixilated color blur that resembles Chris Marker's invented film style "The Zone" from "Sans Soliel" or the heat vision the Rasta-lizard of "Predator" views the world through. This psychedelic point of view is repeated throughout the film, as the aliens are the most constant though silent narrators. Their interest in the Manhattan fashionista junky set comes from the same reason that so many are/were attracted to such places; the sex and the drugs. Human orgasm produces more chemical reactions in the brain than at any other time in life. The brain becomes the body's dealer, and the body explodes, shivers, and shrivels back to down to size, patiently awaiting or screaming for it's next fix. For tiny aliens the only drug in the universe better than our cum-chemical's, are these fluids when they come from the opiate riddled brain of a junky."The ancient Egyptians weren't afraid of euphoria", says a drug addled screen-writer in one of the films many inter-connected sub-plots.Thus aliens begin turning up at the fringes of "punk sub-culture" where the junk-cum getting is good and no one cares if people go missing. "New Wave" models are the next evolutionary step forward (for one they have more money drugs). So the junkies wait around to score, and the aliens wait for the junkies to score with each other. Unfortunately there is no way for the aliens to extract these chemicals without killing those they take from, which to Margaret who is often being raped by whoever is spilling their seed, it's as if God himself has suddenly taken an interest in her life. Not enough of an interest to stop her from being raped, but enough to make the bodies of the bad men (and women) disappear after they have done their business. It doesn't take long before she realizes that sex with her leads to death. "Margaret: I kill with my c^*t.". This new sexual power gives her both confidence (to get revenge on those who abused her), and a renewed sense of alienation (what little sexual release and connection she did have is now impossible)."Campy" is something of an understatement for describing "Liquid Sky", a film drenched head to day-glo toe in nihilist attitude, decadent fashion, disturbing sex, and surreal black humor. But also this campiness and seeming lack of "content" and seriousness make enough room for the moments of sincere cultural insight and emotional pathos to stand out in ways that would seem truly alien in a John Waters or Dusan Makavejev flick (two filmmakers "Liquid Sky" is indebted to).The ending of the film once Adrian and Margaret's feud has come to a literal and figurative "head" (couldn't resist the pun…I'm a bad person) is also surprisingly and even unnecessarily sad and vulnerable than would be required of something this "tasteless". Imagine if at the end of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" Brad and Janet had a serious talk about their changing sexuality, or their stifling childhoods or something. And now imagine that scene being successful.What would it be like to come to New York in the 80's from the suburbs? What would it be like to suddenly be surrounded by a never ending race for sensual pleasure and aesthetic perfection, where the tongues are either in your mouth or barbed, forked, and spitting venom at anything resembling "sentimental", or "soft"? What would it be like to thrive in this environment? Would it feel like being food for alien creatures, or would it feel it like feeding them. In a world built around the sexual image, would sex feel liberating, or just like another way to be used. "Liquid Sky" is an absurd pageant, but one not based completely in irony, it's cynicism is hard one from experience. Margaret's inevitable "falling in love" with the UFO, feels like a tragic romance, not a schlocky b-movie. The movie contains both styles in the end, and finds a parasitic way of letting one feed the other to make both aspects stronger. Who is top and who is bottom in this scenario is up to debate."Liquid Sky" is more of an "attitude" than a film, and I know how cheesy that sounds, but divorced from this attitude the performances fall flat. Devoid of the music the scenes would fall flat. Devoid of the humor the dialog would fall flat, and devoid of the dialog the film would fall flat. If any one part of this film were to be altered the rest would fall into chaos like a game of Jenga.As it is they all balance each other out in "cult classic" bliss, which may indeed be more style than substance. Of course Adriane might say something like "substance is for ugly people who lack style", and who am I to argue.

I can understand why many people would hate this film because it is very extreme, but more than any film I've ever seen, it captures that very brief era in New York City. Punk was over and pseudo-bohemianism was coming next but hadn't arrived yet. The film depicted a fantasy, but that's what New York felt like at that time. I remember going to see it with some friends and being astonished because I had never seen anything remotely like it. It was like "The Wizard of Oz" meets "Naked Lunch". I think what made it work was the combination of the clothes, the disaffected people, and the soundtrack which probably sounds a little cheap now, but sounded spectacularly strange and beautiful at the time. Anne Carlisle's performance as Margaret was a heartbreaker. It wasn't until near the end of the movie that I realized that it was, essentially, a love story between her and the aliens. Paula Sheppard's performance as Adrien was also a standout. Unfortunately it was Paula's last movie, and Anne only had a couple of very small roles after that. A couple of trivia points: the club they went to was The Underground, which was located at the corner of Broadway and 17th Street, across from Union Square. There is a now a big box pet supply store at that location, but it was kind of a seedy area in those days. I was working down the street at the time and remember the movie being made. The penthouse apartment appeared to be somewhere nearby. I would guess that it was on 18th, 19th or 20th Street, between Fifth Ave and Sixth Ave. It's now a very fashionable area, but in those days it was the photo district, and was semi-industrial with very little residential space.