Just what I expected

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

After watching this movie I had to distance myself from it for a while. Had I sat down to write about it immediately after the end result would have been no more tasteful or artistic than the film itself (not that it will be now). I found that the movie fell into that category of film far too many do, a world where the end product is praised and held in high esteem in an attempt to sound like you're part of the scene it comes from, an elite group that caters to their friends while ignoring anyone willing to fork out money to see their work. In other words pretentious crap.The story begins with a small UFO landing on a building in New York City (because that IS the center of the world for people who make movies like this). The reason it has chosen this location is apparently because of the lower moral standards of the people there, in particular those who hang out in the club scene who are fond of heroin.As we later learn the aliens onboard, who are depicted as the retina of an eyeball veins and all, have come here in the hopes of gathering their own form of heroin. When humans are in the throes of passion and orgasm their brains emit the same chemical compounds that junkies claim to feel when getting high. The aliens then consume this chemical compound and dispose of the bodies.The apartment house the aliens have come to roost of bodes well for their collecting process. Living on the top floor are Margaret (Anne Carlisle) and Adrian (Paula E. Sheppard). Margaret is a bisexual model moved to the city in the hopes of pursuing a career and her inner muse. That muse inspires her to bleach and tease her hair, to wear clothing found only on the walkways of fashion designers and garish makeup that looks like neon colored war paint, all stripes and lines. Adrian is a lesbian electro punk composer/performer who also deals heroin.The club scene is where these two hang out along with a group of other scene members who seem to feed off of one another. Models and photographers who take pictures for magazines that only the models and photographers and scene members by, a circle of sorts. Adrian plays what passes as music here while others gyrate for what passes as music.Among this group is Jimmy (also Anne Carlisle), a young man who everyone considers beautiful and a definite junkie in need of a fix. When no one here will give him heroin for free he approaches his mother Sylvia for a loan to buy drugs and she writes him a check.Things begin to jump from there. A college professor meets with old colleague Johann who tells him about the aliens but doesn't help him. He then goes to Margret's, an ex-student, and has sex with her and is killed by the aliens. Johann wants to view the aliens he has located and the best location to do that is a high rise which happens to be where Sylvia lives. He meets her and she lets him in her apartment to view the aliens while at the same time trying to seduce him. From here it gets stranger. I know, that term seems odd by this point.If Ed Wood had been provided with the money needed to make a film, had done heroin and found himself in the art world of NYC during this time period, he might have been the person responsible for this film. But since he was dead when the film was made back in 1982 we can't blame him for this one. Instead we can pass that off to director/co-writer Slava Tsukerman and fellow co-writers Carlisle and Nina Kerova. One has to wonder if they came up with the idea during a drug induced binge at some point. I can hear them in my mind much like the character Larry Kroger in ANIMAL HOUSE the first time he's stoned discussing the possibility of Earth resting on the fingertip of some creature as if he's discovered the meaning of existence. It might have sounded amazing while wasted but once you came down how could this seem like a great idea? Unless of course you thought of yourself as an "artist".While I've come to appreciate the things others do as art and while it is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder, there is much out there that lays claim to that distinction yet falls far short. It almost always finds a home among a group of similar minded people who, like the characters in this film, feed off of one another. They support the group and the mentality of the group, insuring that each is fed enough of their belief in one another so as to continue and accept what they do as art. In addition to that they ridicule others who don't "get" them or "understand" their art. In essence they think of themselves above all the simple minded folk who are "beneath" them. The end result is a tiny enclave of "artists" who pat each other on the back and ignore the rest of the world.What is sad are the followers, those around the world who look to them for inspiration. These people think that the only place you can find anything worthwhile is in those small enclaves. They would die to be included in the group. They will support anything done by them, buy it all while being chastised for having money, promote it as the new thing while it is ignored by millions and talk about how only the elite understand. It boils down to the cool kids versus the rest so many remember from high school days. It's a tiny group.The dictionary defines pretentious as "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed." This is exactly what this film and those like it are. Nothing more than an attempt to impress with something they don't honestly possess.All of that said the film has developed a cult following. Made for just $500,000 it grossed $1.7 million when it was released in 1983. No, that doesn't make it the next blockbuster film but it does mean it was at least profitable. It found more notice once it went to video, no doubt the images on the cover catching the eye of unsuspecting viewers. Even today many who love the film claim to have discovered it first on video when they were young and had no idea what it was about. One person told me the movie was great when you were drunk and watching it. I somehow think that perhaps that would be the best way to watch it.In looking up information on the movie before writing I found the typical style of praise for the film. Some called it visionary. Another written piece claimed it predicted the rise of AIDS. A review in the New York Times praised it while at the same time misidentifying one of the main characters as Larry instead of Jimmy. But more common than anything was reading that the movie had been rediscovered by hipsters. That explains a lot.Love it or hate it, much praise must be heaped on Vinegar Syndrome in their presentation of this film. They've rescued it from the low grade world of VHS and are offering it in premiere style packaging and production. The odds that you've found this film in this good a condition are non-existent. But then Vinegar Syndrome has dedicated itself to saving obscure and forgotten movies from disappearing. They should be applauded for that.The company released the film earlier this year with a 3,000 copy limited edition run that sold out. This should prove there is a market for strong independent films that have been forgotten by more mainstream companies. My guess is if those companies were handling a film like this it would not receive the same loving care that Vinegar Syndrome provides to their titles. That's already been seen in how major studios have handled several other low budget cult films.Vinegar Syndrome has heaped on the extras for this release, offering it to a wider audience this time around. Missing this time is the dayglow slipcover that was made for the limited edition but the rest is still all here. To start with the film has a newly scanned and restored in 4k from the 35mm original negative which means it is the cleanest the film has ever been presented. Other extras include a brand new commentary track with director Tsukerman, an interview with Carlisle, an introduction Tsukerman, a 50 minute making of documentary, a Q&A shot during a presentation of the film at the Alamo Drafthouse with Tsukerman, Carlisle and Clive Smith who did the music, an isolated soundtrack, outtakes, an alternate opening sequence, behind the scenes rehearsal footage, theatrical trailers, a still gallery and reversible artwork.As is obvious, this movie wasn't my type of film and my guess is that for the average film lover it won't be as well. The more adventurous might enjoy it. Those who view film only through the eyes of art will love it. And fans will want to make a point of picking up a copy as soon as possible since the rush to by the limited edition left many hanging. No matter what you think of the film, the fact that a company like Vinegar Syndrome has treated a movie like this with the affection they have speaks volumes for the company. Let's hope they continue to find and release movies the same way down the road.

Entertaining festival entry that combines new wave/punk/80's art school filmmaking style with insane club fashion and a dark, distressing allegory about AIDS, addiction, homosexuality and sexual violence.The characters in the film are generally foul-mouthed, and hedonistic. Much of the stories running time focuses on an androgynous female model surrounded by fashion types, poseurs, addicts and people with violent, abusive sexual behaviour, except the central characters own sexuality kills them.Often the film segues into deeply strange montages of cityscapes, club interiors and fashion items in a way that's totally disconnected from standard film editing language, and the script veers from hilarious to impassioned and descriptive.In a distinct contrast to commercial Hollywood, none of the characters truly have "hearts of gold", and at no point is the audience witness to soaring sentimental pap about human suffering and vague gestures of universality or love, so for that reason in itself Liquid Sky is truly alternative cinema of it's day.The "plot" centres on the idea of a small UFO landing in New York, killing people to harness their sexual energy. It's a metaphor for the AIDS virus before the concept had become widely known in the news media. Occasionally pretentious, or somewhat repetitive, but nonetheless the films distinctively foreign voice and mixture of bizarre audio and lapses into psychedelic montage create an indelibly unique stamp.

I saw this movie in New York in 1982, when it came out. I was only 18, then, a nerdy teen trying to act blasé. Pretentious art-house antics, I scoffed. But, the picture stayed with me, over the years. Every once in a while, I would think of it. Gradually, all but the most basic plot line evaporated from memory. I just saw it again now, for old time's sake, and have to say it really impressed me. Despite its many faults (bad acting, lame scripting, among them), this is an outstanding piece of work. Not only is Anne Carlisle an amazing figure - straight out of Nan Goldin's 'Ballad of sexual dependency' - some of her dialogues are profound and prescient. So much of this movie was ahead of its time: the music, the visuals, the attitude, even the discussion of endorphins, which were then so little understood that they don't even use the word in the screenplay. This is one of the great pieces of independent film-making from the 1980s. Two more concepts that were little understood at the time this film was made and which it helped to shape: the 80s and the idea of 'indie'.

Herion influenced.So why did it look like a bad acid trip?Artistic (hah) view of self-obsessed models in NYC during the (very) early 80's. This film is so dated it's almost a crime. Unfortunately only people alive in that era will like it.Pint sized Aliens land on a ledge in Manhattan and give a local model a killing.....no won't say it. However she uses it a lot and doesn't seem to be to upset by it. The male and female leads are the same person. Anna Carlisle doing double duty here. Not hard to tell really. The technical specs are very amateur.Paula Sheppard might be recognized from "Alice Sweet Alice." She almost steals the film with her OTT monologues. The rest of the cast were just there.A 100% Russian production.....in 80's NYC.