Film

Liquid Sky

Name: Liquid Sky
Genre: Science Fiction, Thriller, Drama
Released: 1982
Cast: Anne Carlisle, Paula E. Sheppard, Bob Brady, Susan Doukas, Elaine C. Grove

Alien contact
Very dark
Strange

A deliberately strange 1982 science-fiction film about aliens harvesting a chemical released during orgasm from the bodies of New York's punk and gender-fluid underground. Visually hypnotic, deliberately artificial, aggressively uncommercial. For people who want cinema to feel dangerous and weird, not reassuring.

TMDb rating

2.9

Should you watch it?

Watch it if you love films that feel like a neon-lit fever dream, where cheap sets, synth scores and deadpan provocation carry more weight than plot logic.

Skip it if you need a story that clicks neatly, since this is more mood than narrative, and its stylised cool can feel thin and repetitive across nearly two hours.

What it asks of you: It runs just under two hours at a cold, deliberate pace, and it wants you to sit inside its garish, provocative mood without waiting for conventional payoffs.

Not sure? Find tonight's pick in a minute.

If you liked this

Eraserhead1977

Lynch's fever dream of industrial decay and sexual dread. Monochrome, surreal, genuinely unsettling. If Liquid Sky's weirdness appeals to you, this is the spiritual ancestor that made it possible.

But It's deliberately obscure and deeply uncomfortable. Twenty-seven minutes can feel like an hour. No plot to speak of, just mood and nightmare logic.

Possession1981

A New York relationship crumbles while a tentacled creature emerges from a bathtub. Deliriously unhinged body horror wrapped around genuine emotional devastation. Isabelle Adjani is phenomenal.

But Deeply disturbing and often gross. The creature effects are weird rather than scary. Long stretches are incoherent even by arthouse standards.

Videodrome1983

Cronenberg's masterpiece of media-induced paranoia and hallucinatory body horror. James Woods losing his mind to a mysterious signal. Nightmarish, visionary, bleakly funny.

But Intensely gross at times. The plot becomes deliberately harder to follow as the film progresses, which is the point but can feel frustrating.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from Liquid Sky

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night2014

Both films privilege visual and sonic atmosphere over narrative clarity. Both are vampire stories of a kind—one literal, one metaphorical. Both treat their outsider protagonists with genuine tenderness beneath the strangeness.

A vampire film set in a desolate Iranian-American community, shot in luminous black and white. Slow, dreamlike, unexpectedly romantic. A supernatural film as mood-poem, sharing Liquid Sky's commitment to style over plot.

But Contemplative to the point of stasis. Very little happens. The vampire mythology is ethereal rather than threatening. Patience is essential.

Stalker1979

Tarkovsky's meditative science fiction about a guide leading two men into a mysterious zone. Hypnotic pacing, metaphysical dread. Pure cinema as experience rather than narrative.

But Three hours of deliberate slowness. No action, minimal dialogue, almost nothing happens. Patience is not optional.

Under the Skin2014

Scarlett Johansson as an alien predator hunting humans in Scotland. Unsettling, sensual, visually extraordinary. Sound and image create dread without exposition.

But Extremely slow and cryptic. The final thirty minutes are nearly plot-free. If you need narrative clarity, this will frustrate you.

Mulholland Drive2001

Lynch's Hollywood fever dream. Nightclub performance, identity collapse, gorgeous cinematography. A masterpiece about cinema and desire that rewards repeated watching.

But Deliberately structurally confusing. The second half pulls the rug out. If you dislike ambiguous endings, you'll find this infuriating.

Pink Flamingos1972

John Waters' transgressive camp masterpiece. Gleefully obscene, cheerfully perverted, anarchic and alive. A genuine provocation that still shocks because it's genuinely transgressive.

But Some of the content is real, not simulated. Extremely offensive on purpose. Not recommended if you need your transgression metaphorical.

Suspiria1977

Argento's gorgeously nightmarish witch-house horror. Saturated colours, a thumping prog score, pure visual and sonic dread. Horror as hypnotic experience rather than jump-scare.

But The plot is wafer-thin. Dubbed dialogue is awkward. If you need coherent storytelling or character development, the style overwhelms both.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre1974

A film about atmosphere, panic, and the texture of terror. Low budget, mostly suggestion rather than gore. Tense and deeply effective as pure visceral cinema.

But Feels chaotic and almost documentary in its roughness. Some find it incoherent rather than artistic. The subject matter is bleak and pitiless.

Enter the Void2010

Both films use visual abstraction and electronic sound to create psychedelic states. Both are set among urban undergrounds. Both prioritise pure cinema experience over narrative coherence. Both are actively hostile to mainstream filmmaking.

A first-person camera descends through Tokyo's neon underworld after a drug deal gone wrong. The geometry of light and colour is the whole film. Hallucinogenic, visually overwhelming, unlike anything else.

But Nauseating for some. The camerawork is deliberately disorienting. Forty minutes in, you realise there's no traditional plot. A test of endurance as much as patience.

Performance.1970

Both films centre on gender-fluid or ambiguous protagonists navigating urban undergrounds. Both use fractured editing and artificial sound design to create altered states. Both are genuinely interested in sexual ambiguity and identity dissolution, not as shock tactics but as real human experience.

Mick Jagger in Roeg's hallucinatory masterpiece about a gangster hiding in a rock star's house. Identity dissolves. Gender blurs. Sexuality becomes fluid and strange. A genuinely transgressive masterpiece about performance and self.

But Difficult pacing, some sequences nearly incomprehensible. Very much a 1970 film. If you need your narrative delivered straight, this will feel indulgent and cold.