Friendship's Death

This film is now an incredible film to watch with so much hi ndsight it talks of AI and the problems of the Palestinian people, it has once again become relevant but probably not a socially acceptable film. I saw this when it came out and enjoyed the performance of an alien viewing Earth as a highly developed humanoid robot, that is appalled at our lack of compassion. The story now once again is relevant and there are surprising echoes of modern issues in it's dated story. I recommend this film and dare you to feel unmoved by what you see now of a problem we still see in the middle east today.

I suppose the people involved felt too superior to talk to some SF writers or SF fans and not make howlers in their science.

Procyon is a star, not a galaxy. People in the USA seem to keep confusing stars and galaxies, even in some SF series like The Invaders.

It is also not explained how they have the latest news of Earth, being more than 11 light-years away.

And a nuclear winter would kill most people but not everyone. The classic book On The Beach correctly has that as done by Cobalt Bombs, as does Doctor Strangelove.

Since Friendship could easily prove her non-human nature, and even drinks impossible amounts of alcohol to prove it, why not contact the US Embassy and be taken to MIT or the UN?

It is absurd to think that she would be mistreated. She represents an entire alien civilisation with superior technology.

All the talk about Palestinians and Israel misses the basic point - a widespread Jewish view that the whole land should be Jewish. Plus a failure by Palestinians to agree to something like the Oslo Agreement when they still have the Soviet Union there to balance the USA.

There area few comic remarks about machines. But on wider matters, the dialogue is banal, saying nothing new.

There is a kind of subtle trilogy of cult classics and subtle fantasy; Man facing Southeast (1986) The Man from Earth (2007) and Fiendship's Death (1987) I have to confess that I've seen them recently and I loved them very much because of what they have in common: the way in which the movie deals with that which has about science fiction. They base their speech on the dialogues and avoid making use of any super-special-effect to reinforce the plot, the meaning itself. They do not pretend that the story needs more technology than the mere word. All the aesthetics, the first and main sense of the film, rests solely on the story explained by the main character. This protagonist has a message for us and wants to make us think. It's a common premise in all three films and, frankly, it works. Even so, these films do not forget style and are elegant because of their restrained form. I celebrate that they don't want to embarrass me with empty spectacularity and that the magic holds on the words.

I saw this on tv many years ago,I might have seen it at the cinema.

The British Film Institute,who backed the film,have released it on blu ray.

I just watched the blu ray.

I give no plot spolilers.

A dialogue heavy film with 2 actors in every scene.

This film is a real nostalgia piece for me.

In the 1980s I spent many hours in the Filmhouse Edinburgh which was/is the art house cinema for the city.

I saw all sort of BFI sponsored films with strange plots and locations and scripts.

Like in a film I was fascinated by a young women who seemed to be at all the films I went to back then.

I wonder was she a film professional,a critic,was she Tilda Swinton one of the stars of this film.

One oddity of the film,there are many,is that Swinton is listed as the star but Bill Patterson was much better known than she was then.

Odd mix of quasi-science fiction with "My Dinner with Andre", plenty of inane babble which is rarely inspired or inspiring, utilizing a "Year of Living Dangerously" theme. Very stagy, with some intriguing shots, but very static and dry. Seeing a young Tilda Swinton -- fresh from theatre -- is the film's main attribute.