IMDb user comments for
Automaton Transfusion (2006)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

34 comments in total

---

32 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
Hey guys.... wanna make a movie this weekend?, 7 March 2008

Author: from United States

Yeah. I got my moms camera, and so If you guys aren't doing anything you should totally ask your friends to help. We'll need everyone we can get from school. My dad said he'd be willing to be in it too.

I already have a script I started working on last week. Just get some red food coloring and we'll go from there.

The horror equivalent of cheap porn. Just blood, no substance.

No. Ash would not be proud. Neither should anyone involved with this film.

Please don't bother continuing.

Special thanks: Everyone at highschool

---

18 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
This movie sucks balls., 9 March 2008

Author: Analchomp from United States

I'm never supporting Bloody Disgusting again. Their dumb a^s quote is what made me rent this movie. Maybe I just don't know what "Holy Grail" means. Does "Holy Grail" mean "piece of s^^t"? If so, my bad for being so confused. I don't give a God d^^m if it only cost $30000 to make this movie. I don't watch movies to donate to the bad film maker charity. I watch movies to be entertained and this movie was way disappointing.

First thing, the film quality sucks. I think it was shot on digital video. I've always wondered if a movie could be good shot on digital video. After watching this movie, I'm still wondering.

The acting sucks. It's your typical really really bad acting. I can't act at all but I'd fit in somewhere as a star in this cast.

Stupid stuff happens. They drive to some downtown area and it's dead quiet. Then the camera switches angles and there's like 50 zombies running down the street about 20 yards in front of them. Did the zombies teleport there or something? And why are all of the zombies 19 years old? Whatever.

The script is horrible. The Army was conducting an experiment in the city this movie takes place in so they set up one of their chief officers as an undercover janitor. Lol. The zombies just pop out of nowhere. Everybody's going to school and next thing you know one of their classmates is a zombie. Did the virus spread through the air? Was he bitten by a zombie before? Whatever. And the ending, well I won't ruin it for you because it's already ruined.

I was going to give this movie 2 stars but now that I think about it I'm giving it one. This is a movie that you'd show your friends at community college film class and they'd all say, "Cool dude." You're going to make it one day." Then they'd go smoke some weed and forget about it 5 hours later. This movie sucks balls.

---

17 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't Hate the Haters Hate the Film, 4 September 2006

Author: gnd_hog from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Film makers: We understand that you put your heart into this film. We understand that it is a low budget indie flick. We understand that you fancy yourself anti-corporate counter-culture rebels. None of this makes your film good. The world is not your parents' refrigerator. We are not obliged to paste up and fawn over your mediocre creations just because you worked hard on them.

Lest you write me off as a jealous hater who hasn't even seen the film. I was at the screening. The director acknowledged his parents in the audience and commented that they wouldn't let him go to late movies when he was a kid, so now he's forcing them to see his movie at midnight.

I found the film excruciatingly bad. There are numerous logical flaws. The characters do things just because the writer says that they do, not because they are driven emotionally by the circumstances or interactions. It is unoriginal, borrowing from every zombie movie of the last 20 years. It is dull and predictable. Some of this you could fix with some script edits and a little re-shooting or a second pass at editing. Some of it you can't.

As a novice filmmaker, shouldn't you ask why these people hated your film? Chalk this one up to lessons learned. You made a feature film, which is no easy task. Take those lessons and make a better film next time. By the way, even talented directors miss sometimes. Rob Reiner made North. M. Night Shyamalan made Lady in the Water. Kevin Smith made Jersey Girl. Francis Ford Coppola made Godfather III, and on and on. Your film was a labor of love, but it failed to entertain. And since that is its purpose, we have reason to hate.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Like Return of the Living Dead...IF IT SUCKED!!!, 8 April 2008

Author: Aaron1375 from Alabama

This was without a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen. What gets me is that is ranks a 4.2 here at IMDb, the place that is extremely hard on horror movies. How is it ranked so high? I love horror movies, but never before have I considered stopping a movie in the middle of it as I have with this one. However, I persevered and was rewarded with more crap. The acting is horrible, I have never before wanted people dead in my life and I am not talking about the characters...I am speaking of the actual actors. Even the zombies were horrible in this one. The only reason this one must be ranked high is the gore, which is good, but even with that I could not rank this movie any higher. The plot, losers go to bar, other more popular losers go to house in the middle of nowhere, zombies go on the attack, general running here and there and then wham movie ends in the most stupid fashion ever. During which time we have the lead guy trying to save his girlfriend, and this lead guy is the most annoying dip in the film and his scream is very annoying as well. I so wanted him to die, but he just kept going. We have a scene where the streets were empty and our three "heros" are just looking, the next thing you know there are zombies all around them to the point they can not make it to their car two feet to the left. You have a girl that gets into a convertible and seems to relax like she is safe. You also have worse production values and worse acting than found in most porn films, and you do not even get to see a boob or two in this film. All you really get to see is a bunch of people covered in blood screaming with a few good gore effects here and there. I knew this movie was going to be trouble when we were introduced to the actors while incredibly bad music played. By the way what was up with the super zombies anyway, they can rip a jaw off a girl, but can't get into a bar block off with a chair? To much bad stuff, just to much...must seek out filmmakers, make it so sequel can not be made.

---

5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
I don't even know where to begin..., 25 March 2008

Author: brando647 from Tampa, FL

I can only think of very few good things to say about this movie. The best way to sum it up is that it's a low-budget zombie horror flick. Don't go in expecting anything more. In fact, the lower you set your expectations, the better off you are. Honestly, this movie was such poor quality I had a hard time sitting through it. The filmmakers seem like they were out to have a good time when they shot this, but the end result is barely tolerable. The movie is barely 75 minutes long, but it felt like it took FOREVER to watch.

The list of what makes this movie near-unwatchable is long, so I'll try to keep this somewhat brief. The first thing I noticed about this movie was the picture quality. I don't know how best to describe it other than saying it looked as if they took a frame or two out every couple seconds. Motion in the movie seemed to have a jerky, stop-n-go feel to it that got old real fast.

On top of the odd choppy visuals, the movie appeared to be shot nearly all hand-held and, therefore, most of the best action was undecipherable. You can barely tell what exactly is going on in some of the zombie attacks. I think the biggest example occurs later in the movie when the protagonists are running through the woods with their newly-acquired weapons, the zombies attack and everything gets shaky. Next thing you know, one of the protagonists is in a car with someone who wasn't there before and they drive off. Moments later, everything goes shaky again the the two of them fall from the sky into a lake. WTF, mate? How did they maneuver from Point A to Point B here....?

The film suffers from the usual low-budget horror issues: terrible continuity, poor acting, horrendous dialogue, a mediocre story, and plot holes the size of the the Grand Canyon. And another thing: what's the deal with the title of this movie? I can't understand how it makes any sort of sense, at all. It's odd when someone asks what you're watching, you answer "Automaton Transfusion", and their eyes glaze over in confusion. Is it a medical documentary? Does it have some to do with machines? No, it's a zombie movie. Bah?

There is one decent quality to this entire film: the gore effects. They weren't spectacular, but they were pretty good for the meager budget they were working with. Rick Gonzalez did a fantastic job with some of the feasting and attack scenes in this movie. Honestly, if you can overlook the other issues with this movie, it's worth at least one watch-through to check out some of the effects.

One final thing (and this is more of a WTF question): after all hell breaks loose at the house party, why did the one blonde chick climb into her CONVERTIBLE and pause to think, as if "Ahhh...a moment of piece of gather my thoughts...". It's not as if the car has windows, a roof, anything to SLOW DOWN an attacking zombie and give her a moment to drive away. All it has to do is CLIMB OVER THE BACK SEAT. Seriouly....come on....

---

9 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
It ain't great, but damn, it's entertaining!, 7 January 2008

Author: ZombieLuvr-1 from United States

There are a bunch of low budget zombie movies out there right now that are a lot of fun and I try to see them all. I saw Automaton in May or June of 2007 in San Francisco at the Hole in the Head film festival. It played with Zombie Farm and Driller back to back to back. Zombie Farm is a kick ass zombie movie, too. Driller was a goofy, but entertaining slasher-monster movie.

All the movies had good theater crowds (at the Roxie) that were there for the movies and not just for the filmmakers.

If you're not expecting the budget and acting of studio movies, then all of these are worth seeing. Automaton is pretty relentless. Again, it's low budget, so don't go in expecting multi million dollar precision, set that aside and you'll like it a lot. It's coming out on DVD in March. The mood and gore overcome a mediocre story to make this movie well worth buying.

Zombie Farm is way over the top with gore and comedy. Sit back and enjoy the ride, but don't look too deep and you won't be disappointed. I just saw that it's out on DVD now, so it's worth watching. The acting is so over done that I'm not sure if it's really good or really bad, but it's entertaining.

Driller is pretty polished and looks to have a much higher budget than either of the others. The story line is fun and the movie has good gore, but the acting is awful. Get past that, and I really liked this one too. No word on the DVD yet.

I rate movies like this for what they are. In the low budget zombie genre, Zombie Farm and Automaton Transfusion are eights or nines. If you compare them to Oscar Winners, then they're more like fours. I give Driller a six on the entertainment scale and a three on the Oscar scale.

The low budget invasion has landed and in the midst of a bunch of crap there are some gems. None of these are the next Night of the Living Dead, but they are all very enjoyable (and, actually, better quality than NOTLD).

---

10 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
this flick.... to me, is what every zombie/ indie flick should be, 20 October 2006

Author: Scottyboy209 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I just returned from Screamfest, i only got a chance to see one of the flicks offered at this years screamfest, and that flick was "Automaton Transfusion". I was pretty excited since this was my first film festival experience, and i had a lot of fun, and the fact that the movie i saw.... kicked ass was just awesome. I got to meet director Steven Miller and he was a great guy, a lot of the actors were there to. Anyways on to the review.

The story is pretty to the point.... three teens find themselves in the middle of town surrounded by a lot of zombies, and instead of hiding out, they decide to fight. The way the zombies come about is kinda basic as well, you don't really find out until the end, so.... SPOILERS****

The army was doing testing to bring the dead to life so they could use them for wars instead of soldiers, they decided to test them on this small town, and the zombies were not able to be controlled..... uh oh.

The movie is very, very low budget, so if those kind of films bother you..... snap out of it. Because this flick.... to me, is what every zombie/ indie flick should be. Throughout the entire movie, which only clocks at about an hour and half, i was never bored...never. Once the zombies are introduced, they never leave.... and in a zombie movie that is a great thing. The directing by Steven Miller, was great. Especially with the budget he was working with ($30,000) and the whole film was shot in 9 days! The camera work is very fast paced and to me added a sense of tension to the mix. There were a few minor issues with the picture at times, but i had such a great time with this flick, i can hardly complain. Director Steven Miller has got my vote, and i cannot wait to see what he comes up with next.

The acting was actually pretty good. Especially from the two leads Garrett Jones (Chris) and William Howard Bowman (Scott). Some of the acting was pretty questionable, as you would probably expect from a low budget horror flick, and this hardly lowers the entertainment level of this flick.

Now onto the gore. I will give a *SPOILER WARNING* just in case ya don't want the kills/gore scenes spoiled. I'll give a quick run down, bent in half body, eye impalment, a jaw ripped off (pretty nasty), heads ripped off, shotgun headshots galore, hammer to the head, some great chainsaw action, lots of eaten alive scenes, with messy aftermath shots, torn off limbs, lots of limb munching, needless to say there is lots of gore, and its great. There is also one scene that i wont discuss at all, but its the nastiest of the bunch, its actually quite shocking. This movie had so much gore it was amazing, again especially on the budget it had, the gore/ fx looked great. Good times.

So as you can tell i really enjoyed this flick, its just really fun and like every zombie film should be.... extremely gory. The directing was great the acting was good, and the gore/special effects were awesome. I cant say anything else but.... see this movie. Cant wait for part 2.

---

11 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Yet another low budget zombie flick from your friends at Dimension EXTREME, 25 February 2008

Author: darkstarvideo-1 from United States

The best way to overcome a very low budget is ingenuity which is not in evidence here. What we have here are one dimensional stereotypes sputtering illogical dialog fighting their way though tired and predictable plot points lifted from 1000 better movies. The death metal/power pop soundtrack is more than a little distracting as is the use of sound effects in general. The ploy of using gallons of blood and frenetic camera movements to hide the non-existent budget doesn't work and the ending or lack there of is the obvious effect of Miller writing himself in to a corner. Still I don't want to dump on this thing completely. I would say that Steven C. Miller's direction was at least competent and he could possibly have a future if he would work with MUCH better scripts and MUCH better actors. Also I would say that the box art for the DVD is pretty cool but what the f*ck is with that title?????

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Blood... Will... Run!, 10 April 2008

Author: Shattered_Wake from Los Angeles, CA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Said by some to be one of the best independent horror films in recent years, I decided to jump on this one quickly. And while it's certainly not nearly as good as that, it's still one cool-ass flick. Yes, the story's not that original. Yes, the acting is bad by a couple of the main characters and most of the secondary actors (but not in the funny way. . . just the 'why are you still trying to act?' way). Yes, the writing isn't all that amazing, especially during attacks ("OW! My face!"). And yes, the ending is incredibly cheap and just plain annoying. But, who gives a damn, right now? It's an R-rated, original American zombie flick! I will, however, give my respect to Miller and his camera crew for their visual work. . . their fight-scene camera work is some of the best I've seen in low-budget horror. If only Miller would've allowed someone else to pen the script, it could've been a lot better. Guaranteed.

Final Verdict: 6/10. It's not perfect, but it's worth it.

Note: The sequel, 'Automaton Transfusion: Contingency,' is due out next year.

-AP3-

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
A welcome return to low budget horror, 14 March 2008

Author: AntoNEO from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Automaton Transfusion, despite its head-scratching and convoluted title, just might be the purest low budget horror film to come out in the last twenty years. It's not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is the first film of its kind in a long while to give me the same adrenaline rush I felt when I first watched films such as the Evil Dead trilogy. Automaton Transfusion is certainly no Evil Dead, but it's the first low budget horror film in a very long time to aspire to such greatness.

Automaton Transfusion hails back to an era of low budget film-making that I thought had long since passed. With the Hollywood studio system being as strong as it is, and film-making being such an expensive endeavor, I didn't think truly low budget films were even made any more. To provide some context, the aforementioned low budget classic, The Evil Dead, was made in 1981 at a budget of $300,000. Nowadays, if a movie is made for anywhere between $1 million and $40 million dollars it is considered to be a low budget film. Automaton Transfusion was made in 2006 for $30,000. That's practically the cost of catering on a Steven Spielberg film, and writer/director Steven C. Miller and company managed to make a special-effects laden zombie/action film for the same price.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. Automaton Transfusion has noticeable flaws that should be addressed, so let's just acknowledge them and move on with it. The most consistent problem with the film is the acting. A few actors are good some of the time while others are terrible all of the time, but suffice it to say that the acting performances are not this film's strong point. It doesn't help that most of the film had to be looped in post production due to no on-set sound recording (a necessary drawback of low-budget film-making). Another potential problem is that director Steven C. Miller utilizes the popular "shaky-cam" style of filming to heighten the intensity of many scenes, and while it works pretty well most of the time, if you're bothered by this style of cinematography you probably won't be the happiest of viewers.

Lastly, the film suffers from two different third-act blunders. First, Miller packs a whole bunch of exposition regarding the zombie's origins into the last ten minutes of the film, which is not the best time in a film for characters to stop and chat. Secondly, he ends the film on a needless cliffhanger. He says that this film is the first in a planned trilogy, but that's no excuse. Even when there's an overarching plot line, each film in a trilogy should have a self-contained story so that the viewer feels satisfied at the end of each installment. One last thing: it's a little nitpicky, but there is a noticeable deficit of strong female characters, as most of the women in the film are a male-projected fantasy: they either willingly take off their clothes at inappropriate times or scream for help from the men. A stronger female role would have been nice.

Okay, now on to the complimentary stuff and why I liked the film so much. The first thing I noticed in starting the film was that it looks like crap. "Complimentary?" you say. I know that doesn't sound like the highest of praise, but it's a key element that has been missing from horror films for years. Back in the day, low budget horror films looked murky and grainy because they were shot on cheap 16mm film, which did wonders for their gritty atmosphere. These days, every horror film looks too squeaky clean because they're shot on pristine 35mm film that picks up every little detail in the frame. Automaton Transfusion, however, being truly low budget in nature, is shot on grainy, de-saturated video, and the lower quality resolution supports the gritty atmosphere of the film wonderfully.

Speaking of atmosphere, Automaton Transfusion has tons of it. A lot of independent horror films lack any real sense of atmosphere due to budget constraints and instead the filmmakers throw buckets of gore at the screen to make up for it, but the folks behind Automaton Transfusion manage to instill the film with palpable atmosphere at a fraction of the cost. Don't get me wrong, there are buckets of gore in this film too, but there's so much more than that. From the run-down shacks that the characters find themselves trapped in to the completely isolated city streets that lend a post-apocalyptic vibe to the proceedings, the crew on this film worked some kind of magic to achieve the things they did. The music also makes the film sound much more expensive than it really is, as it boasts an orchestral score that expands the scope of the film and adds layers of value to the action and horror sequences.

When the film ended I was left with an admiration for how much Miller and his crew were able to make out of nothing. Despite the obvious problems, the film makes for an enthralling and fast-paced horror adventure. The film clocks in at a brisk 75 minutes and the filmmakers pack in every bit of entertainment value and ingenuity that they can muster from their budget in that amount of time. Sometimes restrictions can be a movie's greatest asset because they force the filmmakers to be creative. Automaton Transfusion is a testament to that fact.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot synopsis	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history