Automaton Transfusion (2006) User Reviews (78)

To Be Continued? They Must Be Kidding

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 17 October 2009]

In Downey, the teenagers Chris (Garret Jones), Scott (William Howard Bowman) and Tim (Rowan Bousaid) are best friends and decide to drive to a bar downtown to watch the gig of a grungy band while Chris' girlfriend Jackie (Juliet Reeves) goes to a party with her preppy friends. While heading to downtown, the trio of friends notes that there is no car in the road despite the rush hour and then they find that the streets are empty. When they arrive in their destiny, they are chased by zombies and run to the bar. Chris decides to return to Downey while Jackie and her friends are attacked by a bunch of zombies.

Despite the awful camera-work and the flaws in the screenplay that uses all the clichés of zombie movies, the first half of "Automaton Transfusion" is not so bad. The gore special effects and the acting are indeed very reasonable for a B-movie. There are funny moments and like in many Ed Wood's movies, there is not continuity in many sequences, with the sun shining when it should be night and so on. However, when Chris decides to return to the high-school with his friends, the plot becomes more imbecile culminating with attitude of Scott and the ridiculous explanation for the outbreak given by the military janitor. But the worst is the inconclusive ending "to be continued": the director and writer Steven C. Miller must be kidding. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

Automaton Confusion

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 24 July 2008]

Two things more confusing than the title of this zombie flick (what the hell does Automaton Transfusion mean?): the film's directorial style, a messy mish-mash of rapid editing and shaky cam that makes following the action nigh-on impossible at times; and the muddled plot, which contains many ridiculous moments and no satisfactory ending (yup.... the film stops mid-action, with the words 'To Be Continued' leaving viewers feeling cheated!). A shame really, because the film showed a lot of promise at the start, with a scary opening sequence set in a morgue, and the introduction of a reasonably likable group of characters. The production values also seemed to be fairly good, with some particularly good gore effects that are way better than one might expect from a film made on such a small budget. By the end of the film, director Steven C. Miller has quite obviously lost all control of proceedings, with several sequences making no sense whatsoever. My tips for Mr. Miller when making the sequel to this film (Automaton Transfusion: Contingency, due 2009): calm down the camera-work (buy a tripod, perhaps), hone the script a little more, and get yourself an ending (they always make a film so much better, don'tcha think?).

Yet another low budget zombie flick from your friends at Dimension EXTREME

[darkstarvideo-1 · 3/10 · 25 February 2008]

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?????

I don't even know where to begin...

[brando647 · 2/10 · 25 March 2008]

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....

Homemade zombie muck

[mrush · 2/10 · 10 April 2010]

Oh another zombie movie that blew chunks.Imagine that.This movie promised the world on the DVD box but little did I know that this was another of those 8 Days of Horror or whatever they call it.Any of those movies I've saw were awful and this one was no exception.

First off I've no idea what the title means.It wasn't explained.After seeing this puke pile I'm guessing this homemade piece of junk was just given some weird mysterious nonsense title to give it a bit of class or mystique or whatever.

Anyway the mean old US government was doing more experiments in some little town on dead bodies to try and bring them back to life so they could fight our wars for us.Seriously.That was the reason given for this wave of zombies.The experimental zombies were released as a test and naturally and of course the experiment goes wrong.These zombies were made to be stronger and faster and able to think by the experiments so it was a bad decision to let these things loose on purpose it would seem.

Zombies run amok while a group of teens,the only ones left alive,run around trying to stay away from them.

Boy this thing stunk to high heaven.The acting was horrible.The script was worse.Special effects were clunky and badly done and just sort of thrown in here and there as opposed to sort of happening naturally during the course of the movie.These zombies were strong enough to rip heads and legs off yet seemed to be stopped by someone closing a door and turning the little lock on the knob.The continuity from scene to scene was a mess.The teens would run out the front door when a zombie came in the back way yet just a second ago they had ran in that very same front door with a swarm of zombies right behind them.The action jumped from scenes that looked to be out in the middle of nowhere to city scenes with no explanation of how the characters got transplanted so fast.

The camera was slashed around so fast during the fight scenes it was just impossible to follow what was happening.I eventually gave up trying.There's nothing really positive to say about this clunker.The info I read about this thing says it was shot in 9 days.From the way this mess turned out I would have guessed 4 days. This pile of garbage even ends with the words "To be continued..." on the screen.

It felt like I was watching a two part episode of "The Beverly Hillbillies" or something,like when the Hillbillies went to England when they learned they owned a castle over there and they just couldn't get all the Jethro fighting a dragon jokes in a one 30 minute episode,I see the reason for doing a TV show like that but who ends a movie like that?And to beat it all I read there was a Part 2.Anymore no matter how bad and unwatched the first one was they always convince themselves someone wants a Part 2 of it.

This was just another homemade piece of junk from people who have little talent for horror movies.Too bad today's technology is so easy that everyone who used to think they could write the next great American novel now thinks they can make the next great zombie movie.

Just because you got a camera and you can do a little CG on a computer doesn't mean you got any movie making talent.

Fast zombies with bad synch....

[innocuous · 2/10 · 11 February 2009]

This is a strange hybrid of a movie that had only enough ideas for a trailer (which is what it started out to be, apparently) and a movie that spent what little budget it had on make-up effects. The effects end up being OK (possibly six stars out of ten) but the complete lack of any plot, realistic dialogue, characters, actual acting ability, comprehensible editing, or decent photography shoots the whole thing down. The film-makers did not seem to understand that violent and gory scenes have to balanced against other scenes and that the key to entertainment in horror films is to elicit concern or sympathy from the viewer.

The most irritating aspect of this movie, though, has to be the "synch" problems in many of the scenes. Not audio synch, but frame rate and editing. If you go to the forums, you'll see several explanations of what caused this, ranging from an intentional statement of the director to a setting error on the video editing equipment. Whatever caused it, it's inconsistent from scene to scene and is irritating as hell. I mean, fast zombies are already a bit jerky, but they're really bad in this film.

Don't waste your time on this film.

Like Return of the Living Dead...IF IT SUCKED!!!

[Aaron1375 · 1/10 · 8 April 2008]

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.

Hey guys.... wanna make a movie this weekend?

[dontasker · 2/10 · 7 March 2008]

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

Bubbles over with chunky globs of SUCKINESS!!!

[TheAngelRosa · 8 May 2008]

Shame on everyone involved in releasing this utter piece of garbage! This is sloppy, talentless film-making at its worst.

The premise: Regurgitated regurgitation. The script: To use the word 'weak 'would be giving it too much credit. The acting: Straight out of a high school video production class. Entertainment value: Difficult to get beyond all of the above coupled with the fact that the entire movie has a jerky motion. Almost like it was shot on a mobile phone. The filmmakers attempt at achieving a film look on a low budget simply DOES NOT work. Yuck! *The makeup/gore effects: Not bad, especially for ultra low budget.

My suggestion for viewers: Skip this mess. My suggestion for the filmmakers: Buy a better camera, learn how to write a screenplay and try giving a damn about story and quality acting before you even consider shooting another movie. another movie.

A welcome return to low budget horror

[AntoNEO · 7/10 · 14 March 2008]

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.

I was ripped off for 9 bucks on this one.

[lipanwrangler · 1/10 · 9 November 2008]

This was a pile of fecal matter called a movie. Wow. I can't believe how awful it was. Whoever is responsible for those quotes on the box that made me buy it should be hanged. I guess it's my fault for being so naive though. I was just craving a good zombie flick, that's all. What I got was a really bad student film. Like a high school student film. Avoid this one.

Well, it appears that I need this thing to be ten lines long, so I guess I can say a few things about what exactly sucked about this movie (which was pretty much everything, but...). Here we go: first off, the film quality was really really annoying. It looked like it was skipping frames or something. I think maybe they wanted it to have the slight motion blur like 28 Days Later, but they just ended up making it look really bad. The acting was pretty bad, although not completely awful. I think some of the mohawk-guy and the black-guy's reactions were good, but they weren't really given much to work with in the way of a script. And yeah, the "script" was pretty much non-existent. I'm out.

It ain't great, but damn, it's entertaining!

[ZombieLuvr-1 · 8/10 · 7 January 2008]

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).

Extremely low budget indie horror with over the top gore n fast paced action.

[Fella_shibby · 7/10 · 29 May 2016]

The effects were terrific, especially for a $30 grand budget. Rapid editing and shaky cam were a bit annoying at times. Extremely low budget indie horror flick. It makes for an enthralling and fast-paced horror adventure. At 75 minutes, the filmmakers pack in every bit of entertainment value.Saw it first in 2007. I rented the DVD after I saw the cover of a half zombie n Dimension extreme on it. Was better than new day of the dead (both films had fast running zombies).Even the crappy video quality didn't make me turn it off. What more interesting is that it took 9 days filming the whole movie. I thought for this amount of time, they did a great job shooting. Incredible energy thanks to hardcore metal music, incredibly over-the-top gore effects, and an awesomely impressive dedication to playing its horror/action straight. The opening morgue scene was awesome. Of course it had its cheesiness, its flaws, bad acting, zero plot but it's an extremely low budget indie man. It was entertaining with over the top gore n fast paced action. Director Steven C. Miller (Aggression scale, Under the bed, Silent night) did a fantastic job.

Don't Hate the Haters Hate the Film

[gnd_hog · 1/10 · 4 September 2006]

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.

Diary of the Dead's retarded half-brother: Automaton Transfusion.

[anamnesis3683 · 1/10 · 3 January 2009]

Let me start off by saying this movie sucked today's d*ck. My friend and I watched it and we laughed our asses off at the huge amount of continuity errors, shaky filming reminiscent of Cloverfield (although CF didn't suck as badly as Automaton does), terrible dialogue and horrendous acting.

There were sex scenes, I guess that's a plus. Although I didn't see any tits and zombies interrupted before things got awesome. That janitor who was supposedly from the army got up close to the main character guy when they were in his little bunker... and started looking him up and down as if to say, "If we don't make it out of here, you can be my b**ch for eternity." I guess that counts in some morbid way.

This movie was obviously made by emo kids who had nothing better to do on the long weekend. All of the "popular" people at the party were listening to screamo music... as if that would ever happen. And everyone was wearing band tees. They even went so far as to put "this is hardcore" in the script. Emo kids, why do you try to confuse me with your wiley ways? Stop f*cking with my mind.

In the middle of the movie the main character started speaking in sort of a high pitched voice... and that's when it finally sunk in that THE ENTIRE F**KING MOVIE WAS A Voice-over.

Continuity errors: I don't even know where to begin. Watch the movie.

Just terrible. Even Miley Cyrus/Lindsay Lohan/Hilary Duff movies are better than this crap.

P.S. What the hell is up with TO BE CONTINUED? The only reason I would want this sh*t to continue would be so that I could laugh even harder. And see some more hilarious music videos where two slutty girls strip and then punch some guys, while the band frolics around in their tight leather jeans. Yummy.

Hands down the worst zombie movie ever made.

[The_Dead_See · 1/10 · 30 August 2009]

If you watch the behind-the-scenes special features to this movie you will see something amazing - a director who fancies himself talented and a bunch of actors saying things like "it's not often you get to work with a script this tight".

Delusion apparently reigns in that little clique.

There is only one thing right with Automaton Transfusion... and that is the special effects guy did a good job with the blood and meat eating effects. Everything else, and I mean ABSOLUTELY everything is beyond inferior. It is, in fact, the most inept movie making I've ever encountered. No plot, no characterization, awful dialogue, bad lighting, awful sound mixing, confusing editing, terrible continuity... and to top it all off they dump a "to be continued" on the end because they have the audacity to think viewers will want to sit through a SECOND hour and a half of this pointless garbage. Jesus, guys, go back to playing video games and being extras in Halloween attractions instead... you're just wasting your time.

Avoid this movie like a STD!!!!

[cdbiams · 1/10 · 22 October 2008]

What kind of garbage is this? I would have given it no stars except this site wouldn't allow it.

Please, people, save your money. Do not buy, rent, or download this garbage!

The Director could have spent more time on the plot and actually directing these "actors"...and over seeing the editing....and use "origin" camera photography...and paid closer attention to the script...and directing the extras better...and...well the list goes on and on and on and on ...

Instead all the money went into special effects where it appears to be OK at some points but the lack of acting and...(see above)...ruin the scenes. Plus the blood screws up trying to get the special effects over. I know when a "zombie is eating someone" that there will be blood. However, if your going to spend the money for effects, show them!

Here is a example of one scenes that made me so p!$$ed off that made me come here and post.

About 42:25 into the movie, the three male amigos enter into a house where "the party of the year", (that statement alone makes me want to throw up), is being held. They are trying to get away from the mass amount of zombies outside. So they run into the house and fight off the zombies trying to get in. They are meet with one of the amigos girlfriend who went to the party without him. As the zombies give up their pursuit of the 4 people inside, (rather quickly I might point out...for zombies they have no "direction"), the 4 people turn to see a "unpopular" zombie inside the house about to attack them...in his underwear. *rolls eyes* I should state that one of the amigos has a shotgun.

Now what would you do? You would shoot the unpopular "bean pole" zombie. But no....these idiots forget that they have a shot gun, (Thanks to the Director..**rolls eyes again**), and run outside the house into what would appear to be certain doom with the amount of zombie extras that Director placed there....but yet nothing happens to them. Just 1 minute ago there were hundreds of zombies. Now...nothing!

Even if you were stoned or drunk or involving yourself in self lobotomy...it wouldn't help.

I heard that there is going to be a "Automaton Transfusion 2" releasing in 2009.

wow. I will be totally avoiding it like a STD.

I know of a lot of "B" movies that would be better entertainment than this garbage. If you like this movie then you'll love these pieces of garbage: 1. Glitter 2. Freddy Got Fingered 3. Heartbeeps 4. Liquid Sky or even ***shudder*** 5. Pigs.

I can't believe any of you liked this crap...

[Dashwood95 · 1/10 · 15 August 2009]

First off, why the heck can't I rate ZERO or less stars.

They ought to have a rating for "Made my eyes and ears bleed" because for that I'd give it top honors.

And WTF with the "ending" (And I use that term loosely)? For the love of all that is good and right, please do NOT see this movie. .... That is of course unless you have a crazy good sarcastic wit and intend to make fun of it mercilessly the entire them then send me a message with all the good jokes. Then maybe I'd feel better about another person suffering through this pile of you know what.

I'd sit here and remark on all that is wrong with it, but MOST of you have already so wondrously done that for me.

Those of you that think this is a "good" (choke) movie I strongly urge you to check yourself in for psychiatric care. Then insist on being given the chance to watch a better film such as The original Dawn/Day/Night of the Living Dead.

I swear I think this movie might have turned me off to horror films....At least for a while. It was so foul. So foul.

Thank God for Fast Forward

[Phlegyas · 1/10 · 21 March 2010]

First off, I don't get why IMDb does not allow for ZERO marks. I bet there are other movies that deserve 0. Now... what can I say about the movie ... I'll give it one fair point for having decent visual effects. Nothing fancy (don't get your hopes high) but I've seen much worse. That was the only good thing about it. ... I could list the awful points but it'd just be a waste of time and energy cause I'd have to practically write down the entire movie. ...I believe my title says it all... Fast Forward really saved the day. I think I watched the entire thing in less than 15 minutes. It sucks THAT bad. ... Holly crap... IMDb wants me to type in 10 lines before I can submit the comment. THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO SAY ABOUT THIS PIECE OF JUNK MOVIE??? What am I supposed to write in 10 lines? Yeah okay I could say that even the most extreme visual effect in the movie is stolen directly from Troma movies. Okay, am I 10 lines yet? I don't wanna think about this crap movie anymore. Please just accept the review and let me go already! (oh BTW if you bought this on DVD, I hope you've got a Shredder ... you'll need it).

The worst movie I've ever seen.. Only movie I've ever wanted refunded...

[Lwoods_04 · 9 March 2008]

I wasn't expecting much out of this movie as most probably weren't. But it was MUCH worse than I could have ever imagined. There were at least 10 instances (or more) where I thought to myself,"This is a waste of my time, I cant watch anymore".. However, I watched this damn movie all the way through because I WASTED $15.00 on it.

The acting was horrible, the filming was ridiculous and VERY unrealistic, and the "ending" was enough to make me want to send hate-mail to the creators everyday for the rest of my life, or at least until they give me a refund. I am literally thinking of throwing this movie in the trash just because I don't want people to see it in my movie collection. Do yourself a favor and SAVE YOUR MONEY.. Unless you just get a kick out of being ripped off. This is honestly the worst film I have ever seen, (which includes the Student-Films I've seen).

This movie is only UNRATED because it would only achieve the rating of "SUCK" if it were to be rated. I would have rather used my money as TP. The sad thing is that I really mean that...what a complete waste of F-ing time.

Great plot

[ericbolson · 7/10 · 28 October 2008]

I noticed that the video camera used in this film was a poor quality one, too much noise was visible with the quality of the overall picture, most action parts were a bit choppy and camera could not catch all the action in some of the good parts. The director should try to limit choppiness of some of the parts, especially in the beginning of the movie. My suggestion is try to use a tripod in your next film you shoot, also buy a new video camera for catching more parts and getting rid of the noise. Also try to make the story more complete by adding more parts to add up to the best parts. Overall the 7 stars comes from the story and the gore effects were exceptional. I realize that this movie seemed to have a mid range budget feel to it. Also, try to shoot more angles, there was just not enough for the good parts.

probably the worst film i've ever seen

[boywithatoy · 1/10 · 10 July 2010]

First of all, I am a regular reader of reviews here on IMDb and most of the time the ratings are a pretty good indication of what the film is like but how in the hell did this get 4 stars? I can only assume that the people involved in making this film all set up fake accounts and gave it high marks. I actually had to register on here so I could write this review because I felt it was my duty to make sure no-one else wastes 75 minutes of their life watching this!

Normally when someone slates a film on here I take it with a pinch of salt - but this movie really does suck. I don't mind low-budget pieces of crap, for instance I quite like the Feast trilogy, but before I watched this I saw "MegaShark vs Giant Octopus" and that was 10 times better than AT and you can imagine how dump "MegaShark vs Giant Octopus" is.

I don't mind the low budget grainy film, I can even stand the awful acting (which mainly consists of lots of running whilst pathetic girls scream and cry) but what I can't stand is MASSIVE plot holes. Like other people have said, there's one scene in particular that doesn't make any sense. The four main characters are in a garage and they go out head to head with the zombies armed with various weapons then all of sudden two of the characters seem to fall out of the sky into a lake (where did that lake come from?) and one of the characters wasn't even one of the four who is in the garage and I have no ideas who she is or where she came from!

The are so many other plot holes too. The other main one is that we find out in the last 10 minutes of the film that it was an army experiment but there just happens to be a serum that makes you immune so the 2 remaining characters go after it (we find this out from an army dude who is "undercover" as a janitor yet he is in full army gear and drives around in an army jeep - yeah, good disguise dude!). This serum plot wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that in the whole film no-one is actually bitten by a zombie, they are all completely ripped apart so even if you had the serum it wouldn't matter as you'd be dead from being ripped apart! This also begs the question - "if everyone gets ripped apart, where did all these zombies come from?". That's also not to mention how all the zombies are teenagers - it's meant to be a whole town that has been taken over yet, apart from the main dude's Dad, we don't see one zombie over the age of 19. What is this? Children of the Corn? I wished it was. Also, these zombies can find their victims by smelling them - even in some scenes breaking through walls and floors to get to them so how come they can't find one girl when she is hiding under a table in the same room!

And the ending? "To be continued"? I think the credit at the end was meant to say "we've run out of money and we need to return the camcorder to the media lab before lessons start on Monday".

Seriously, trust me when I say don't waste your time with this movie.

this flick.... to me, is what every zombie/ indie flick should be

[Scottyboy209 · 10/10 · 20 October 2006]

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.

not bad

[FitDemolition · 6/10 · 28 July 2008]

for what it was, and comparing to other zombie flicks I've seen such at night of the dead by erik forsberg, this wasn't bad. not on the level of 28 days later or romero zombie movies, but this wasn't bad. i was actually surprised by the to be continued ending, i will actually be looking forward to seeing the sequel. while most zombie movies don't even try to explain where the zombies came from, this movie did even though it wasn't creative at all. but the makeup effects were pretty good for such a low budget film where most of the time the lines had to be redubbed over the film. the acting wasn't that bad either, i was surprised. a few instances of foreshadowing were a nice touch. if you are a fan of zombie movies, id recommend seeing this as it is a short movie and entertaining to say the least. i give a 6 out of 10 only because in a scale including great movies this one isn't anywhere near them in quality, but considering what it was, a low budget zombie flick, the most i could even give it would be a 7 out of 10.

A couple of decent gore scenes does a good film not make.

[poolandrews · 2/10 · 26 December 2009]

Automaton Transfusion starts like any other day in a small town where everyone goes about their business as usual, however the day soon turns into one like no other as a virus which turns the infected into a flesh eating zombie has already turned most of the town into mindless flesh eating zombies that are out of control & hungry for human flesh. A group of teenage friends survive the initial attacks & go on the run trying to stay alive & seek help...

Known as Zombie Transfusion on DVD here in the UK this was edited, written & directed by Steven C. Miller who also has a role in the film & is a pretty poor attempt at some sort of zombie epic in the vein of 28 Days Later... (2002) with fast running zombies that greatly outnumber the surviving humans. The plot is absolutely minimal, the character's are faceless & I can't even remember any of their names even though I only saw it a few hours ago, the cause of the zombie infection is never seen & although there's some heard it all before clichéd nonsense about the military creating a zombie virus to create the ultimate soldier it's never seen & the start of the zombie outbreak is never seen. The entire film basically has these poorly fleshed out character's just running from zombies, that's it, that's all there is to Automation Transfusion & it gets very boring, very repetitive & dull. Automation Transfusion is a collection of zombie film clichés that just trickles along in a way that doesn't engage or entertain in any way, I just can't think of anything positive to say about Automation Transfusion & an incredibly frustrating 'to be continued...' ending just leaves things hanging in the air & doesn't reward you for sitting through it.

Apparently this was shot in just nine days & it does show with a very amateur look, as has been mentioned already by other's Automation Transfusion has some technical issues & looks simply horrible. There's a blur to the picture & certain scenes look like YouTube videos with a blocky appearance that have a jerky movement to them. The only real highlight are one or two decent gore scenes, there's a woman who has her jaw ripped off & a scene that reminded me of a similar one from Lucio Fulci's classic Zombi 2 (1979) in which someones eye is forced onto a spiked piece of glass. The rest of the gore is nothing more that a few bite wounds & lots of blood splatter that exactly the same as each other, there's lots of blood splatter but it just sort of blurs into one & has less & less impact the more it's repeated.

With a supposed ultra low budget of about $50,000 the low budget tells & it really looks it, apparently filmed in Florida. The acting is poor all round.

Automation Transfusion is a poor low budget home made zombie film with one or two decent moments of gore but nothing else, you can do much, much better than the likes of this. The IMDb lists a sequel Automation Transfusion: Contingency (2010) as in production, I shudder at the very thought.