The October Zombie-Thon - Day 02: Automaton Transfusion

Posted by Trevor Snyder on 10.02.2008

It's one of the most hyped indie zombie films in recent memory...but is it really worth it?

AUTOMATON TRANSFUSION (2006)



Written & Directed by: Steven C. Miller
Country: USA

The first thing you may think upon hearing the title Automaton Transfusion is, "wow, that's certainly a stupid name. Does it even mean anything?" Well, having just watched the movie, let me assure you….uhhh, actually, I don't know. I'm guessing writer/director Steven C. Miller thought it sounded really cool, and didn't bother to wonder if it made any sense.

Oh well, no matter. We're not here to talk about the movie's title; we're here to talk about the flick itself. And, in that regard, let us consider the power of hype. Hype can be a great thing, as the success of something like Cloverfield has shown; but it can also be very detrimental. You know, like when a particular film has been so over-hyped that by the time you see it you can't help but go in with an unrealistic level of expectation.

That was definitely my experience with Automaton Transfusion, a film numerous horror websites and magazines had proclaimed some kind of "second coming" in the world of indie-zombie cinema. You can perhaps forgive these critics for their excessive hyperbole, but the greatest perpetrators were the filmmakers themselves, who – in an impressive display of big-balls machismo – had the nerve to put the following tagline in the film's trailer:

"Every generation has a horror film that defines its culture. This is that film."

Yeah, right. Look, I'm not denying that certain horror films can be later viewed as ones that defined the culture of the moment. But you know which films are usually not the ones that do so? The ones that tell you they are going to.

In this case, the claim is particularly pompous, given that the film is far from groundbreaking. It's not terrible; I'll get that out of the way. But it's also nothing all that special – a fairly "by-the-numbers" zombie flick that tries to make up for its generic storytelling with lots of flash and style.

The film follows the adventures of three teenage friends on their way to a concert in the city. They've already had a rough day, seeing as how one of their classmates inexplicably went crazy and bit a teacher back at school. Now, that weirdness seemingly behind them, they can't help but notice that the highway they're driving on is oddly absent of any other cars…at rush hour, no less! Things only get worse when they arrive in the city and find it almost completely deserted. I say "almost" because, surprise, they're soon swarmed by hordes of blood thirsty zombies. The friends are forced to fight off the ghouls by any means necessary, before returning to their equally infested hometown to try and save their friends and families.

On the surface, it's actually kind of easy to see where all the hype and positive attitude about the film comes from. If nothing else, this is somewhat of a master class in short attention span storytelling, as the film never lets up after the first attack scene. From that point on, the movie is almost nothing but scene after scene of gruesome battles between our heroes and the living dead, each one more violent than the last. There's something to be said for the film's relentless sense of energy, which barely gives the characters or the audience any time to catch their breath. Enhancing this energetic pacing is Miller's fairly strong use of "shaky-cam" (which led to several over-exaggerating comparisons to 28 Days Laters from Automaton Transfusion supporters), even if it does sometimes get a little overwhelming in a couple of the action scenes (then again, it probably also masked the cheapness of some of the FX, so it's a definite mixed bag).

Also on the positive side are the performances of the lead actors. It's not like these kids are going to be celebrating Academy Award nominations anytime soon or anything, but they're pretty darn decent for such a low-budget offering. It's a shame, then, that they weren't given more interesting characters…which leads me to my first major complaint. It's obvious while watching the film that Miller's primary concern was the overall style of the piece, and not so much the storytelling and characterization. This explains how one-note these characters are. There's simply nothing interesting about any of them, and to make matters worse they are often called on to deliver some pretty lame dialogue. Take this moment, for example, when the lead character responds to his friend's complaints about working at a video store:

"Hey, that's way better than working for my dad. I have to drain dead corpses all day."

Alright, overlooking the fact that I'm pretty sure there aren't any kind of corpses besides "dead" ones, let me just ask…why would he say that? Don't his buddies, who he hangs out with everyday, already know what he does? Maybe I'm nit-picking, but this just comes across sounding like exposition of the worst kind. And yes, in case you're wondering, the fact that his dad works as a mortician does come into play later. What a shocker, huh?

To be fair, it was probably best for Miller to focus on anything but the storytelling, as that is clearly his weakest area. For instance, while I was initially impressed with the film's simplistic lack of explanation regarding the zombie outbreak (ala the Romero films), the movie's final act ruined that…suddenly offering an unnecessary and unoriginal explanation. A giant government conspiracy, you say? Whoa, I haven't heard that one before.

Look, I'm probably being a tad harsher than I need to be, but then, how can you not be when a film proclaims itself to be the one that "defines its culture?" Without this pompous claim overshadowing it, it would probably be a little easier to enjoy the movie's merits. So I'll give it this – with its brief running time and breakneck pacing, it's pretty much impossible to ever be bored with the film. And gore-hounds will almost definitely get a kick out of it, as the old-school effects work here is plentiful and often impressive (although a sequence depicting a woman's unborn baby ripped out of her stomach and devoured seems particularly crass and out-of-place).

But for all its strong points, Automaton Transfusion seems to be lacking that special something that would push it over into the classic territory it obviously wants so desperately to reside in. It's not bad enough to completely write off, but one can't help but find themselves wishing the story had a little more meat on its bones. By the time the movie comes to an ultra-abrupt ending and splashes the words "to be continued" across the screen (that's right – this is just the first film in a planned trilogy), I found myself looking forward to the sequel not because I really cared to see where things were going, but only because I'm hoping the next installment might finally explain what the hell that title means.

FINAL SCORE: 2 out of 4 Bubs (Average)