New Zombie Film - Automaton transfusion

[DjfunkmasterG]

Looks like a pretty badass zed film. Done on $60,000 and 16mm

Trailer looks good... has running zombies :D

http://www.automatontransfusion.com/

[axlish]

Looks pretty cool. Looks like he borrowed a little from the style of Zack Snyder, but in a good way. I'll check it out for sure.

[creepntom]

not bad, i'll look for it

[Danny]

nice, ill probably check that one out.:)

[jimis]

cracking trailer....
good, simple idea: young people with big weapons. hundreds of blood smeared zombies! can't ask for much more!! :D

[bassman]

Ehh....could go either way. Right now it looks more like one for the kiddies, though.:(

[DjfunkmasterG]

Has a lot of the same style camera work DAWN 2004 did from what I see in the trailer. I also read, rumor only, this was 35MM not 16mm as I printed. I don't know it looks more 16mm to me, but some message boards the zombies on the production are haunting claim it was 35mm and a $90,000 budget not the $60,000 I reported.

So either way I still want to check it out.

[axlish]

To be honest DJ, it felt like DV to me. It looked awesome, but DV all the same (think 28 Days Later).

[Moon Knight]

Bah! I thought everyone hated running zombies?

[Maitreya]

This doesn't look too bad...

I wonder where you'll be able to pick it up at when it's out.

[raym]

This has running zombies??

Hrmm...

I'm getting used to the idea, lol ^_^

I like it, but I don't embrace it.

[evilshallrise]

Hey people!

I actually work at a studio where this film is in negotiations of being bought. IT was shot DV on DVX100a and was shot in 9 days for 30 grand. THATS HOW AWESOME this movie is. Everyone thinks it looks like a HUGE budget. Ive seen it and it hit everything i wanted to see! It feels like a sweet 80s film! check out all the press:

myspace.com/atransfusion

[coma]

First the look is really good. The FX looks good. I really dislike running zombies and the synopsis makes it sounds stupid but it actually looks pretty good. The black guy, due to how he's dressed, appears to not be another stupid gangter stereotype, so thats a big plus. The acting looks good and the ctach phrase is so much better than "bad day to be a zombie". The set design is good and I like the music. And the teeneager are not so super pretty that it seems ridiculous.
YEah, running Zombies suck ass, but I would actually like to see this. It looks waaaay better than Ghay of the Dead 07.

And thanks for the link. 60 g's, 90 g's, looks damn good for that dough. A lot of that would be film stock if it was 35mm

[N2NOther]

I was pissed when I read some reviews...Apparently the explanations for the zombies is almost the same as my feature script that I finished about 6 months ago.

[Adolf Kitler]

I was pissed when I read some reviews...Apparently the explanations for the zombies is almost the same as my feature script that I finished about 6 months ago.
I wouldn't worry about it. It's also a similiar setup as the "Return of the Living Dead" films, if you think about it. Big bad military develops a weapon, it affects the dead, chaos, cover-up, then the inevidable reaccurance on a larger scale with regular folks affected.

[Danny]

Bah! I thought everyone hated running zombies?

nope, just minion zombie:p :lol:

[N2NOther]

I wouldn't worry about it. It's also a similiar setup as the "Return of the Living Dead" films, if you think about it. Big bad military develops a weapon, it affects the dead, chaos, cover-up, then the inevidable reaccurance on a larger scale with regular folks affected.

Yeah, but in my script and in AT the military specifically develops something to reannimate dead soldiers for war purposes. Only in my film the outbreak at the town isn't an accident.

[capncnut]

The movie looks okay even if it has got runners in it. I'd much prefer a blend of both types in one, slow in movement but frantic in attack.

[evilshallrise]

Yeah, but in my script and in AT the military specifically develops something to reannimate dead soldiers for war purposes. Only in my film the outbreak at the town isn't an accident.

Its actually not an accident in AT either. The government let the virus loose as an experiment to see if they could control the reanimated corpses. But of course controlling them was impossible.

This film really does destroy the way i watch indie zombie films now...its that damn fun to watch

Great interview on Aintitcool.com

aintitcool.com/node/30880

[Neil]

Bah! I thought everyone hated running zombies?

I've got nothing against running zombies, as long as they AND THE SCRIPT are done well!

Running zombies are certainly a far more scary thing to deal with...

[N2NOther]

Its actually not an accident in AT either. The government let the virus loose as an experiment to see if they could control the reanimated corpses. But of course controlling them was impossible.

Well gooddamn it...Now it's almost identical...The difference in mine is that they want to see how effective it is and how long it takes to wipe out a populated area...Motherbitch. But my zombies shamble.

[DEAD BEAT]

that one came out of nowhere i didnt even hear about it,but if i saw dead in breakfast ill give this one a fair chance!

i always give ever zombie flick a chance once!:sneaky:

[Zombie Snack]

Looks very promising...and for such a meager budget..hearing nothing but great things

[Head Shotz]

So when does it come out, lets see it then form our opinions.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Excessium]

Well I went into Blockbuster the other night, and saw this on the shelves. Bloodydisgusting's reviews were on the front and back. They were quoted, "the best zombie film in decades" and The Holy Grail of indie horror films". And to top it all off it was a blockbuster exclusive. So i rented it, went home, starting watching at about 1am, stopped at about 1:35am.
This movie is a steaming pile. I don't think I have a high attention for detail, but omg does this movie have none. So many illogical things occur, I just couldn't take it anymore. The script was a friggin joke. The acting was worse then some of the crap in diary and...damn it just horrible. Man, seriously, I'd rather watch Ghey of the dead over this movie.
I'd recommend this movie to aspiring screenwriters and directors as a motivational tool, because after seeing this, you will know you can make a better film. Also it's a textbook example on how NOT to make a zombie movie.
How could such a horrible movie get such positive publicity???

[clanglee]

Oh yeah, I saw most of this movie a couple of months ago. Really lost interest halfway through. It wasn't the worst I've seen, but it wasn't in any way good.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well I went into Blockbuster the other night, and saw this on the shelves. Bloodydisgusting's reviews were on the front and back. They were quoted, "the best zombie film in decades" and The Holy Grail of indie horror films". And to top it all off it was a blockbuster exclusive. So i rented it, went home, starting watching at about 1am, stopped at about 1:35am.
This movie is a steaming pile. I don't think I have a high attention for detail, but omg does this movie have none. So many illogical things occur, I just couldn't take it anymore. The script was a friggin joke. The acting was worse then some of the crap in diary and...damn it just horrible. Man, seriously, I'd rather watch Ghey of the dead over this movie.
I'd recommend this movie to aspiring screenwriters and directors as a motivational tool, because after seeing this, you will know you can make a better film. Also it's a textbook example on how NOT to make a zombie movie.
How could such a horrible movie get such positive publicity???


Because the cinematography was outstanding, and the scope of the film was huge and it was made on $30,000.00

[clanglee]

Bah!!:rockbrow: Did you see it man? I guess for what it was it was ok, but it looked like it was made for 30,000.

[bd2999]

I just bought it for pretty cheap. Most of the online reviews are pretty bad, so I am not looking for to much. I saw the trailer with the Night anniversary and thought it looked alright. Dawn remakeish. Its probably going to be bad but I like zombie movies to much to not give it a try.

[clanglee]

Ok, I just tried to watch the rest of it and I just can't. It's just too bad. Just. . . too. . . bad.

[Neil]

As perviously said, made in 9 days for $30,000!

[MinionZombie]

I've seen a couple of clips on YouTube, and both were rubbish. There were really awful chunks of dialogue and bits that just don't make sense.

Oh a guy's come into the room where you're shagging your g/f, he's a zombie by the way, but you don't tell him to "get the f*ck out!" immediately, and instead just let him smash the place up and take the two of you out.

You've gotta have a good script, and it's that - the poor script, from what I've seen of it - that puts me off totally. Not the budget, not the short production time, the script.

I was moderately interested initially, but then after seeing the clips I was totally turned off.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The movie was picked up because it looked good, looked like it was shot on film, for the budget and the scope... that is why Dimension picked it up, and is producing a sequel on a much larger budget.

[Zombie Snack]

I dont understand all the positive hype...It looked like a $30,000 dollar movie...that was shot in 9 days...nothing special or impressive...it's a low budget, poorly written, badly acted movie.

[Skippy911sc]

Looks like a pretty badass zed film. Done on $60,000 and 16mm

Trailer looks good... has running zombies :D

http://www.automatontransfusion.com/

Bad link but a quick google took me to the right place...thanks for the info ...never heard of this one.

[Excessium]

Because the cinematography was outstanding, and the scope of the film was huge and it was made on $30,000.00

Outstanding cinematography? Sir, if "outstanding cinematography" is enough to make a ****y movie worth watching, then I'm going to get the most promising cinematographer at NYU/USC and have him film my dog taking a ****...

Outstanding cinematography is No Country for Old Men, Hero. And if you meant Outstanding for an indie film, i'd say it was good, not outstanding.

And seriously, why do people keep playing the "it was made on 30k, 9 days" card? What does it have to do with the story of this movie? Movie making is story telling, and this story was horrible. Since when do we add-it's ok to be crappy, to the definition of low budget.

You know there was this one movie made before there was DV, it was shot on 16mm, in two weeks, and made for 7k. It was also an action film. An action film made for 7k!? The movie I speak of IS THE HOLY GRAIL for ALL ultra lowbudget films. The movie was fillmed with first time actors, had good cinamatography, great editing, do it yourself special effects, and excellent direction, not to mention a good story. All that for 7k. You can also throw in Sundance film fesitival award winner to that list.

[clanglee]

I dont understand all the positive hype...It looked like a $30,000 dollar movie...that was shot in 9 days...nothing special or impressive...it's a low budget, poorly written, badly acted movie.

Word!!



You know there was this one movie made before there was DV, it was shot on 16mm, in two weeks, and made for 7k. It was also an action film. An action film made for 7k!? The movie I speak of IS THE HOLY GRAIL for ALL ultra lowbudget films. The movie was fillmed with first time actors, had good cinamatography, great editing, do it yourself special effects, and excellent direction, not to mention a good story. All that for 7k. You can also throw in Sundance film fesitival award winner to that list.

El Mariachi?

[Excessium]

Ci senor!:D

[Yojimbo]

You know there was this one movie made before there was DV, it was shot on 16mm, in two weeks, and made for 7k. It was also an action film. An action film made for 7k!? The movie I speak of IS THE HOLY GRAIL for ALL ultra lowbudget films. The movie was fillmed with first time actors, had good cinamatography, great editing, do it yourself special effects, and excellent direction, not to mention a good story. All that for 7k. You can also throw in Sundance film fesitival award winner to that list.

I don't know if Python's The Holy Grail can really be considered an "action" film with "first time actors" but I agree with you that it had good cinematography, editing, direction and story, and you have a good point about being soft in judgement about this film because of it's budget, especially considering how many films have been done well on very small budgets.

Haven't seen this one yet, so I must reserve judgement until such time. Trailer looked pretty righteous, though!

[bd2999]

Alright, I am in the process of watching it now. Nearly done. The movie has alot of problems and I will not deny that. The story makes next to no sense and there are strange errors everywhere.

The acting is alright and the gore is good, and its one of those movies that one minute the zombies can do superhuman things and the next are to weak to break glass sort of movies. For being low budget and compared to other terrible movies it is not bad though. All things considered.

Probably the most disappointing thing for this movie is what it could have been. The zombies are pretty good in it, if they would have worked a logical story in place than I can see this really being a good indie film without question. It just does not flow at any point, no explanations are really given and the character motivations are strange at times. I think movies like this are most painful because of wasted potential.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Outstanding cinematography? Sir, if "outstanding cinematography" is enough to make a ****y movie worth watching, then I'm going to get the most promising cinematographer at NYU/USC and have him film my dog taking a ****...

Outstanding cinematography is No Country for Old Men, Hero. And if you meant Outstanding for an indie film, i'd say it was good, not outstanding.

.

I did mean for an indie film. It may not be the greatest indie zombie flick, but it looks good and was cheap enough for the studio to pick up and put out.

The thing with Indie flicks now is if they look more like film, even if it looks like 8mm most distributors will pick them up.

Which is why I made sure the cinematography for my new zed flick has a 16mm look to it... Deadlands suffered from a part video part film-ish look, but now that I see what the studio's are grabbing it was easy for me to make the decision to get the DP to tune the camera to give me a film look so I wouldn't have to try to mess with it in post.