Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

O2D This movie is more like Corpse Grinders 2 than Astro-Zombies. And wouldn't you know it, both movies have the same star. So 2 different types of aliens come to Earth and create robot zombies to take over. Even though they have the technology to get here, their weapon of choice is a machete. There is literally 30 minutes of people grabbing their necks and zombies sharpening machetes. Then there's a 3rd type of alien. Minus 5 stars.

MartinHafer In the 1960s and 70s, Ted Mikels made a lot of cheap films. Some of his early ones weren't bad at all (such as "Black Klansman") but most were rather schlocky. However, in recent years, Mikels has stayed active--producing even lower quality films (yes, this IS possible). And when I talk about lower quality, I am not exaggerating. Films such as "Cauldron: Baptism of Blood" and "Apartheid Slave-Women's Justice" honestly look as if some teenagers decided to make a film using home video equipment and posted the results on YouTube. This is exactly the sort of film to expect from "Mark of the Astro-Zombies"--a film with such low production values that it is WORSE than an Ed Wood flick!!What's so bad about "Mark of the Astro-Zombies"? Everything. The actors are all non-professionals, his 'monsters' are laughable and sport cheap rubber masks (I especially had to laugh at the lizard people!!!), there appears to be no script, much of the film is missing and cheap messages scroll at the bottom of the screen to fill in the gaps and the entire production seems to have cost Mikels, perhaps, $89.99. Apart from a few trick machetes, the masks and LOTS of fake blood and some VERY cheap CG, I have no idea what Mikels else could have spent any money on--especially since he already seemed to have the home video cameras from his previous direct-to-video and DVD releases. The overall production is at least as bad as recent films like "Birdemic", "Troll 2" and "The Room"...no, I actually think "The Room" is better! However, deciding whether any of these are worse than "Mark of the Astro-Zombies" is like deciding which is worse--Ebola, the Black Plague or Typhoid!!! A truly horrible film that would have made the IMDb Bottom 100 list had it received wider distribution.

Michael_Elliott Mark of the Astro-Zombies (2002) * (out of 4) There's nothing like waiting thirty-four years to bring a sequel along. I guess you could almost call this a remake but since there's several mentions to the events and characters of the first film it would also be safe to call it a straight sequel. This time out another scientist has released the astro-zombies (and their machetes) to kill as many humans as they possibly can. I'm sure there was some more story at some point but that's pretty much all I got. So, was the three decade wait worth it? I would say yes. This film has a very small budget and it's clear that Mikels pretty much gathered up some friends to shoot this but it's that cheapness that actually makes the film worth viewing. Yes, the acting, special effects and everything else are bad but you have to give the director credit for being out there all these years and still trying to deliver drive-in trash even though that entire genre has been replaced by the current wave of torture porn. While watching this thing I couldn't help but get hit by some mild nostalgia because you really do feel as if you're watching something from the 60s but of course with a face lift. This film contains a lot more gore, which is actually a good thing because the kills here are extremely funny. None of them look real but I got a real kick out of seeing dozens of these astro-zombies running around, waiving their machetes in the air as they stalk and kill people in the streets. Most of the deaths come from the machetes being struck through people's throats and it's clear that a majority of the budget went to the blood effects. It's these scenes here that seem ripped right out of those drive-in flicks of the 70s and it's these scenes that will probably leave a smile on most faces. Brinke Stevens and Liz Renay appear here with countless others including the director himself. We also get John Carradine in the form of a pretty fake looking head, which again adds some mild camp value. At 80-minutes the thing still runs a bit too long but at the same time it has a much better pacing than the original film, although it's a shame they couldn't get the original masks for the creatures here. Fans of "Z" grade cinema or fans of the original film will want to check this one out but others should stay clear.

funkyfry If this film didn't have some kind of self-conscious humor to it, it would be pretty much worthless. The production values are equivalent to MILF-hunter or a school bus safety video. But there is no exploitation really (not even on a level with the bus video). The only thing that really gave me a laugh was when the zombies were on the loose in the mall. It was nice to see Satana up there on the big screen again after all these years (but then again, I wasn't around for the first time, so why not just rent another classic Satana flick and leave this one behind?). I have the feeling this one kept everyone busy, but not much else.