Most of the reviews I skimmed over online before trying to pound out my own were pretty high about the third film from Neil Marshall (Dog Soldiers and The Descent, both which are pretty fair horror films). Everyone noticed all the “homages” to films like Escape from New York, The Road Warrior, Resident Evil, 28 Days Later and Aliens. There is even a gimp like in Pulp Fiction. I wonder if that is what we are suppose to do here, try to point out all the "clever" inferences to all the great films this turkey stole its ideas from? The film's lead Rhona Mitra sulks around like just another pissed off femme fatale - a lot like Kate Beckensale did in Underworld (only Kate can act better and had a better haircut) - and big names like Bob Hoskins, Malcom McDowell and Adrian Lester seems to show up for far less time than they should have. So, when I read all these rabid reviews about a film that I basically detested I have to wonder what is up. Did I miss something? Do I need to watch this thing one more time? Well, that is not going to ever happen and I will tell you why. A lot of films I promote here at the Café can easily be labeled bad movies. So what makes a film like Ted V. Mikels Astro Zombies (a cheesy Z-film with a zero budget) a film I would watch again while this mess is something I just cannot recommend? I have to wonder more why were 95% of the reviews I read about this thing so favorable or at least wishy washy? A film like Astro Zombies or Destroy all Monsters are films that never really take themselves too seriously. They never pretend to be more than what they really are: cheesy flicks They make no big promises but deliver something that can be, in its way, entertaining. This movie makes promises it cannot deliver on.