Look. I don't know what manner of potent drug cocktail was mixed in with everybody else's Mr. Pibb, but to me, Transformers was uniformly, unrelentingly terrible. I mean, really. This sucker was Happy Feet bad.

Thing is, though, I'm not writing to discuss Transformers. (And thank God for that; things might get ugly.) No, I'll do you one better.

Transmorphers, anyone?

Now, before your head explodes or something, allow me a moment to explain. Yes, this is real. No, it isn't a sequel, a parody, or a mistake. Reportedly shot over 12 days for $250,000, Transmorphers was released straight-to-DVD on June 26, 2007, just about a week before the U.S. premiere of you know what. It's the latest in a string of blockbuster "tie-ins" by The Asylum, a California-based production house that churns out low budget, high concept flicks at a breakneck, once-a-month pace, a certain portion of which tend to seem ... oh, "

target="_blank">familiar," let's say.

I first ran across them about a year ago, upon the release of the generally maligned

Snakes on a Train (oh, you betcha). I was immediately intrigued. I mean, how do you resist that? Head cheese David Michael Latt was kind enough to return my phone calls, and, against my better judgment, I've been something of a fan ever since.

Don't get me wrong: these are not "good" films, generally speaking, at least from the seven or so I've seen (although their C. Thomas

Howell-starring War of the Worlds take, I must say, is actually a pretty solid and entertaining little film, especially for less than 1/100 the cost of Spielberg's monster). A few, it's true, aren't even fun to watch. But they're nothing if not ambitious, and, grotesque though it may be, I'm kinda hooked.

So, is this Transmorphers thing any good? Well, it's hard to say.

Well, okay, not really hard. No, it isn't good. At least not in a traditional sense. Its performances, aside from one or two exceptions, are ridiculous. The dialogue is consistently execrable (though just

barely worse than that in Bay's baby). The effects, though fun and reasonably effective overall (considering), seem appallingly unfinished in parts. And, most astounding of all, after about 10

minutes or so, the audio mix gets so maddeningly unfinished and out of sync that you'll swear you got a bum copy (not the case, apparently). Guns go off and two story robots crash to the ground, all in silence; folks' mouths move without a sound with their lines unfashionably late to the party. The good guys' underground HQ looks sorta like a community theater set. And if all that's not enough, the DVD's filmmaker commentary, by far the most entertaining part of director Leigh Scott's King Kong doppelganger, doesn't seem to exist.

Is it, then, more a testament to the film's charm or my inveterate weirdness that I still managed to enjoy my time with Transmorphers? For all its limitations and should-be-unpardonable problems, there's a story here that, if not original, is at least interesting. Post-apocalyptic robot-human

throw downs? Check. A forward-thinking interpretation of lesbian marriage? Check. There's even a neat Blade Runner-ish twist toward the end that finds a way to really, genuinely work, somehow. More impressive still, I found myself caring what happened to a few of these characters, not for a moment was this the case with that other, FX-drenched, far more expensive business.

So, is Transmorphers actually better than Transformers? Tempting, but I guess I have to say no. It gets the edge on character and plot, though, which isn't saying too terribly much and is inexcusable, given the latter's resources.

Tell you one thing though: at a breezy 85 minutes, I'd probably sooner sit through Transmorphers one more time than I would the other.

Bring on the body snatchers, Asylum.

------------------------------------------

Brian Villalobos lives in Austin, Texas (practically), writes on film

and TV, and, despite occasional horrifying lapses, doesn't feel he has

deplorable taste.

[email me]