Did you people see the same film I saw?

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

A cult sci-fi comedy from the late 80's that looks like it was shot on 8MM. If you like normal films you won't like this one.A group of aliens (miniature naked Claymation ones) land next to a bum and an old vacuum and decide to create a new breed of humans. Thanks to the aliens the homeless man finds the vacuum irresistible and you can imagine the rest.The vacuum likes to eat by using its plug to pull plates of food into its mouth. Things get nasty when it starts taking lives and raping women (we find out the vacuum is male). Things get even weirder when the woman becomes pregnant from the vacuum which was the ultimate goal of the aliens. They figure the new generation will clean up after themselves.The acting is atrocious especially the detective who is doing a Bogart impersonation all the way through. Really the whole film is atrocious but in a funny, ridiculous way. You will laugh. The title alone has to get you to watch it.

Three miniature anatomically correct clay-mated aliens travel to Earth to see how humans have evolved. They decide to make a human/ vacuum cleaner hybrid just for giggles, but their plan is contingent on someone having their way with a vacuum cleaner. A local bum more than happily obliges. However the resulting hybrid has a taste for.....blood and sex!! Leaving the bum to go look for his lost loving vacuum, Dusty Thisultra-low budget curiosity is definitely a weird one, you'll never see a rapist vacuum cleaner in any other movie and the ridiculous image stays with you for a little while. The whole film feels like it was written on a bunch of cocktail napkins. Plot-lines and story elements disappear & reappear haphazardly and the movie goes off on a few tangents. Furthermore, the film feels too long for it's thin premise. Michael Paul Girard was able to make a minor soft-core skin classic with his later "Babes 2: Lost in Beaver Creek", but this, his first film, only showed that he had a lot of unpolished edges that he needed to smooth out before getting to that point.Eye Candy: Jean Stewart gets frontally nude My Grade: D- DVD Extras: Director's commentary; 19 & a half minutes of outtakes from the original cut of the film; 4 minutes of outtakes from "Lebanon Vice" (the fictitious show that plays in this movie); and trailers for "National Lampoon's TV the Movie", "Fubar", "Plaster Caster", & "Dolemite"

What can be said that has not been said already -certainly one of the most interesting titles for a film but some of the comments on this site make it look as if this is an undiscovered gem of a movie when in fact it is not. There will be a great deal of puzzlement in trying to get guests to even view the film after reading the title. For cult viewing I would recommend almost any other low budget SF / Horror movie. However if is is available in a bargain bin somewhere then give it a go but don't hold your breath for the BLUE RAY of HD-DVD version. There is a sense of pride in finding a strange little movie and being a champion of that movie but this movie does not deserve such high praise. Terrible acclamation sucks the rug out from under this film before it gets started. Finally a lot of urban myths and hospital rumours surround people who fall in love with domestic appliance (or at least try to). Best avoided.

Well, Kira Philips and Miles O'Brien, in speaking about Mars, spoke about this movie on August 27, 2003 as one of 108 movies with the name "Mars" in the title. I don't think that the movie would have been mentioned at all if it was not at least funny. Has anyone seen this film on TV and/or at art film showcases such as the Museum of Modern Art in NYC?