User Reviews

Forest Of Fear is generally dull and boring with a few "decent" bits (note: decent doesn't always mean good!) The story starts off quite interesting but soon gets tedious. A group growing illegal drugs are sprayed with a toxic herbicide which turns them into bloodthirsty zombies. After this a lot of stalking around the forest and occasional gore follows. None of the characters are particularly interesting and you won't feel any sympathy when they die. The decent bits are when a man gets his hand severed, complete with spurting blood, and a few splatter scenes such as when one of the zombies is killed at the end. I wouldn't recommend watching it for this as you can find ten times as much gore in a Lucio Fulci flick. It has a typical synth score and a woman gets her breasts out.

I would only recommend Forest Of Fear if you're a backwoods slasher fan. It's not really for zombie fans as the "zombies" just look like regular people with makeup and dark circles round their eyes. It's a rare title too - unavailable on DVD, but old VHS copies appear on ebay from time to time.

And to think, I was actually looking forward to seeing this film! Forest of Fear is a Video Nasty zombie flick, and if that's not enough to put you off; the fact that it's really boring might. The plot looks like it might give way to a fun little flick, as it follows the idea of a field full of weed being sprayed by chemicals, which turn everyone who smokes it into zombies. However, the film can't capitalise on this plot base; I'm not sure if it was because of the budget constraints, or merely a lack of talent on the writer's part, but most of the film is made up of tedious sequences; and even the parts where the zombies get to munch on human flesh aren't up to much. I've got no idea why this film was banned, as while there are gore sequences in the film; none of them are particularly gruesome, and I reckon that whoever made up the actual 'Video Nasty' list decided to take this film out of circulation because it's a zombie film. Not that I particularly have a problem with a ban on this movie; it's not worth seeing anyway.

Despite being rubbish, however, Forest of Fear marks a personal achievement for Charles McCrann. McCrann, apparently a movie buff, has credits on this movie for acting, directing, editing, producing and writing - and that's no small feat, even for a movie of this low calibre. However, despite McCrann's personal achievement; Forest of Fear is a zombie movie of the lowest order. Movies like Dawn of the Dead took the idea of zombies and moulded it around a substantial social commentary, and later films such as The Evil Dead worked in spite of a low budget thanks to a constant stream of entertainment; Forest of Fear lacks both intelligence and interest, and it very much just another zombie movie. Ironically, had the film have been Italian; I may have been more forgiving given all the glorious trash that they've given the world of cult cinema, but unfortunately; this is just a really bad film and unless you're planning to see everything on the Video Nasty list (like me) - I can't recommend going out of your way to find this.

One of the infamous video nasties that were banned in Britain, this one known as Forest of Fear, is still banned. It was released on video in the US as Toxic Zombies, and is also known as Blood Butchers. With all these names changes, maybe they can sneak it past the British Film Board.

It is a typical zombie movie. The government sprays some unapproved substance (DROMAX) on marijuana fields on government land, and it turns the pot growers into zombies. They start killing their friends that didn't get infected, then move to campers in the woods.

Lots of blood and body parts, but only one gratuitous nude scene (Debbie Link) before the whole thing starts as one pot grower is bathing out of a pail.

Cameo by John Amplas (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Knightriders).

For zombie completists.

Another one of those horror films that has more alternate titles than it has ideas, this zombie movie uses the moral standpoint of the anti-drug governmental policy for its main premise. A group of young people are growing their own cannabis plants in a remote area of wilderness. A strange and cheap looking government body, arranges a toxic chemical crop spray, to eliminate these plants. However, the secretive chemical used, turns its victims into flesh eating aggressors.

After this event, of course, various groups of campers are attacked, eviscerated and left in parts around the forests. The groups are filled with generic characters with uninteresting stories. The opening moments of the film is intriguing and slightly dramatic, but this moment of interest is short-lived, as it simply falls back into the standard zombie film of the time - and of course the trend for the zombie increased again in the 21st century, but this wave was indisputably horrific (in the sense that almost 90% of output was awful).

It was obviously a project made from the heart, with passion at its centre, as director Charles McCrann also wrote, edited produced, and even played the lead role of Tom Cole. This passion does show, despite the shoddy production - and you have to give someone a little credit for at least attempting to realise their dream. With a slight ecological message within the plot, it is absolutely not the worst of its kind, but not enough for a thorough recommendation. Also alternately known by Bloodeaters and Toxic Zombies (amongst others), we at least have a denouncement of right-wing governmental policy amongst the grue, lame zombie attacks and distressingly annoying screaming women.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

"Toxic Zombies" is one horrible zombie movie! With an uncountable number of faults, I would rank this movie within the top ten worst films I've ever seen. This movie would provide a great example of a bad movie that came out of the early eighties zombie era.

The "plot", which is virtually non-existent, is as follows: A group of people are growing marijuana on a piece of land that is owned by the government. When the government hears about this, they drop a load of extremely toxic chemicals on both the marijuana and the people (the government apparently did not care about the condition of the people). These chemicals end up turning the group people into zombies, hence the name "Toxic Zombies". The rest of the movie involves zombies killing and eating people.

The plot may not sound that bad to some, but what the director did with it is what made the movie so bad. There is not a large amount of gore, unlike what the box lead me to believe, and when gore is inserted, it is extremely fake. The acting is very bad, as is the dialogue and the plot. The only good thing about this movie is the unintentional humor derived from the script and the bad acting.

I recommend this movie for nobody. My rating: 2 out of 10

Prior to watching this movie I was not aware that it had gained most of its notoriety from being banned in Britain. Neither was I aware that it went by several different titles other than "Toxic Zombies". Be that as it may and in all honesty, this is not a good movie. I hate to be so blunt but that's just the way it is. The acting was pretty bad, the script was awful and the zombies didn't look that impressive at all. However, compared to a few other Grade-Z low-budget zombie movies, this one at least makes an effort to overcome its obvious lack of funds and talent to try to produce something worth viewing. It doesn't succeed but at least it tries. Essentially, the movie begins with some DEA officials who decide to spray a heavily forested area with a new chemical called "Dromax" in order to destroy marijuana cultivation. They make this decision without regard for any potential damage this new chemical might cause. As it so happens the chemical powder descends upon the people growing the marijuana and turns them into zombies who attack and kill everybody they come across. So much for the plot. But having said all of that, what I liked about this film was that the director (Charles McCrann) put in an honest effort and tried to make a good zombie movie rather than cop out and try to deliberately make a film that's "so bad it's good" like several other directors have done. Of course, those specific movies weren't that "good" at all. They were just plain awful. And while this one wasn't good either it's at least better than those just mentioned. For that I applaud the effort.

A flatly photographed living dead cheapie made in rural Pennsylvania with minimal skill and talent. Forget Romero, this thing doesn't even manage to muster up half the entertainment value of Bill Hinzman's laughable (though oddly enjoyable) 1988 rip-off REVENGE OF THE LIVING ZOMBIES (aka FLESH EATER). About a half dozen marijuana harvesting yahoos camping out in the woods are sprayed with a toxic chemical called "Dromax" by a passing helicopter (sent out by some corrupt federal agents well aware of what they're doing). Most of the pot growers start getting sick by the next day, cough up blood and then become raving lunatics who kill random people for their blood. A man (played by Charles Austin McCrann; the director, writer, producer and editor of TOXIC ZOMBIES) going on his annual fishing trip with his very whiny and irritating wife (Beverly Shapiro) and his brother (Phillip Garfinkel) end up getting caught in the middle. There's also a family of four (husband, wife, teen daughter and retarded teen son) on a camping trip that get attacked, as well as a hermit, a trucker, the copter pilot, his wife and a couple of others. The drug enforcement agents (including John Amplas, star of Romero's MARTIN) show up at the very end to complicate matters.

For starters, the enticing re-release moniker TOXIC ZOMBIES is a bit misleading. This was originally filmed under the much more accurate title BLOOD EATERS. In other words, if you like your zombies to look like zombies; you known with rotting flesh make-up applications or even a coating of blue or gray or white or green paint to give them an undead appearance, you're sure to be disappointed by the minimal look of the ghouls here. They basically just look like dirty people. Dirty unshaven hippies with a few boils on their faces, to be exact. They grunt, use weapons (basically a machete in one scene and a rock in another) and even burn down a shack with torches at one point. The fact there are only a few of these blood-hungry maniacs lurking about at any given time doesn't really help the fear factor any. None pose much of a threat and are easily disposed of when the time comes. As far as gore is concerned, there are a couple of cheap effects, such as a hand being cut off, a head shot and an eyeball stabbing, but the gore quotient is almost as minimal as the "blood eaters" makeup.

So sadly, fellow zombie fans, all we're really left with here is an inept film that not only looks ugly from an aesthetic standpoint but is also dull from an action/guilty pleasure stance. The first five minutes, which should be attempting to capture our attention, consist of two camera changes of a car driving down a dirt road, followed by two guys walking in the woods carrying rifles. The acting is terrible, there's an irritating, generic and repetitive piano score, silly dialogue not worth listening to, one out-of-nowhere topless shot of a woman sitting by a bucket of water scrubbing her breasts and lots of scenes of people running through the woods... and out of the woods onto the road... and then back into the woods again... It's probably worth a single watch for cheap movie lovers and zombie film completists (some parts aren't too bad and others are amusing in a bad movie kind of way), but most will want to rightfully steer clear.

The writer/director/producer/editor/star was an ivy league graduate (Princeton; Yale Law) employed at Marsh & McLennan Company in the World Trade Center and, sadly, was killed during the September 11th terrorist attacks. R.I.P. to him.

BLOODEATERS (which I saw the theatrical trailer for many years ago and laughed at), and TOXIC ZOMBIES are the same film which I discovered by accident after renting it. I had heard terrible things about both titles but as a zombie movie fan, I tend to fall prey to my inner hunger to see guts ripped out and devoured onscreen by pasty-faced freaks, often against my better judgement. This film was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be--although it's no masterpiece, either. The film is padded out, has terrible, wooden acting, a ludicrous script,awful zombie makeup, and yet somehow it doesn't fall flat on its face... well, not entirely. On the plus side, there is a small but decent amount of gore effects (severed limbs, bullets through head and neck, guts seeping out of a dead body) and the soundtrack (similar to John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN) is actually quite eerie and effective, rendering the film a tad more suspenseful than it has a right to be. The zombies, not truly being undead but just drugged out homicidal maniacs, are the result of being sprayed by a secret government herbicide, and thus die all too easily (as any normal person would). The film needed more zombies, more victims, more gore and more action. It has its moments and a certain creaky, campy charm, but suffers mightily from its amateur cast and crew and is paced only slightly faster than your average snail and has about as much intelligence. Not a bad rental if you're hard up for zombie fare. I give it a 3 out of 10 stars.

Bloodeaters (a.k.a. Toxic Zombies) seemed to be a 1980's satire on propaganda such as Reefer Madness or Teenage Devil Dolls. The movie itself is toxic, but the entertainment factor delivered by such makes this movie more than what it is. I'm surprised that it is not more of a cult classic. It doesn't take itself seriously, but neither does much satire. This terrible movie is a gem simply to sit and laugh at. For this factor, we'll give it a three out of ten.

Typical low-grade grindhouse where yet again an ecohazard breeds walking dead. Laughs at bad script and acting too few and far between, as most of the time is spent on potential victims running thru the woods. At least a couple of the murders are novel ideas, but badly executed. Better look elsewhere.

Some movies are great to an individual because of his or her own personal experiences with them. This film is one of those "special films" to me. I saw it originally in 1988 or so on the old USA show "Saturday Nightmares" at the tender age of 8. Saturday Nightmares was the best, way better than "Up All Night". They showed two horrendously crappy horror films every Saturday night, starting at 8 p.m. My dad and I would get very excited for "Saturday Nightmares" because it was always incredible. We were always amused/amazed by how bad these films were and we always wondered where the hell they found them. Every week you would see two movies that would blow your mind. "Toxic Zombies" was one of these. My sister, my father and I were laughing at this trash heap of a zombie film extremely hard. I searched for it for years, and just found it at Videoscreams three years ago. Still horrible, and I still laugh at it.

The DEA spray a bunch of marijuana growing hippies with an experimental crop killing spray and they turn into bloodthirsty zombies who roam the countryside chewing people up.Charles McCrann's "Bloodeaters" is a low budget zombie film which was amazingly banned as video nasty in the UK.Of course there is some gore,but nothing really shocking or disturbing.The acting is pretty bad,but it's nice to see John Amplas in a small role as one of the hippies.Check it out,especially if you like zombie films.

Some hippies camping in the woods get covered in poisoned LSD (don't ask) and turn into zombies (again, don't ask). Yup, it's another world beater.

Much like the similar "Video Nasty", Don't Go In The Woods, Forest of Fear has a "wilderness" with more people in it than trees, features almost as many moments of inspired stupidity, and contains choice lines of dialogue such as, "There's been some killing", "Even if he's retarded, he's got to learn to get along in this world", and "I've lived in these woods all my life and I've never seen a cannibal".

As you would expect, the "acting" is equally brilliant. While a woman is clawing frantically at a man for help, screaming and trying to get away from a badly made-up zombie, the man simply stands there like a tree and recites his lines like he's memorising a grocery list. There's also the total lack of reaction from a man who finds a severed leg in the woods, the worst attempt at acting like a Downs Syndrome sufferer ever, plus there's some sledgehammer-subtle exposition, and even a smattering of casual racism. George A Romero faithful, John Amplas (Martin, Knightriders, Day of the Dead), turns up in it for a bit of spare cash and somehow manages to act worse than almost everybody else. And that's no easy task. Unlike DGITW, Forest of Fear does actually feature a music score. Just one that sounds like a bad high school music project which steals liberally from Halloween and Jaws, while using sound effects so shrill and annoying that they could only have been created by the worst type of sadist.

Nudity Watch: A girl gets her boobs out in the first two minutes, but after that there's nothing rude at all. In fact, like so many other video nasties, you're left wondering why it was even banned in the first place. Even for the '80s, it's tame stuff.

TOXIC ZOMBIES (1980) *** (out of 4*'s) Director: Chuck McCrann. Charles Austin (Chuck McCrann), Beverly Shapiro, Alysson Alynn, John Amplas.

Government sprays reefer crops with a herbicide, intoxicates the hippy marijuana farmers and turns them into zombies. They prowl through the forest and kill off campers!

Funny, low budget yarn. Stars John "Martin" Amplas in a minor role. Inspired by an actual event. Shot in Pennsylvania in 1979. Released in theatres as BLOODEATERS.

After watching this movie a few times, i can honestly say it's probably the best that Chuck Mccran (RIP) could have done with such a weak budget and cast. The effects are super cheap and there really isn't one good one. The zombies aren't very menacing either, considering there's only 4 or 5 in the whole movie. and the acting, BAD BAD BAD.

I think that this movie could have actually been fairly decent had it had a bigger budget, a few script revisions and a much better cast. Of course, the most noticeable role played by John Amplas (Martin). He plays a federal officer in the beginning who, with another officer drive out into the woods to search for the marijuana growers. I say, this is a cheesy yet in a way fun (yet also very boring) ATTEMPT at film-making. Also look at the guy who starred in, wrote, directed, produced, and edited the movie: Chuck Mcrann. He was NOT a filmmaker, just a guy who felt like making a film because of his love for movies.

This film came to semi prominence in early 80's Britain when it was labelled a video nasty under the evocative sounding title Forest of Fear. The moniker I saw it under was 'Toxic Zombies' which really doesn't make an awful lot of sense. But no matter because it doesn't really make a difference what title this movie has, it's not going to improve it any. Its story is about a group of marijuana farmers who are sprayed with a toxic chemical by renegade federal agents. They turn into homicidal maniacs and terrorise various people in a forest.

Sadly, despite being an honest enough effort, this is a pretty boring movie. It's amateurish in every conceivable way. Its video nasty credentials are somewhat questionable too. It's one of many films from the notorious list that have no right being in any grouping of films that were considered a threat to society. The very idea of someone sitting through this and then being either traumatised or inspired to commit acts of violence is patently an insane one. The only thing anyone is in danger of is in falling asleep to be perfectly honest. Acting is universally amateur despite the presence of John Amplas who was so impressive in George Romero's excellent film Martin. While the music is a very poor man's Halloween score. The only thing truly of note has nothing to do with the actual film and that is the fact that the director Charles McCrann was one of the poor unfortunates who perished in the World Trade Center attacks back in 2001.

When corrupt government officials order an illegal drugs crop to be dusted with the experimental herbicide Dromax, the hippies harvesting the plants are accidentally transformed into bloodthirsty zombies.

It's rather ironic that if certain films hadn't been banned by the BBFC during the 1980s, a lot less people would have bothered to hunt them down and watch them. Forest of Fear (AKA Bloodeaters AKA Toxic Zombies), for example, is one dreadfully amateurish effort that will only be of interest to most horror fans thanks to its notorious 'Video Nasty' label.

Precisely what got the censors in such a tizzy that they felt they had to ban the film is beyond me: admittedly, there are a few mean-spirited moments in the film where sympathetic characters are bumped off in nasty fashion, but these scenes are executed in such an unconvincing manner (the gore in this film is so cheap that it is more likely to amuse than to repulse) that they lose any shock value that they might have otherwise had.

Add the fact that almost every other aspect of this production—acting, direction, script—is equally as inept, and what you have is yet another title that avid horror fans will be compelled to watch only for the sake of completion.

I really like my trash and cheese and have strong nerves to wait for a shimmer of entertainment and fun, but Bloodeaters aka Toxic Zombies is a slow, very boring affair. To be honest I would not fear a zombie outbreak as much as being bound in hell and are condemned to watch this movie forever - no sleaze, cheese or trash factor, this is just bad. The only impressive fact is the stream of titles under which the film was released: Toxic Zombies, Bloodeaters, Bloodeaters: Butchers of the Damned, The Dromax Derangement, and Forest of Fear.

This cheap imitation of "The Night Of The Living Dead" is an earnest attempt to revive the "appeal" (and the chills) of the 1968 film, but while most of the appropriate ingredients seem to be in place, somehow they don't work. The film has no impact, no scariness. The desolate atmosphere - more a result of the setting itself, rather than of directorial competence - is about all it has going for it. (*)

Released as "Forest of Fear" in the U.K , this little known gem has an undeserved bad reputation. Our action starts with a group of hippies farming our friend "the killer weed" high up in the hills. The Feds are aware of the activities and employ the local crop duster (an alcoholic misogynist (a nice combination)) to go and spray a payload of weed killer on the fields. This is no ordinary weedo thou , its an untested souped up DDT varient that they unleash on the unsuspecting hippies. The crop is sprayed , the hippies run , covered in the dust and vomiting blood , the crop duster stoned on cheap booze gets out of his plane , covered in the dust. And pretty soon the dusters fat wife falls victim , a family in the mountains on a trip and the evil (and now bloodthirsty (as blood is the only thing that can quench their devilish thirst) hippies run amok ! So it has wobbly sets , some we can see the top of, hokey acting , but who cares its an interesting film and a more productive way of spending an afternoon than watching a "Jim Carey" film.

All hail You Tube for hosting the full version of this film, one which was banned by the BBFC and one of the few that has never been re-released. So how does this so-called Video Nasty pan out? Well, for one, I can't see why they banned it all. It's no gorier than The Crazies and even less gory than Zombie Holocaust, so it's a bit of a head scratcher as to why it was taken off the shelves. On the other hand, I did find it to be a fairly enjoyable, and daft, low budget horror film.

After killing two feds who stumbled upon their ganja plantation, some hippies decide to cut their costs, harvest as much grass as possible, and run off. Unluckly for them a G-man gives the go ahead to spray their crop with an experimental herbicide just as they're harvesting, covering five of them in poisonous dust (and the pilot gets covered in it too, for his troubles). Now this dust immediately makes them spew blood and become sick, which leads them to crave blood and go off on a killing spree, starting with two unaffected hippies.

Meanwhile, a forestry commission guy is on a fishing trip with his wife and his annoying brother (who does racist jokes), who then bump into two kids who's parents have been killed by the mutated hippies. From then on it's a chase through the woods while the G-man and John Amplas of Martin fame try and cover up the mess they've made.

While insanely cheap and in places badly acted and edited, and also although it takes a while to build up some steam, Toxic Zombies is good for a laugh once it gets going. It's not overly gory but people do get stabbed in the eye, have their hands chopped off as the hippies battle the norms. The hippies are easily put down and don't transmit their disease but they're also quite crafty and relentless, using weapons and fire to get to their prey.

If you're on the mooch for a cheap horror film then this one will do the trick. I love it when low budget filmmakers manage to pull a decent film out the bag.

This film was so bad, it was great! My friend and I never laughed so hard. I saw this film as "Revenge of the Toxic Zombies," when it was accidentally placed in a rental-video box, in lieu of the film I actually wanted. (I assumed some film school student had done this as a joke, or to get his film seen.) I definitely recommend this film to any horror fan who needs a good laugh. Hysterical