Bloodeaters

Talk about a one-man vision! This film maybe very low budget with little to recommend it any department, but when taken into consideration that is was written, produced, edited, directed and starred the same chap, McCrann, the film becomes quite impressive. Chuck Austin McCrann was presumed dead on September 11th, but for us horror film fanatics who knew nothing of the man we have this cheap little zombie flick, known as Bloodeaters in the States to remember him by.

Filmed in the ‘ZOMBIE CAPITOL OF THE WORLD', Pittsburgh, this film also has regular Romero crewmember, John ‘Martin' Amplas as a double-dealing FBI agent. He and his colleague decide to dump their new herbicide, ‘DROMAX' on a cannabis crop, similar in theme to Return of the Living Dead. The dust settles on the harvesting hippies too. Soon these poor fellas are running around the country searching for different kind of munchies. The rest of Forest of Fear involves McCrann, his wife and brother frequently running from place to place escaping the carnivorous hippies; a mentally challenged kid and his older sister trying to find their parents who were previously killed by the ‘zombies'; a touch of comic relief between an unemployed alcoholic and his mouthy wife. There is the occasional scene of violence too, albeit not too graphic.

This isn't a great movie by any standards. The special effects, acting and cinematography all scream the word ‘cheap' in unison. But there is something in particular with the one-man vision, Pittsburgh country setting, John Amplas and its inclusion on the ‘Video Nasties' list, which make Forest of Fear rewatchable

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.

Still not sure why this movie qualifies for the dubious video nasty distinction but aside from it being an amateurish production and abysmally acted, it features a coherent plot, generally well-executed suspense, and some effective makeup effects when a backwoods drug operation is disrupted by an experimental herbicide that turns the hippie cultivators into bloodthirsty maniacs.

Aside from the atrocious acting, lighting is the main challenge, the night-time scenes almost too poorly lit to be discernible. The other constant irritation is the not-so-subtle anti-government rhetoric which could've been jettisoned in the editing room, it adds no value to a film of this scale other than to make its inclusion seem glib and self-indulgent.

Low-budget 'redneck horror' is tedious at times, but the frequency of the violence almost compensates, the audience only left despairing at the sheer ineptitude of the victims as they repeatedly stumble their way into the waiting arms of the rabid cannibal hippies who've abandoned peace and turned to violence. Some of the gore scenes are quite effective (e.g. The bludgeoning at the camp site is quite brutal and realistic), whereas others are valiant efforts that don't quite execute as intended (e.g. The fountain of sauce spurting from the severed hand looks comical rather than scary).

If only there were a few more professional actors on hand (Amplas being the only name I recognised although his performance isn't one of his best), better lighting and a tighter ending, 'Toxic Zombies' might've been a minor horror classic. As it stands, whilst it's suspenseful and bloody and I'd choose it any day over today's Hollywood twaddle, it's going to be a little too amateurish to reach a wider audience and gain the appreciation it deserves.

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.

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.