Toxic Zombies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.