StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Bereamic Awesome Movie

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Leofwine_draca More sub-par NIGHT OF THE LIVING shenanigans are here in this shot-in-Pennysylvania effort, strictly amateurish from beginning to end and yet not without a certain charm. This is a virtually plot less affair, involving a group of hippies who are sprayed with experimental herbicide and turn into weapon-wielding zombies, although it has to be said that there are very atypical zombies as they resemble nothing more than stoned students wandering around in the woods. Astonishingly, this is a film which gained a certain notoriety thanks to its brief appearance on the video nasties list, this is incredible when watching a relatively tame film when compared to the likes of Fulci's ZOMBIE FLESH EATERS or the myriad other video nasties around at the time.The entire film takes place in the woods and it has to be said that the location is the best aspect of the film, lending the movie a natural atmosphere which even the occasionally sloppy camera-work can't hide. The cast is a largely interchangeable bunch of hippies, government agents and holidaying families, with plenty of chasing about and action interspersed with some laughable gore segments; a man's hand is cut off, a severed leg is found in the wood, some entrails leak from a torn stomach. The special effects are laughably bad, so cheap that they even use those joke-shop plastic flies at one point, sticking them to a wound. The "zombies" just appear to have putty stuck to their faces so don't go expecting any Dick Smith-style gruesomeness here.The wooden lead is played by Charles McCrann, actually Charles Austin, who also acted as director, writer, and producer. In retrospect his action-man persona is lent a touch of poignancy, in the discovery that he was killed in the 9/11 Al Quaeda attack on the Twin Towers. FOREST OF FEAR is Austin's baby and it isn't that bad, certainly more atmospheric than the other amateur efforts of the '80s and '90s, like ZOMBIE NOSH for instance. The unknown Beverly Shapiro is mildly attractive as the heroine, whilst Romero regular John Amplas pops up as a corrupt government official. However, it's the supporting characters who are the most hilarious; Dennis Helfend, who plays a paranoid hermit living out in the woods, steals the show with his fleshy, edgy performance, whilst the acting of the lad playing the boy also gets a few laughs. In the end, FOREST OF FEAR is pretty much interchangeable with the other cheap horror efforts coming from America between 1980 and 1983, but it retains a few moments of interest to make it worth a look for kindly fans.

BA_Harrison 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.

reverendtom 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.

wpenos 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.