MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Darkweasel 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.

Uriah43 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.

Krug Stillo 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

Logan-22 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.