NOTE IMDb
3,9/10
1,2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueMarijuana growers deep in the woods are hit with a new toxic herbicide, and they turn into mindless cannibals killing everyone they come into contact with.Marijuana growers deep in the woods are hit with a new toxic herbicide, and they turn into mindless cannibals killing everyone they come into contact with.Marijuana growers deep in the woods are hit with a new toxic herbicide, and they turn into mindless cannibals killing everyone they come into contact with.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Charles McCrann
- Tom Cole
- (as Charles Austin)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesCharles McCrann, the film's director, writer, and one of the actors appearing in it, died in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
- Versions alternatives(spoilers) The banned UK video by Monte Video was cut. An epilogue about an FBI worker quitting his job was cut, but all violence remained.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Mad Ron's Prevues from Hell (1987)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Toxic Zombies?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Bloodeaters (1980) officially released in India in English?
Répondre