IMDb रेटिंग
3.9/10
1.2 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंMarijuana 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.
Charles McCrann
- Tom Cole
- (as Charles Austin)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाCharles McCrann, the film's director, writer, and one of the actors appearing in it, died in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
- भाव
Federal Agent #1: [Having just rifle shot at random person walking in woods] Holy shit; it's a woman!
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जन(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.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Mad Ron's Prevues from Hell (1987)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Toxic Zombies?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें