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.

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.

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.

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.