Red-Barracuda This film came to semi prominence in early 80's Britain when it was labelled a video nasty under the evocative sounding title Forest of Fear. The moniker I saw it under was 'Toxic Zombies' which really doesn't make an awful lot of sense. But no matter because it doesn't really make a difference what title this movie has, it's not going to improve it any. Its story is about a group of marijuana farmers who are sprayed with a toxic chemical by renegade federal agents. They turn into homicidal maniacs and terrorise various people in a forest.Sadly, despite being an honest enough effort, this is a pretty boring movie. It's amateurish in every conceivable way. Its video nasty credentials are somewhat questionable too. It's one of many films from the notorious list that have no right being in any grouping of films that were considered a threat to society. The very idea of someone sitting through this and then being either traumatised or inspired to commit acts of violence is patently an insane one. The only thing anyone is in danger of is in falling asleep to be perfectly honest. Acting is universally amateur despite the presence of John Amplas who was so impressive in George Romero's excellent film Martin. While the music is a very poor man's Halloween score. The only thing truly of note has nothing to do with the actual film and that is the fact that the director Charles McCrann was one of the poor unfortunates who perished in the World Trade Center attacks back in 2001.

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.

capkronos 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.

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