Bloodeaters (1980)

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.

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.

I'll admit to having a soft spot for TOXIC ZOMBIES, as it will always be known to me. The film has a legacy behind it that's somewhat bigger than the final results. Notorious for being one of the "Video Nasty" titles banned in Britain during a public outcry over gory, sexually suggestive horror movie videos. Its actually one of the last holdouts which hasn't gotten what would be a highly lucrative DVD revival, and there's a tragic, creepy reason for it.The premise is basic enough to be easily understood on a sort of Urban Legend sort of level: Dumb hippies camping up in the sticks for a summer growing season are waiting to harvest $2 million dollars worth of dope when a team of federal narcotics agents stumble upon their bivouac. They shoot the only good looking woman willing to bare her breasts for the camera and are promptly slaughtered for their efforts by the hippies, who aren't all peace & love after all. After the agents are reported missing cynical federal drug officers decide to dust the crop of weed with an experimental defoliant known to have toxic side effects. I actually remember stories about weed being dusted by the government with paraquat that would make you gag blood when I was a teenage troublemaker, and always wondered if this movie was a source of that urban myth.So the feds hire a down on his luck loser to do it, planning to off him afterward to cover it all up. The hippies get exposed to the defoliant and mutate into ravenous, bloodthirsty zombie type maniacs. They go on a rampage murdering and partially devouring anyone they come upon and the film does a good job of trotting a regular supply of fresh victims onto the location sets. Meanwhile, the hero (writer/director/star Charles McCrann) and his girlfriend happen upon a young girl and her mentally handicapped brother as they wander through the woods looking for frogs or whatever. The four flee the toxic zombies and take up with a survivalist hermit living in the woods who must have been Ted Kazinski's next door neighbor (even though the film was made in Pennsylvania). They fight a losing battle against the toxic zombies & find themselves on the run again, only to come face to face with the scurrilous drug agents, who plan to murder everybody and cover up the event. All we need is that cigarette guy from the X-Files and we'd have a nice little modern day post Vietnam era paranoia parable here.That's the movie in a nutshell. What works are the zombie attacks and the low budget middle of nowhere locations that were chosen. There's also a decent pulsating electronic musical score that suggest somebody had seen a couple of Lucio Fulci movies -- And it turns out, director/star Chuck McCrann was indeed a horror movie buff and sort of made this on his own with some friends & business contacts, one of whom was George A. Romero actor John Amplas, himself a native Pennsylvanian known to work on risky, low budget projects.There's certainly a "home movie" sort of quality to the proceedings, which I say works in the movie's favor. Mr. McCrann was apparently something of a financial entrepreneur and likely raised the funds for the project himself, giving the film a nice independent/regional edge to it. There are no big stars, the zombie effects and gore makeup are effective yet minimal, and the biggest bill for the project was probably the lab fee for the print. Most of the actors are non-professionals, it was likely filmed on public land with a modest crew, and was indeed apparently so independent of a production that there wasn't anyone to stick up for it when British authorities outright banned the film in or around 1984. Its legend as a barf-bagger epic banned by assorted heads of state grew far out of proportion to anything the movie actually delivers, resulting in some of the confusion amongst the ranks of my fellow reviewers here.Today the film exists in a sort of limbo. Not public domain but the legal rights to the film are probably undetermined since they likely remained with Mr. McCrann, who it turns out was one of the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, which is where his offices were located. Until the legalities are sorted out the film will remain slipped through the cracks and overlooked, with only its bizarre legacy to recommend it. The only DVD versions kicking around today are sourced from old home video releases. There's an R rated North American DVD and an unrated print from Japan that shows the complete 89 minute assembly rejected by the MPAA.One offbeat tangent of intrigue here is that the theme of government conspiracy and indifference to public well-being runs through TOXIC ZOMBIES right up to a paranoid survivalist hoarding guns & MREs up in his cabin. Of course its just a coincidence but it adds to the film's aura of seediness and cynicism. I actually kind of like it too. I adore low budget regional horror and this is probably one of the pinnacle efforts. It deserves to be resurrected and restored, both as a legacy to McCrann's vision and a great object lesson on how to make a cheap, sleazy, endearing little horror movie for peanuts.6/10

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.