Nonureva
Really Surprised!
ChanFamous
I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.
Ginger
Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.
Michael Ledo
It appears pollution has caused critters (not just frogs) to become large and aggressive on an island. To add some kind of irony or meaning to the production our "bad guy" is a trophy hunter(Ray Milland) in a wheel chair. Pickett Smith is a photographer who comes to the island in what will be one of Sam Elliot's lest memorable role. TV actress Joan Van Ark reminds us why a generation was in love with bell bottoms.The premise of the film is inane. Animals die from pollution with frogs being one of the most susceptible in the food chain. And even if frogs did become hopping mad, an army of heavily armed frogs could not stand up to one kid with a pair of sneakers. Apparently the frogs are the masterminds directing the gators and snakes before becoming their snack.The film appears to be made for TV in spite of the rating, with credit phrases like "guest appearance." No horror factor involved. Many of the animal shots are stock footage.
Mckenzie Barkdull-Pugmire
Above this move is described as; horror, mystery, and romance. I think I can safely say it fails to be all of the above. the only mystery is how in the hell they got this movie produced. the frog is possibly the most frightening creature on the planet and even though they try their hardest to make these man eating frog seem vicious it inevitably fails. All though in their failed attempt to make a cutting edge original horror movie they created now one of my favorite stupid comedies.Between the melodramatic acting and the intense double takes of an expressionless frog it's quite impossible to get through this movie with out laughing.
skybrick736
The movie is simplistic and goes without much thought than wildlife taking revenge on a group of humans. For what it's worth though, Frogs presented this eco-minded thought into a really strong concrete horror film message. There are no cheesy giant frogs, like the cover might indicate, no off-shot kills, and there are no crude looking special effects. In fact the trickery is non-existent and the movie shot an abundance of real creepy animals. Real spiders, snakes, lizards, and yes, frogs, are all placed on the actors, but selling that they were actually being attacked was weak at times. It's unique in that way, but while watching Frogs, I felt that were too many limitations to filming it. The two main leads, Sam Elliot and Joan Van Ark were fun characters but there were a few roles by the supporting cast that were too unlikeable. The ending is rather expected, fitting and satisfying. In the end, Frogs is a good watch but doesn't provide anything memorable or one outstanding scene.
TOMASBBloodhound
Hard to believe this film has been out since 1972 and the first chance I've had to see it was on the El Rey Network one gloomy Saturday afternoon in 2014. Frogs is a low, low budget ecological-minded horror film in which the family of a wealthy polluter is systematically killed off by the wildlife on his swampy estate. The only recognizable star is a young Sam Elliott, many years prior to his Oscar-worthy turn as 'Wade Garrett' in Road House. He plays the hero of this picture, a photographer who specializes in ecology, and tries to suggest that the old man should find a way to coexist with the fauna on his property instead of poisoning them all. Fat chance! In the tradition of all rich white a-holes in most films, this guy has the gall to declare mankind the master of his own world, or something of nature. Even as dead bodies of family members begin turning up while others disappear, the stubborn old codger just doesn't get it. The animal of the film's title is quite prevalent in this film. LOTS and LOTS of closeups of croaking frogs or piles of frogs slowly gathering and advancing toward the old man's house. I don't recall any frog actually killing someone, certainly not devouring them as the cover art would suggest. The frogs mostly provide eerie background noise. There are plenty of other more dangerous animals on this property. Tarantulas, scorpions, snakes (some venomous, some not), gators, even some kind of monitor lizards who are apparently smart enough to use poison on humans, are all there to terrify the old man's guests. The frogs themselves are perhaps biblical symbolism more than anything else. Who will make it out alive?? Take a wild guess. Although its cheap, and short on plot, Frogs isn't a total loss. Some of these repetitive shots of so many kinds of creepy-crawlies, do instill a little fear in the viewer. Certainly some uneasiness. Some of the snakes are absolutely real, and of the deadly variety. Saw some authentic cottonmouths and even an eastern diamondback rattler. Handling those animals on a movie set would be pretty dangerous. In addition to all the croaking, the soundtrack also contains a lot of creaky sounds that add to the gloom. Kind of reminded me of the original Chainsaw Massacre in that sense. But this is nowhere near that film in terms of early 70s horror. There is only so much terror you can get from an alligator with its mouth obviously taped shut. Really, guys? You had to use black electrical tape to keep that gator's mouth shut? Way too obvious!! 4 of 10 stars. The Hound.
