(PG, 1:30:06, Released 1972)
|Genres:||Drama, Horror, Classics|
|Release Date:||Mar 10, 1972|
|DVD Release Date:||Sep 19, 2000|
|Starring:||Ray Milland, Sam Elliott, Joan Van Ark, Adam Roarke, Judy Pace, Lynn Borden, Nicholas Cortland, David Gilliam, Holly Irving, Mae Mercer|
|Directed by:||George McCowan|
|Synopsis:||The slimy denizens of the Everglades organize a particularly nasty rebellion in this enjoyable entry from the "nature-run-amok" horror subgenre which favored drive-in venues of the mid-'70s. The story takes place amid the festivities honoring the birthday of crotchety, wheelchair-bound Southern patriarch Jason Crockett (Ray Milland), a chemical-industry magnate whose pesticides are responsible for much of the toxic pollution found in the swamplands. The revelry ends quickly, however, when thousands of local fauna decide to crash the party. Under the apparent telepathic guidance of the less-than-menacing swamp bullfrogs, armies of snakes, insects, and snapping turtles tear their way through the cast. Competent direction, great use of swampland ambience, and spooky sound effects help provide a suitably large dose of the creepy-crawlies. ~ Cavett Binion, Rovi|
|Full movie details|
Frogs provided by Hulu.com
It sounds awfully quiet in here... Be the first to say something!
|All of Flixster:||(1161)|
My Friends' Reviews
Log in to see your friends' reviews.
Other Top Reviews
February 13, 2013
More often than not, there are several obscured horror gems that have been long since forgotten and in the case of Frogs, that's very much the case. There has been several movies featuring killer creatures and it spawned an entire genre of horror commonly known as Nature gone wild. As cheesy as this film is, there is a tense atmosphere that lingers over the movie and it adds to the tone of the movie. Acting wise there are no standout performances, but the cast do a good job with a decent script. This is the type of film that is designed for pure mindless fun and in that respect, it does that very well. The film is flawed, but is pure fun from start to finish. If you love low budget horror flicks, then this is a must see movie. The plot is ridiculous, however it works due to the fact that these genre films tend to display in deadly ways that is sure to peak the interest of the viewer. Killer frogs, you ask? Well, how entertaining can it be or how amusing can a film like this be. The answer is, quite entertaining, if you're in the mood for some cheesy killer creature entertainment. One of the film's highpoints is the dark, ominous score by Les Baxter. Frogs is so bad it's good entertainment that should be seen by horror enthusiasts. If you're in the mood for a silly good time, give Frogs a viewing as it is among the most original killer creature films I've seen. Be warned however, this is not a film that will win any awards, but is sure going to entertain you if you enjoy these types of films. With a chilling atmosphere, Frogs is one of the most underrated films in the nature gone wild genre and it should be rediscovered by horror fans simply for its camp value.
September 5, 2011
Ok. Yeah, this one is bad, but it has some things going for it. For one, it has Ray Milland and Sam Elliott in it. Second, it has a sexy young Joan Van Ark wearing tight clothes and bikinis. Third, it has an animated frog at the end of the movie swallowing a person with a comic *gulp* sound (which is the reason to see the movie, in my opinion). So the movie's got a lot of comic value, as do most of American International's movies, but this one is slightly more enjoyable than the rest. Most are just unwatchable piles of crap. This one passes as watchable without being great.
March 7, 2011
A very heavy handed lesson about pollution. As with any nature takes revenge movie, the lizards and spiders and snakes kill people. For some reason the frogs in the movie just annoy people, they don't have any other means of getting revenge apparently. It's predictable, boring, and kinda stupid, especially the frogs.
January 1, 2011
Worth watching to see Sam Elliot without a mustache
September 14, 2009
From the title of "Frogs," you might infer that the movie is fully about frogs or that it's a horror flick in which frogs are the main enemy, but neither is true. A millionaire (Ray Milland) lives with his family on a country estate that is surrounded by woods and swamps. He's always complaining about how he has so much money, but can't get rid of the frogs along with their constant noise. The saying goes "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it," but the opposite is true in this timeless movie.
In a way, "Frogs" is much like the classic horror "The Birds." Even though the name of the movie is "Frogs," you will see much more than just plain old frogs. You will see A LOT of frogs, snakes, lizards, crocodiles, and other menacing creatures of the swampy woods.
"Frogs" is a somewhat original movie who's premise is very real. As much as we use, push around, and kill animals, it's only natural that they would view us as their enemies. In "Frogs," you will see ordinary animals, mainly reptiles and amphibians, do their damage by turning their attention to the family and then seeking deadly vengeance.
This isn't a movie full of special effects (there's not really ANY special effects, but it doesn't need them), so you won't see overgrown monsters or anything to that degree. It's just normal, everyday animals that seem to be tired of humans.
"Frogs" is a suspenseful and extremely interesting movie. It also features timeless visuals with all the reptiles and amphibians, along with most of the movie being shot outdoors. The acting isn't spectacular, but the actors/actresses all get their job done well enough.
I believe if animals really wanted to, they could take over the lives of many people. If you like original movies, reptiles, frogs, or just nature, I definitely recommend getting "Frogs." Just beware that after watching it, it might make you watch every move you make the next time you take a hike in the woods. NOTE: That was my Amazon review from the year 2002. Most seem to not, but I've always liked this movie no matter how many times I see it, and never get tired of seeing it either. If animals wanted to, they could turn against us and take over the world.
August 25, 2009
Back to 1993 I remember seeing 'Frogs' on some horror channel when I was about seven but I switched over after about ten minutes because it was so boring. Now that I'm much older, I've watched it all the way through and it's not as bad as I thought it was! First off, we have Sam Elliot as a nature photographer who's scouting around Ray Milland's island seeing a lot of dumped waste and rubbish everywhere. Milland's island itself is host to a large family who only care about their money it seems. But the frogs nearby are getting sick and tired of the pollution from the family and start getting their revenge. There are so many shots in the film of frogs just watching and croaking. It's almost as if they are telling every other animal on the island to kill any human they see and that's what happens! Once the first death begins, the deaths just keep on going until the end of the movie. We have tarantulas, lizards, almost every snake in existence, leeches, alligators, a snapping turtle, crabs, even birds and butterflies contribute a little bit. All of them killing everyone in their path, even the frogs get their own back on Milland at the end. It's not so much scary, but more squeamish and creepy, especially the bit with the tarantulas. It makes me shiver just thinking about it! But 'Frogs' does have its bad points too. Milland's character is a bit too unbelievable, after all of his family's deaths he still wants to celebrate his birthday. The first twenty minutes as I said before are devoid of anything remotely interesting.
A snapping turtle killing a human also seems pretty silly to me, although I found out afterwards that snapping turtles actually ARE perfectly capable of killing someone. When we see birds attack someone, it is unclear whether the people were killed or just ran away, but I assume that we are meant to think them dead as they dropped their bags and stuff. Also half the animals in this movie aren't probably even native to the area where it is filmed.
Despite its bad points, I really liked this film and it still delivers shocks albeit in small doses.
May 30, 2008
Why? Why do I allow myself to watch movies like this? Frogs is the epitome of stupid filmmaking- beginning with the film's laughable premise, things only go further downhill, with cardboard acting, uninteresting sets and locales, totally absent character motivations and cringe-inducing dialogue. By far the ONLY reason to watch this movie is to see Sam Elliot- whom I never would have believed to be young during his lifetime, had I not seen this movie- and/or to try (and fail, probably) to figure out WHY this movie is called "Frogs" when frogs are the only creatures in the movie that don't kill anyone! At all! Not recommended for those allergic to stupidity.
July 10, 2013
There is an inordinate lack of tension in "Frogs" when you consider that it's labeled as a horror film. Of course, this probably stems from the fact that the director, George McCowan, doesn't seem to understand the genre or how to accomplish anything in an effective manner. From a viewer's standpoint, it's apparent that the characters are deranged lunatics that are imagining that nature is out to get them when, really, nature is just living as it always has. The characters are all responsible for their own deaths. They either freak out during times that don't call for it and end up drowning or asphyxiating themselves due to their own stupidity or they basically walk into situations that only a mentally-ill person would find okay. Throughout the entire film, not one frog or gator or snake causes a character's death. And hello? How on earth can a frog kill a person? The answer is that it can't. The characters wander into awful scenarios that could have been avoided, die and then the frogs happen upon them. "Frogs" is an excellent example of how not to make a film. The script is unfathomably stupid, the acting is off-the-walls horrendous and, as stated before, the direction is so ineffective that it's insane. This movie really is one slow, dull, horrible mess.
April 28, 2013
It's a movie that features killer frogs. Frogs! What did you expect?
February 25, 2008
Quite amusing. Wait. It was supposed to be scary?
February 6, 2008
LOL!!! This B-movie is SO BAD, it's GOOD. I just could not stop laughing at its badness. I was wishing to see the hand out of that frog from the movie poster but I didn't see that. I saw something else. I thought I saw a tip of a finger throwing a frog onto grass. I don't know if I saw it. I don't own the film so I can't, and I won't, watch it again to confirm. They need to rename the movie, "Frogs That Just Sit There And Then People Die." I think the only thing that obviously tried to kill people by wrapping them into cotten threads are those jumping spiders and the python--Probably controlled by the frogs that never kill a thing. LOL, in fact, they aren't even frogs!!! They're toads!!!
January 30, 2014
I finally gave this a look off the To-Watch Pile and it was as amusing and fun as I'd hoped, with all creatures great and small turning on the humans on a small island where a rich family has come to think that they control all that they survey, and boy, are they proven wrong.
Well worth a rental if you like a good B-Movie.
December 29, 2011
Such a fantastic B horror movie... It totally encapsulates the 'nature attacks' genre and 70's horror movies in general, as well as the ecological movement of the decade. It is seriously bad. And by seriously bad, I mean it is great fun to watch. I have to point out that all of the frogs this movie promises are actually toads.
October 14, 2011
I thought the ending was great, but that 70s terror synth is enough to give you a headache. Campy B movie.
October 29, 2009
There aren't any truly frightening moments in the film unless you are scared of reptiles, amphibians, or 70s' fashion, but there is some fun to be had. For me the most enjoyable factor was knowing that FROGS was filmed in North Florida and that it was supposed to take place in July and yet folks were wandering around wearing long sleeves and sweaters! This would have resulted in heat prostration and probable death within 10 minutes in real life. The truth is that the movie was shot in the winter so the temperature was probably in the 60s which explains the whole thing. =) We needn't really discuss the technical aspects of the film or the acting because both are adequate--the cinematography is actually very nice with some beautiful shots of the local flora and fauna. There are no special effects pre se; actors fall on ground, PAs toss lizards on 'em from off camera. Done. Milland is Milland, all full of bluster and seemingly unembarrassed to be doing frog-horror--he's done much worse films that this one. Van Ark is cute and perky, Elliott is honing his taciturn schitck. And there is a surprising variety of critters to stalk our protagonists--very few of which are indigenous to Florida.For a special treat stay through the end credits
September 14, 2009
Sam Elliott out lived this movie at least! It is not totally bad, but it is a longgggg way from very good.Mother Nature's Revenge !
August 25, 2009
i never seen actor sam elliott were young on this movie. this title about "frogs" that i thought they doing with the frogs but it didnt and it only with an reptiles who attack on them. and also this film reminded me of the film "the birds" that birds in it. this is pretty well on horror movie of the 1970's but it not an worse one. stay in end credit with an animated frog that hand in frog's mouth (it like movie poster ad).
July 18, 2009
You'll laugh 'til you croak? I didn't laugh at any swamp critter invasions. But at least I wanted to see the Frogs.
June 24, 2009
Great movie about mother nature's wrath on humanity. If nature ever gets mad humans are doomed,yeah!!!!
November 7, 2008
As all old movies, corney and not really up to todays standards. But for such an old movie, it was okay.
March 7, 2008
Just thinking about the movie makes me chuckle in my seat. A terrificlly horrible B movie is one of my biggest guilty pleasures. There are some really fun scenes, but I didn't like the ending. HILARIOUS COVER!
September 24, 2007
Millionaire patriarch Ray Milland and his extended family gather together at his private island mansion to celebrate the 4th of July and have much more to worry about than photographer and ecologist Sam Elliott snooping around getting material for a magazine layout on pollution. You see, Elliott isn?t the only one who?s fed up with Milland?s environmental poisoning as a horde of frogs wisen up and lead their swampland buddies (alligators, snakes, lizards, turtles, birds, leeches, spiders and more) in a violent revolt.
Thanks to the piercing sounds of Les Baxter?s score and the sheer variety of creepy crawlers on display, you are likely to cringe somewhere along the line in this implausible, extremely silly and often awkwardly directed, but nonetheless entertaining, effort
July 7, 2007
I saw this movie years ago, and even then I didn't understand. The problem was - there were too many frogs and bugs and other things. But there were no ghost frogs, or demon-frogs, no giant-frogs, no frogs with razer teeth. It's fun to sit there, late at night, point your finger at the TV and laugh.
It's a movie everyone should see.
March 1, 2007
This really doesn't have alot to do with frogs, but there are lots of insects & snakes...and a young Sam Elliot!
February 27, 2007
The best of the shitty natural habitat vs humans movie of all time. Don't get excited over the cover...please. The frogs do absolutely nothing.