Frogs (1972) User Reviews

Ribetting eco/horror film.

[capkronos · 5/10 · 9 July 2003]

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 wise 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 sheer variety of creepy crawlers on display, you are likely to cringe somewhere along the line in this ridiculous and often awkwardly directed, but nonetheless entertaining effort.

eco-thriller from the 1970's

[JoeB131 · 3/10 · 15 September 2012]

Actually had good actors in it, but I think the directors of the early 1970's were just taking too many drugs.

So a decent ecology journalist scoring extra Politically Correct points is taking pictures in a swamp in Florida when he falls in with a family of rich industrialists browbeaten into obedience by a wheelchair bound Ray Milland.

A bunch of menacing frog direct reptiles to engage in a series of attacks requiring a lot of ineptitude by the character actors who are picked off. I don't think the frogs actually kill anyone, they just keep looking menacing... maybe they were co-ordinating the operation as the other reptiles did all the hard work.

Bonus point.. Joan van Ark in a tight-one piece showing a lot of leg.

It Won't Make You Croak

[g_man07302 · 8 July 2004]

Statistically, this movie was a hit. Made for $200k, it grossed over $2 mill in the US alone. This was the secret of success for American International Pictures. Keep the budgets low, and the base of horror fans will show up and you'll make a profit. 1972 was the year for horror. A large number of films catered to the horror fan, many were cheaply made. But they all made a profit. Frogs is an example of a movie poster created before the movie was filmed. Frogs don't kill anyone in the film, but they made a cool poster. So they were thrown into the mix of alligators, lizards, snapping turtles, snakes, spiders, etc. Since many of these creatures make people queazy, it must have seemed like a slam dunk to film- fearmakers. However, the animal performers are less than convincing. Especially the alligator, where producers sped up the film to make him look like he's moving quickly. The acting is as good as can be expected for this type of film. Joan Van Ark and Sam Elliot debut here (Van Ark had done a soap). Milland is good as the cranky old rich stereotype. If you're looking for a "tame" horror picture to keep the kids interested, this might be it. For adults, it's value is mainly nostalgic.

Amphibians and Reptiles go to war

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 29 July 2012]

Ray Milland's career was tanking real fast when he agreed to do this one for American-International. The story behind Frogs is similar to the plot of the Elizabeth Taylor less than classic Elephant Walk. That's the one where Peter Finch's father built his mansion in Sri Lanka where the elephants used to trod. Eventually they trod there again.

In Frogs Ray Milland has a large old plantation estate on an island in the Everglades and he's been expanding it for years crowding out the swamp life. It's not just the frogs but all the swamp critters want their turf back.

And when do they pick to begin their war? On the 4th of July which coincidentally enough is Milland's birthday and he's thrown a party and he's got his kids and grandkids with him. And a stranger played by a young and beardless Sam Elliot.

The movie gets the title Frogs because they seem to be directing the battle. One by one Milland's family and help are picked off. Only a few manage to escape.

Frogs is done kind of tongue in cheek and Milland grumps and groans his way through the film like a man with a bad case of hemorrhoids. Maybe being confined to a wheelchair in the part gave him a case. He had to be wondering how his agent talked him into this.

Nature against Mankind – The Payback

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 20 November 2012]

The free-lance photographer Pickett Smith (Sam Elliott) is taking pictures of the pollution in a swamp in Florida for a magazine of ecology in his canoe. Out of the blue, he is hit by a motor boat piloted by Clint Crockett (Adam Roarke) and his sister Karen Crockett (Joan Van Ark) and capsizes.

Clint and Karen invite Pickett for the party in the private island of their grumpy grandfather Jason Crockett (Ray Milland), an old fashioned disabled patriarch that enjoys celebrating his birthday on the 4th July with his family.

Pickett realizes that the island is infested of frogs and reptiles and Jason has ordered his caretaker to poison his real estate to get rid of the amphibians and creepy crawlies. But soon Picket realizes that they are living the payback of nature against mankind.

The trash "Frogs" is probably one of the first movies to defend the ecology and absolutely ahead of the time. This is the first feature of Sam Elliot, who acts with the veteran Ray Milland. The story is funny and never scares but entertains. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "A Invasão das Rãs" ("The Frogs'Invasion")

About what you'd expect....

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 20 April 2008]

Think about it...this movie is supposed to be about an outbreak of killer frogs. So is it any surprise that the movie is a laughably bad film? They weren't exactly trying to make a remake of Romeo and Juliet here! One of the biggest problems I initially saw (aside from the horrible over-acting of Ray Milland and the dumb plot) was that despite the title, the film has very few frogs. Most of the killer animals were actually toads, lizards, tarantulas, snakes, birds and alligators. Aside from gators and a few of the snakes, which were poisonous, it just seemed ludicrous seeing these totally harmless creatures supposedly on a mad killing spree--though none of them actually did a whole lot other than just hop scamper about--after all, they are just cute little critters.

Some of my favorite stupid deaths in the film was one where a guy seemed to be killed by Spanish moss and tarantulas. Aside from a few chigger bites, I can't see how Spanish moss could pose any health problem and a tarantula bite is about as bad as a bee sting! Another had a man killed by bottles of various poisons which cute little lizards pushed off the shelves in a nicely choreographed scene (though none of the reptiles were killed--they just scurried about the dead man's body). Another scene featured a man getting bitten and dying from a rattlesnake bite in less than 3 seconds. And my favorite was when the guy wrestled with a gator--and if you looked closely, you could see that the animal's jaws were taped shut!

From my description, you'd probably assume this was a terrible film--and it is. However, like many of the animals running amok films of the 50s, 60s and 70s, it is also strangely watchable because it is so silly. Many won't enjoy this campy a film, but bad film lovers will have a ball. If you like this wretched 70s film, also try EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (which is actually worse than FROGS) and NIGHT OF THE LEPUS (about killer bunnies). Don't say I didn't warn you!

A minor thriller with major atmosphere

[dinky-4 · 5/10 · 30 April 1999]

The plot here is little more than: "Help! We're surrounded by hostile creatures!" Yet there's something about this movie that lodges in the memory and it's probably its heavy, humid atmosphere -- like a hot summer day where nothing's happening yet you know there must be a storm brewing just over the horizon. The eclectic cast is headed by Ray Milland but the star here is Sam Elliott who makes his first real impression in the movies. His let-me-strip-off-my-sweaty-shirt-and-display-my-hairy-chest scenes were SO impressive that they landed him the lead role in that piece of beefcake-nirvana called "Lifeguard."

(June 2009 update: Note how this movie finds echoes, seven years later, in another Sam Elliott movie: "The Legacy." In both movies Elliott plays a young man who, because of a transportation accident, winds up as a reluctant guest at a mansion located in an isolated spot in the country. The mansion is owned, in both cases, by a distinguished older gentleman who suffers from a physical disability. There are other guests at the mansion and during the course of Elliott's stay, these guests are killed off, one by one -- in a variety of bizarre fashions -- by a mysterious force. In both movies, Elliott performs "beefcake" scenes which have a gratuitous quality. In "Frogs," he appears twice without his shirt and in "The Legacy" he has a rear-view nude scene.)

Frogs! They sort of *think* about killing.

[leighton · 1/10 · 19 December 2000]

I would say that there were spoilers ahead, but you couldn't spoil this film, and I think it's better that you're forewarned...

'Starring' Sam Elliott (The Big Lebowski's Western dude), it features the usual array of MST-able characters. There is the crippled patriarch with a tendency to hold impromptu parties on the lawn, while listening to 78s of marching bands. There is his 'ward' of somewhat ambivalent sexuality. Sam Elliott himself must have been instructed to stand side-on to the sun wherever possible so that his batch would stand gnomon-like and tell the time. There is the alcoholic 'wayward son' with a penchant for fast vehicles, and some badly-explained backstory concerning Sam's character. Did I mention that Sam's character is an ecological researcher with a camera but no note-pad? There is the highly-sexed 'daughter', and the traditional black servant family. Did I also forget to mention that this is set on an island in the middle of the Bayou in the Southern US?

Anyhow, amidst this group of alternately unlikable and unbelievable characters, a plague of frogs arrives. They hop over some cake, but are no more than a minor irritation. Minor, perhaps, but it is enough to stir our crippled patriarch to employ someone to poison the bayou in the hopes of killing them off. Our stoic 'hero', who spends far too long sans shirt, disapproves. As does the local reptile population, who begin to pick off the island's inhabitants one-by-one in pretty unlikely ways. Our hapless louche 'personal assistant', for example, wanders into a greenhouse. Lizards lock the door, before smashing two bottles of brightly-coloured chemicals on the floor. Unsurprisingly, these mix to produce an almost instantly fatal toxic smoke, from which the only feasible escape would have been for our victim to feebly tear his way through the polyurethane walls. But he didn't think of this, so he died.

Oddly, for a film called 'Frogs', that features so much stock footage of frogs, the frogs don't actually do any killing. I think it's meant to be implied that they are somehow co-ordinating their scaly cohorts, but it's not really clear. I don't see how they could get their message through to the turtle who chases down (yes, the world's least exciting chase scene) one of the victims. And speaking of message, the whole 'Nature fights back' message is risible. Anyway, the frogs look like they might be killing towards the end where two of them leap on the patriarch after he falls out of his wheelchair. He dies, but I can't see how two frogs leaping on his back kill him. They're not big frogs. They weren't holding knives. And anyway, the 'invasion' is just a bunch of frogs. Keep your doors and ground-floor windows closed, they'll go away when they need to spawn.

Halliwell's film guide gave this a star - the same rating it gave Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil'. Halliwell was dead wrong.

Frogs on the warpath.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 20 November 2002]

If this movie ultimately fails to be scary (and it does), it's not because the filmmakers didn't try; they did their darnedest to make those frogs look as menacing as possible. But it was all for naught, because frogs are fundamentally un-vicious creatures and, well, they cannot be trained to look mean. They don't care about us annoying humans! They just want to hop around! So this movie can't hold a candle to, say, "The Birds". That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable though - it is, in a schlocky way. It's colorful, it's beautifully photographed, and Sam Elliott is rather cool, as 70s leading men go. (**1/2)

I don't get it

[StevenFlyboy · 1/10 · 19 February 2009]

I find it hard to understand how a horror movie could be equated with a bunch of frogs. Frogs aren't scary. They don't have teeth or claws. What's the worst they could do? Croak all night and hop around all over the place. How could this make for a good horror movie? I would say this director lacked any sense of horror. I could have made a better movie than this and I'm not even a director. Check out "Food of the Gods". Now THAT is scary. It's full of giant mosquitos, giant rats, giant worms and snakes, even a giant chicken,all of which could mangle a human being. But FROGS? A pitiful subject for a horror movie. (this line added simply to fill in enough space so my comments would post. When are they going to change this stupid requirement?)

A real skin-crawler!!

[Nightman85 · 8/10 · 1 October 2005]

Despite a seemingly hokey premise, Frogs is one of the more memorable and effective entries in the nature-revenge genre.

Family living in Florida's Okefenokee Swamp have been exterminating the local wild life, now it seems that the creatures are all out to kill them!

Frogs is a movie that never fails to be sweat-inducing, especially to those who don't like reptiles! All manner of swamp wild life is used for this film - snakes, spiders, gators, lizards, heck even a turtle! So with all these critters coming for our unsuspecting human characters there's plenty of tension to be had! Director McCowan makes good use of the boggy setting and gives it an atmospheric feeling of certain doom! The eerie score also helps as well.

The films cast is good. Veteran Ray Milland is perfect as the Crockett family's stubborn elder. Young, attractive Sam Elliot is decent as a nature photographer who happens on the scene. Joan Van Ark is good as Elliot's love interest and Adam Roarke as her no-account brother. The supporting cast is also on cue.

While Frogs may be a B thriller that's best taken tongue-in-cheek, it's solidly done and is sure to cause a few chills!

*** out of ****

Effective despite premise and budget

[DC Flim · 6/10 · 29 March 2000]

While it's pretty obvious that this film was done on a low budget (i.e. the same shots are repeated over and over and over) this is a pretty effective horror movie and deserves a look. The death scenes are well executed (and the end is quite chilling), the music is appropriate (it's sounds almost like an "angry swamp"), and the locations are put to good use. It's definitely a b-movie and is not at all "great cinema", but it's still a minor classic and should have some kind of cult status.

"Today the pond, tomorrow the world!" (Original ad campaign for this. Seriously!)

[preppy-3 · 4/10 · 30 April 2001]

Nature is on the rampage as various animals supposedly under the command of frogs (don't ask), attack and destroy Ray Milland and his family for polluting the environment. Yes, it's as stupid as it sounds. I saw it originally at a drive-in when I was 10 and loved it, but seeing it as an adult, I was bored and annoyed.

**PLOT SPOILERS** It's slow (at least 45 minutes go by until the first killing), has bad dialogue and all the deaths (with one exception) are bloodless. I'd LOVE to know how a huge snapping turtle kills one woman and wouldn't the animals have been killed by the poison in the greenhouse scene? Also WAY too many close-ups of croaking frogs. The acting varies--Ray Milland and a young Joan Van Ark are very good (especially considering the dialogue they have). Sam Elliott (so young and pumped up) is horrible--very wooden. On the plus side there is some nice nature photography, a really eerie electronic score worked and Elliott walking around in a VERY tight pair of jeans. Also the animated frog right after the closing credits is cool. But, all in all, it's just too dull and stupid to work. Good for laughs.

shadows & frog

[lee_eisenberg · 15 October 2011]

The 1970s was the era of disco, blaxploitation, and eco-horror (aka nature's vengeance). George McCowan's "Frogs" is considered the first eco-horror flick. A young Sam Elliott (more recently known as the narrator in "The Big Lebowski") plays a photographer who visits a southern estate where the patriarch (Ray Milland) refuses to live in harmony with nature. The old man sprays chemicals all over the swamp with absolutely no regard for the plants or animals. So it only makes sense that the frogs -- in collaboration with the snakes, alligators, spiders, etc. -- are out to dispense some justice! On the plot's value alone, there's no reason to interpret "Frogs" as any kind of high-quality movie. We could interpret it as a warning about messing with the Earth (when you battle nature, you ALWAYS lose), or we could just view it as a plain old fun movie. Whatever the case, it's a pretty enjoyable flick, silly though it may be.

All in all, just be a little more respectful the next time that you meet any plant or animal, especially an amphibian of the order Anura.

"Ribbit, ribbit, ribbit"

[richardchatten · 4/10 · 15 July 2022]

Ray Milland gets such a fright his toupee nearly blows off in this crazie AIP quickie that combines the plots of 'Them!' and the old 'Thunderbirds' episode about giant alligators with results that would probably have pleased Rachel Carson.

SLIGHT SPOILER COMING: See the final credits out for the shot of an animated frog; probably the wittiest thing in the film!

Bizarre and that's about it

[Harlekwin_UK · 4/10 · 21 March 2022]

Sometimes a movie takes a great concept and an excellent script and is then superbly executed by a top class director and a cast at the top of their game.

This is not that movie.

Milland and Van Ark are watchable without pushing up the dial. Elliott is unrecognisable but also rather lost amongst the malaise that this script provides.

Dialogue (across the whole cast) is stilted and a little call/response in delivery.

The action is awkward, the victims are desperately trying to "sell" their deaths.

The best part of the movie is the unrelenting animal chatter in the soundtrack, which does a good job of setting the tone for why the family wants rid of these infernal creatures.

Nothing in the movie, though, gives any hint as to how they got such a talented cast to sign on the dotted line.

One of "cult horror movies" that I guess I just don't get.

Psychic Frogs Reap Vengeance, Kill NOONE!!!

[meddlecore · 4/10 · 16 October 2019]

When a freelance photographer sets off to document pollution in a rural area, near a paper mill, he gets into a mishap with the son of the local paper baron- who then takes him into his home.

One-by-one workers, guests, and family members start to go missing as they get ready to celebrate a series of birthdays on the 4th of July holiday weekend.

A list of animals that directly attack and kill people in this film include: snakes, gila monsters, tarantulas, birds, a snapping turtle and crabs.

Frogs dont actually attack or kill anyone. Rather, it is suggested that they are psychically controlling the rest of the swampland creatures, so as to reap vengeance on the family responsible for polluting their lands for profit.

As they seem to be impartial towards Pickett and the black folks working at, and visiting, the house (which, perhaps acts as commentary on the history of Florida, where the film was shot).

When all is said and done, nothing particularly exciting or intriguing happens in this environmental horror...the deaths are lame, and the kills lack imagination, while the special effects are mediocre at best.

So you're not missing much if you miss this one.

3.5 out of 10.

Avoid that Woman - She's Got Crabs

[BloodTheTelepathicDog · 1/10 · 19 June 2008]

Frogs is an exercise in inept film-making - from top to bottom. Then again, the cinematographer did a good job, but everyone else involved in the production of this terrible film should be flogged - by frogs.

Let it be known, I have a fondness for 70's drive-in cheese. Some of my favorite movies came from the Frogs period, such as Don't Look in the Basement and Funeral Home, but this film has nothing going for it. Every death scene - and I mean EVERY death scene, will elicit a laugh from your lips. The most inane death scene was when Lynn Borden gets killed by a turtle and a school of crabs. However, she is supposedly stuck in the mud, when she spots the enormous turtle, you can clearly see Lynn LIFT HER LEFT LEG out of her supposed implanted doom. Wow! This film is terrible, and not of that fun drive-in cheesy variety either.

VIOLENCE: $$ (All laughable. The characters all die at the hands - or various appendages, I should say - of the various critters hellbent on killing them for contaminating their environment. The nephew carries a rifle through the woods and proceeds to shoot himself in the leg before a pack of tarantulas descend upon him in an all-too laughable death scene Also, Sam Elliott gets to beat snakes with an oar and blast an alligator with a shotgun).

NUDITY: None

STORY: $ (The beginning is very promising. Sam Elliott, portraying a freelance photographer, takes pictures of animals at Ray Milland's island while also stopping to take photos of all the debris in the water. It has a heavy-handed environmental message at the beginning but never fleshes that out. Instead, we have a cantankerous old battle-axe who controls his family on Fourth of July -hellbent on enjoying the festivities despite his brood dying off one-by-one).

ACTING: $$ (Ray Milland plays the grandpa with over-the-top egotism. In short time you will want to punch the old buzzard in the snout. Sam Elliott gives the best acting job as Pickett Smith while Joan Van Ark compliments him well as Grandpa's proper grandchild Karen. Lynn Borden does a good job as a neglected housewife although that scene where she gets killed by the turtle - while having a conglomerate of crabs crawling up her legs - was the ultimate in low-budget cheese).

Say It Ain't So, Ray!

[ccthemovieman-1 · 2/10 · 11 September 2007]

A horror movie about killer frogs?? I had to check this out. Well, it was a waste of rental-film money. It committed two unforgivable horror-flick sins: 1 - it wasn't scary; 2 - it was downright boring.

Why was I not surprised the frogs weren't scary? Why did I think because Ray Milland was in it, it might be good? (Boy, it's sad to see a man of his "Lost Weekend" stature wind up in films like this in the '60s and '70s.)

It was interesting to see such a young Sam Ellliott, who I am used to viewing as a bearded, weathered--faced cowboy over the years. Elliott was in his '20s and had mainly done just TV work prior to this movie. He sure has come a long way from "Frogs!"

The worst part of this movie was the first 20 minutes in which absolutely nothing happened. Hello?? Nice to way to grab your audience, eh? Actually, this whole movie is just way too bland.

I've always thought frog legs were a delicacy and I like frogs in general but this movie is terrible. I am embarrassed for Milland, who I have always admired as an actor.

Cheesy Fun

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 31 July 2015]

A group of hapless victims celebrate a birthday on an island estate crawling with evil frogs.

By no means should this be considered a good film, but it has a certain charm that is hard to replicate. American International made some gems, and this is one of them. Later it was picked up by MGM. And, I believe, a Blu-ray was released by Scream Factory. Though you can never have enough special features.

Ray Milland is a joy to watch, whether in his best work ("Lost Weekend") or some of his worst. Indeed, towards the end of his career, he seemed to appear in just about anything. We also get Sam Elliott, though he is almost unrecognizable without his trademark mustache.

I gnawed off my own leg trying to escape this movie...

[TashasWorld · 1/10 · 2 March 2006]

I had thought "Frogs" would be one of those campy movies that is enjoyable in its badness... But no. I won't say it's the worst movie I've ever seen (that "honor" goes to "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"), but it's in the top 10 bad movies of all time. Or is that the "bottom 10?" The premise of nature rebelling against humanity's ecological indifference is a good start, but most of the characters are uninteresting, and idiots to boot. The dialogue is painfully bad, and the acting is worse than anything in a Roger Corman movie. At least in Corman's movies, you can tell the actors are having fun. In this fiasco, however, I get the feeling that the actors were blackmailed into doing this film, judging by the pained, or sometimes completely numb, expressions on their faces while they get themselves into moronic situations or deliver stilted, unrealistic lines.

I forced myself to sit through about 2/3 of this movie, hoping it would get better (or at least funny). Ultimately, however, I had to shut the damn thing off; I mean, I could feel brain cells committing suicide while I watched this travesty. I had to stop it before I wound up as intelligent as the characters in the movie.

I rated it "1" because there's no "0" or negative numbers available.

Subtle horror movie for children! :)

[gilligan1965 · 10/10 · 17 January 2015]

I watched "Frogs" a few years ago with my little Son (when he was much littler :)) and it got me remembering the other horror flix of the '50s, '60s and '70s that weren't really scary at all - unless you were a small child. However, what I remember most vividly about this movie, and, what I'll always remember most - 'the big smile on my Son's little face!' :)

I particularly liked how the characters were 'on-vacation' visiting the family patriarch; as were the animals 'on-vacation' from all over the world visiting the island - a South American Tegu; a Southeast Asian Tokay Gecko; an American Yellow Ratsnake; and, best of all, the "Frogs" must have had a prior commitment as they were all played by 'toads'!?!?

I've read many of the other comments written here, as well as on "YouTube:" and, I cannot understand how ANY adult, especially a horror-fan, could possibly take this movie even somewhat seriously by writing such mean things about it!?!? It's a cheaply-made, PG-rated, 'Drive-In,' "Kids' Movie," and, what I like to call a "Starter-Movie" for preteen future horror-movie buffs - it's not too scary for a child. Much in the way "Scooby-Doo" (1969) is a scary "Starter-Show" for toddlers.

However...another 'great' thing about "Frogs" is that it's memorable enough to get 'haters' and 'dislikers' to come out of the woodwork in droves and spend otherwise valuable time writing paragraph-after-paragraph on how they can't stand this movie!?!? If 'anyone' is willing to 'waste' that much time writing about an old and forgotten movie that they saw decades ago which left mental-scares on them deep enough that they still feel them now...then, this must be a heck-of-a-movie in one or many ways! :D

The beauty of this movie is that a child cannot see all the technical mistakes or the silliness, and, wouldn't care anyway (lucky-them) - they're just enjoying the animals and the subtle fright! It keeps a child interested!

A few years after watching this, even my own Son, whom I watched it with, began to see how 'cheesy' it is...once he graduated to "The Twilight Zone;" Stephen King movies; and, "REAL HORROR."

PARENTAL ADVISORY - Watch this movie with your young child...the smile upon his/her face will make the experience of it very much more enjoyable for you!

As an adult, I rate this movie 3. As a young child, I'd have rated it 10. As a parent watching it with my 'Happy Little Son' - it's a "10" all the way!

Other than technical inaccuracies, it's good, clean fun for kids who seem to show an interest in not-too-scary horror movies!

A "Starter-Movie" for young future horror-fans! :)

Better think twice before you ever eat frog legs again...

[Coventry · 7/10 · 31 January 2006]

Even though the film can never really top the brilliance of its own tagline ('Today the pond! Tomorrow the world!'), "Frogs" is a hugely entertaining and surprisingly well-made ecological horror film. These typical "creature features" were guaranteed hits back in the 70's and pretty much every animal species got turned into ravenous monsters enthusiast horror filmmakers, even the most unlikely ones like worms ("Squirm") and rabbits ("Night of the Lepus"). In this film, the frogs aren't just vicious killers but also strategic army generals that mobilize a whole island's ecosystem to commit nasty murders! The frogs are merely supervising whilst humans are being killed off by spiders, lizards, snakes, alligators and – oh yes – even a turtle! Pickett Smith is a freelance photographer who ends up at the private island home of obnoxious industrialist Jason Crockett during his annual 4th of July/birthday celebration. Also present are a dangerously increasing amount of frogs that no longer put up with the pollution and pesticides on the island and they plan a large-scaled attack on the Crockett family. "Ten Little Indians"-style, all the island's residents are imaginatively killed by ill-natured critters. The story naturally is silly and hardly ever scary, yet it's praiseworthy how director George McGowan attempts to build up an atmosphere of tension. Much like Hitchcock did in "The Birds" (only better), McGowan simply zooms in on the frogs and puts the emphasis on their eerie croaking. So, even though they're simple frogs they look a bit ominous! The best aspect of the film unquestionably is Mario Tosi's colorful camera-work that shows the beautiful environment from many creative viewpoints. The young Sam Elliot is quite good in his heroic role but the shows is obviously stolen by Ray Milland as the grumpy and bossy millionaire who thinks he can afford himself everything. The rest of the cast is quite wooden and their gruesome animal-inflicted deaths actually come as a relief. "Frogs" stands for great campy fun, not a single dull moment and a high body count! Damn, the 70's were cool.

Frog and Toad's Revenge

[The Bronson Fan · 5/10 · 22 October 2009]

"Frogs" is set in Florida around a prominent southern family whose patriarch Jason Crockett (Millan) is polluting the island he owns. In the mean time a naturalist/photographer Pickett Smith (Elliot) is taking pictures of the area, just from a shot or two he sees the place is polluted. While in his canoe he's capsized (Flips it himself) by some of Crockett's family, Karen (Van Ark) and Clint (Roarke) who likes putting back some brews. They apologize and he comes to the mansion for a wash and talk. While all this is going on you have the constant sound of frogs and a lot of crowing. Old man Crockett can't stand the sounds of frogs and complains about them 24/7. He wants them wiped out. Crockett sent out a guy named Grover to look into this and goes missing in the swamp and you guessed it, he's been killed by the frogs or is it toads, well lets say nature. Smith gets the notion that nature may be fighting back, taking revenge for what man has done to them. Jason says that's hogwash and does not care. One by one people start getting knocked off, often in amusing and also boring ways by just about every creature you can find that slithers in a swamp. One that stands out is Kenneth (Cortland) who gets knocked off in the green house when some reptiles start breaking various glass jars containing "poison". So of course he goes over to investigate and is overcome but he fumes. The lizard's just laugh at him. Various family members and other miscellaneous people get killed and it's all very silly. To list a few, Michael (Gillian) basically trips and is over taken by canopy of spiders webs and spiders, snapping turtle attacks Jenny (Borden) stuck in mud, snake takes down Iris (Irving) along with leaches (fake as can be and way overacted,) Clint killed by a snake in the water and to top it off they kill off the blacks who worked on the estate. I mean who can't out run turtle? At least they finally brought out a gator to kill poor old Stuart (Skaff). Old man Crockett decides he's not going anywhere and will stay at the estate. Amusing how Crockett was barking out orders as if he had control over his family and workers to stay and die with him. So when the rest hightail it he stays behind with his poor dog. Smith, Karen and Clint's kids escape with some trouble and hail a driver on local road. Amusing how the driver stops and picks them up with a loaded shotgun in Smith's hand. Its hinted that this is going on elsewhere. As for old man Crockett, eventually he falls out of his wheelchair and is overcome by frogs bouncing around at his windows.

I had read about this film for some time and finally saw it on "THIS TV" network. I'm glad I didn't hold my breath to see it because it was silly indeed. It's mostly boring, rather then a terrible film. The acting is not great, that's for sure. Even Millan who is good, just sits around and bitches about the frogs all day. He plays the same angry crippled old man from The Thing With Two Heads. Joan Van Ark looked good. I'd say she was one of the better parts of the film, along with Sam Elliot doing an early role. There really weren't that many special effects accept for the opening and closing credits which I think they spent most of the budget on. The biggest problem is that Frogs aren't dangerous, so you have various other creatures from the black lagoon doing the dirty work on the humans as the frogs pull the strings from behind. It comes off as amusing far more than scary in any way. I love the toad walking around on the cake with icing on his feet and Millan blowing away the snake in the dining room. The deaths are silly to impossible. This was one the early nature strikes back films and so man more came about after this. Overall it is silly but it's actually and good watch just to pass some time, laugh a little and remember the 70's. I'm always up for seeing nature strike back at man. So, 5 out of 10 stars.

Fun Drive-In Film

[Michael_Elliott · 3 December 2008]

Frogs (1972)

*** (out of 4)

Sam Elliott and Ray Milland star in this AIP cult-classic from the drive-in era where it was quite popular. The film starts off with Elliott taking pictures of the nature, which is being interrupted by people's pollution of the water and land. Soon Elliott finds himself staying with a family being led by the cranky Milland. Before the night is over one body is located and soon many more follow as the small creatures start to take their revenge. If you put too much thought into the subject matter then you're going to think yourself to death so turn the brain off, sit back and just enjoy. The killers in the movie aren't just frogs but we also have toads, lizards, alligators, birds, various snakes and spiders. Some of the death scenes aren't very believable but then there are those that are quite effective. Director McCowan does a very good job at building up the atmosphere of that deep Southern swamp nation. The entire look of the film is perfectly captured as there isn't a single frame where you don't feel as if you're right there in that swampy mess and action. The characters are pretty straight forward but the cast make them fun to watch with Elliott leading the way and delivering his ultra cool persona once again. The laid back style of the actor has always been fun to watch and it remains so here. Milland is over the top but in a fun way as the old man who refuses to spot the danger going on even as more bodies begin to pile up. FROGS isn't a masterpiece or something by Welles but it does throw on back to the drive-in era when this type of thing was being released.