Frogs (1972)

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Despite the poster depicting a frog with a human hand hanging out of its mouth, American International Picture's Frogs is not about giant frogs. Instead, this is a nature-gone-mad movie featuring about 500 bullfrogs, along with an assortment of other creepy critters (lizards, snakes, spiders, birds, alligators) who begin to terrorise a wealthy family and an ecologist who happens upon them. The frogs of the title are a merely an annoyance and a constant presence, driving the residents of the island mansion on which the film takes place insane with their constant croaking.Photographer Pickett Smith (Sam Elliott) is taking pictures of the local wildlife in a swamp located near to the estate of the wealthy Crockett family. Clint Crockett (Adam Roarke), the young and drunken heir to the family inheritance, accidentally knocks Pickett off his canoe and into the water with his speed-boat, and so takes him back to the mansion for a change of clothes. There, he meets the grumpy and wheelchair-bound patriarch Jason (Ray Milland), who voices his distaste for the slimy inhabitants of the surrounding fauna. Pickett discovers the body of a man sent by Jason to spray pesticide, and soon the Crockett's and their employees find themselves under threat from a variety of murderous beasties.Although the promise is utterly ludicrous, Frogs is played with a straight-face for the most part, and is elevated by decent performances from Milland and Elliott - the former of which was a regular on the B-movie circuit at this point in his career and the latter showing us what he looks like without his trademark moustache. But the animal attacks are few and far between, clumsily edited and failing to generate anything in the way of jumps or scares. The majority of the film consists of the family complaining about the frogs while Jason groans and disapproves at everything, ignoring both the warnings of Pickett and the blatant unnatural occurrences happening all around them. For a film about killer frogs, it's better than it has any right to be, but this is tedious stuff for the majority of its running time.

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.

I first saw "Frogs" when I was 11, when Joan Van Ark gave me crush-like feelings and Sam Elliott seemed a role model. I liked the horror vibe, the snakes, alligators, lizards and frogs, and the death, as well as the creepy vibe of the implied southern coastal humid island madness. It made me think at the time of a pop song called "Swamp Witch." But "Frogs" doesn't hold up to re-watching. Its seams abound, and its shooting is nearly as hapless as its editing. It made money in spades for producers, but that is mainly because of a shoestring budget rather than being smashing at box offices. I cannot watch it now, however, without being ever-aware at every moment how much better it could have been with just a few re-takes, a few better set-ups, and some pleats in the script. It may help baby-boomers revisit their youth, but otherwise lacks virtues to recommend it.

This film is a sad twilight for the great Ray Milland's career. It is the worst film I have ever seen, and I have seen many classic and modern contenders for this honor. I am still holding out on the Blair Witch Project, but I can't imagine it's as bad as this. Perhaps some day I shall be able to use "0" or "1" on the scoring scale.Here we have a very unsympathetic family at a deserted countryside resort who seem to want to become fodder for small cute amphibians. They kick over deadly pesticides in greenhouses when needlessly panicking about frogs. They die of heart attacks when frogs hop near them. They literally run and dive into the mouth of an alligator when scared by the chirping of frogs.Only the 70s could have produced a film that manages not even to be campy while doing all this. It is just enormously boring, and truly the film I had the toughest time in my entire life watching to the end (after about 4000 films, I have managed to see every single one to the end, but this was truly hard and left scars on an otherwise happy adolescence).The camera work is steady, the sets are OK, and the acting, though wooden, is still professional. So I can't go below 2, as I must reserve 1 for a really badly made stupid home movie.If you should ever watch this, I hope for your sake that your are not a teetotaler as I was at the time, for only fortification with a full bottle of wine, strong liquor, or abundant bottles of beer can numb the mind sufficiently to take on this film without leaving psychological scars years later.