2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

Stoutor 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.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

tomgillespie2002 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.

gilligan1965 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! :DThe 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! :)

pbrandon074 this movie starts off with a guy in a canoe tacking pictures of pollution in the swamps. he later goes out in to open water and gets tipped over by a wave of water from a motor boat.the people in the boat bring the guy back to the mansion. they give him new clothing and pay for his stuff. the old man has him go out in to the woods to find the others. he reports back to the old man that they are dead. slowly more people die being killed by the animals.the animals are mad that people are messing with there habitat. at the end the old man does not want to leave and dies. the movie is called frogs but they are all toads. i think this movie is good.this movie is good for some one that scares easily or a young child. i have liked this movie since i was six years old.......................

mgruebel 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.