Frogs

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.

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.

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.

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")

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)