MovieChat Forums > Frogs (1972) Discussion > At least the cinematography was good...

At least the cinematography was good...


But apart from that, this was a massive disappointment. As a lover of unintentionally funny movies, this one was just boring. They didn't even make any good use of the frogs until the ending and there was practically nothing to be entertained by. Can't believe I wasted my movie on this.

reply

I can't believe I wasted my time reading your stupid post. Frogs is a great little eco-horror flick.

reply

Why am I stupid just because I don't agree with you? I thought this movie sucked.

reply

[deleted]

You are stupid. Go back to supporting Trump.

reply

I don't support Trump, you *beep* clueless dumbass. And what a random assumption to make on a board for a *beep* movie like Frogs.

Blocking you. *beep* off.

reply

And, of course, Ray Milland gave a good performance, too... but he always did.

~ the hardest thing in this world... is to live in it ~

reply

Oh yeah, he was pretty good. He certainly made the best out of a *beep* script.

reply

I think everything about it is good myself. Sorry to hear you didn't have the same experience with it I did. But to me, it's one of those I could watch about 50 times and still love it.

reply

I find cheesy when-animals-attack movies wonderfully entertaining otherwise, but this movie was a long, boring letdown. 

It's fine if you like it though.

reply

What really held it back was the plot. It's as if they wrote it scene by scene without really caring about developing characters, themes, or having any kind of impact. Very little, if any, of the details about these people's lives factored into what happens. The angry frog faces were cute though.

reply

The swamps and forests make a good setting. I always like these mysteries set in the Deep South.

reply