MovieChat Forums > Frogs (1972) Discussion > Ray Milland is the only good thing about...

Ray Milland is the only good thing about this movie

posted 11 years ago by mattiasflgrtll6
5 replies | jump to latest

Even though his character is pretty much annoying as hell, he at least gets some great lines and is more interesting than the others.
Other than that, it was BORING! It wasn't even mainly about frogs for Christ's sake, some other bunch of goddamn animals got involved too. The only thing I love is the hilariously idiotic ending where the frogs finally break inside.
I can't believe this is even classed as a guilty pleasure movie. Hell, even Attack Of The Crab Monsters made me smile more.

[–] GroovyDoom 11 years ago

Personally, I felt Milland was the weakest part of this fantastic film. Both Joan Van Ark and Judy Pace were really appealing, and so was Sam Elliott. The victims are all annoying, but I think that was the intention. Milland delivered all of his lines using the same constipated voice, and overall he seemed really annoyed that he had to appear in this silly movie. I would have preferred if the movie ended without revealing the fate of Milland's character, if only to save the great Ray Milland the indignity of having toads crawl all over his ass.

[–] fbueller-2 9 years ago

How much did Ray make for this movie? I was shocked to see that the total budget was $200K. He couldn't have earned much for this part.

[–] ElectricWarlock 9 years ago

I enjoyed everything about this movie (including Ray Milland) and find it wonderfully entertaining. I've watched it countless times and never get sick of it. I don't consider this a guilty pleasure but a legitimately good movie.

[–] greenbudgie (2358) 5 years ago

Ray Milland is good as usual. His grouchy Crockett character causes all the trouble with his disregard for the environment.

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

She is a Bernie Sanders supporter who can barely speak English!