Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Awesome Movie

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

"Der Frosch mit der Maske" is a pretty bad title for this German black-and-white film from the late 1950s. It is actually a human with a mask obviously and you could see it as a bit of Germany's take on the character of Scarecrow. He is one of the key players in the criminal underground here and prefers to kill his enemies with poison. I personally felt early on, also the introduction, there were a couple scenes that were interesting and they certainly could have turned this into an edge-of-seat crime thriller. Instead the inclusion of far too many characters and unintentionally comedic elements made this 87-minute film uninteresting for the most part. Quite a shame as there was certainly the possibility of a better film here. Eis and Bartsch adapted this Edgar Wallace work over 25 years after Wallace's death and the duo worked on several of these German Edgar Wallace films. The director is Harald Reinl this time and he is mostly known for his Winnetou films. Overall, "Faces of the Frog" (much better international title is not worth the watch. Towards the end, I really did not care who the Frog really was, even if I suspected it. Not recommended.

Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.

Updated version of a story that had been turned into the film in 1938 England(Return of the Frog) concerning the pursuit by the police of a master criminal known as the Frog because of the frog like get up (bulging eyes etc) he wears.One of the good Wallace films from the 1960's it's a solid little entertainment. Clearly influenced by ( or did this influence) the restart of the Dr Mabuse films, the Frog seems to be more a super villain than a master thief. While not the best of the Wallace films, it is worth a look. It would make an interesting double feature with the excellent earlier film.Between 6 and 7 out of 10.

This movie is an abomination, and its making should have been considered a capital crime.One of the great mysteries of film-making is why nobody ever has made a faithful movie adaptation of this wonderful mystery. It is a tale of a really gripping mystery, nice old-fashioned romance, and dry English humor. Why did the makers have to change Richard Gordon from a Scotland Yard policeman to an amateur detective, introduce the idiotic role and caricature of his English servant, change the part of the main storyline about the murder charge and circumstances of Gordon's struggle to save the accused, etc., etc.? These producers and directors who always think they can make a better story than the one in the book should write the original script themselves and not to rape another person's product.