It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Joining their family for a holiday celebration, a photographer gets caught up in their struggle to survive when the local wildlife population suddenly turns on them with deadly intent and must help them get away alive.On the whole this was certainly a watchable if still really unremarkable effort. One of the few areas this one gets right is the fact of being able to effectively make the encroaching wildlife a force to be reckoned with, gathering a sizable number of beasts of all different backgrounds, varieties and deadliness to make a worthwhile run at the human group assembled. With all manner of frogs, lizards, snakes and other reptiles as well as birds and fish all involved here, the gathered army makes for quite an impressive lot and the fact that there's a constant presence here with the near-continuous croaking, screeching and calling out to each other here makes for a truly chilling time here that really gets it's worth the more it's utilized throughout here. Likewise, that alone makes the final half-hour here all the more enjoyable as it's basically a series of chases throughout the compound trying to get the remaining visitors to safety as the previous attempts fail spectacularly in a couple rather enjoyable encounters with an alligator in the swamps, a vicious spider assault out in the forest and the endless frog and snake attacks that lead throughout the finale as there's no shortage of these fun scenes throughout here. However, these are all that really work here as the film doesn't really offer much beyond that. The biggest mitigating factor is the fact that despite the best efforts to the contrary, the film is completely obvious about the hokey nature of having completely non-threatening animals turn vicious and tries several tactics to convince us otherwise that really come up short. The fact that the creatures' continuous presence is seen throughout the film always hanging out on the fringes of the property, that they never once pose any kind of active threat to the people nearby unless they're on their own is a big flaw, as they seem content to perfectly watch them go about their routine and never try any kind of attack instead of peacefully sitting around, much as the creatures ordinarily would in such an occasion. The close-ups of them constantly croaking or hopping along are nowhere near threatening as it would be just hearing the noises, and the fact that they literally have to drag the creatures on top of them during the attacks, are forced to wrestle with obviously tame and non-threatening beasts in their scenes or confuse non-poisonous species for deadly creatures makes the large majority of the attacks here quite hilarious rather than chilling. As such, with a long introduction that shows the patriarch's stubbornness as a storyline ploy rather than anything else to keep them in danger stretches the flimsy plot out far longer than it really should and makes for a really tough time getting into this one, which is another big stumbling block to overcome here. Otherwise, this one wasn't all that bad.Rated PG: Violence including violence-against-animals, Language and children-in-jeopardy.

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! :)

Hard to believe this film has been out since 1972 and the first chance I've had to see it was on the El Rey Network one gloomy Saturday afternoon in 2014. Frogs is a low, low budget ecological-minded horror film in which the family of a wealthy polluter is systematically killed off by the wildlife on his swampy estate. The only recognizable star is a young Sam Elliott, many years prior to his Oscar-worthy turn as 'Wade Garrett' in Road House. He plays the hero of this picture, a photographer who specializes in ecology, and tries to suggest that the old man should find a way to coexist with the fauna on his property instead of poisoning them all. Fat chance! In the tradition of all rich white a-holes in most films, this guy has the gall to declare mankind the master of his own world, or something of nature. Even as dead bodies of family members begin turning up while others disappear, the stubborn old codger just doesn't get it. The animal of the film's title is quite prevalent in this film. LOTS and LOTS of closeups of croaking frogs or piles of frogs slowly gathering and advancing toward the old man's house. I don't recall any frog actually killing someone, certainly not devouring them as the cover art would suggest. The frogs mostly provide eerie background noise. There are plenty of other more dangerous animals on this property. Tarantulas, scorpions, snakes (some venomous, some not), gators, even some kind of monitor lizards who are apparently smart enough to use poison on humans, are all there to terrify the old man's guests. The frogs themselves are perhaps biblical symbolism more than anything else. Who will make it out alive?? Take a wild guess. Although its cheap, and short on plot, Frogs isn't a total loss. Some of these repetitive shots of so many kinds of creepy-crawlies, do instill a little fear in the viewer. Certainly some uneasiness. Some of the snakes are absolutely real, and of the deadly variety. Saw some authentic cottonmouths and even an eastern diamondback rattler. Handling those animals on a movie set would be pretty dangerous. In addition to all the croaking, the soundtrack also contains a lot of creaky sounds that add to the gloom. Kind of reminded me of the original Chainsaw Massacre in that sense. But this is nowhere near that film in terms of early 70s horror. There is only so much terror you can get from an alligator with its mouth obviously taped shut. Really, guys? You had to use black electrical tape to keep that gator's mouth shut? Way too obvious!! 4 of 10 stars. The Hound.

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.