Badmovies.org Forum

Information Exchange => Reader Comments => Topic started by: Andrew on December 13, 2009, 01:37:05 PM



Title: Frogs
Post by: Andrew on December 13, 2009, 01:37:05 PM
Reader review by InformationGeek.  Nature turns the table on rich old jerk Ray Milland and his children.  Snakes, alligators, tarantulas, a huge snapping turtle, and lizards become killers.  Toads and frogs are the army's generals.

Click here to go to the Review (http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/frogs/)


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: WingedSerpent on December 13, 2009, 04:04:19 PM
Nice review InformationGeek,  but there is one plot point you and I seem to majorly differ on.  I think it's entirely possible that a snapping turtle could kill someone.

Pulling this of of http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatreptileblog/2008/06/06/the-snapping-turtle-chelydra-serpentina-%E2%80%93-miscellaneous-facts/ (http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatreptileblog/2008/06/06/the-snapping-turtle-chelydra-serpentina-%E2%80%93-miscellaneous-facts/)

The snapping turtle is the Western Hemisphere’s second largest fresh water turtle (following the alligator snapping turtle). The largest to date weighed 86 pounds, but rumors of 100 pound plus individuals persist.

So a large one could exist that could ,if not kill, considerably hurt someone.  

I haven't seen the movie in years so I don't know the species, but-if it was an aligator snapping turtle...
(http://www.felixcam.com/snapping_turtle.jpg)

One of those could certainly get big enough to kill someone.
Large adult males can be around 32 inches in length and have a reported weight of 220lb
source:Smithsonion Institution Animal: The Definative Visual Guide to the World's Wildlife.

An the woman in the scene(if I'm rembering correctly) was stuck in the mud and getting hysterical;  not exactly the best position to be fending off a large reptile.


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Fishgal01 on December 13, 2009, 07:39:31 PM
I actually have a copy of the Frogs DVD.  Given to me as a gag gift.  Long story.  Anyway, I was also highly disappointed that nearly everyone died of anything /but/ "frogs"; and the hypno-toad ending was just lame.  Very.

Yes, toads.  There were very few actual frogs in the movie.  The amphibians in question were all CANE TOADS.  Even the DVD cover is a /lie/!  A lie, I tell you!

Do I sound bitter about this?  Nah.

Still, the best death of them all was the tarantulas throwing silly string while the victim writhed around in the quick-moss-o'-doom.

AND THEY WERE CANE TOADS, DAMN IT!  IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE TOADS, CALL THE F***ING DVD "TOADS".  I AM AN AQUATICS BIOLOGIST AND...and...well, excuse me.  Not bitter at all.

And, best of all, if you read the DVD cover, you'll see that they lost a lot of their "livestock" (in Florida) during the making of the movie.  Gee, now I think we know where the Florida Everglade's python problems started....


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: El Misfit on December 13, 2009, 09:10:56 PM
uhh... WHAT? :bluesad:


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: InformationGeek on December 13, 2009, 10:49:02 PM
I feel so special!  Another review of mine has been choosen!  Thanks Andrew!  Question for you!  Do you think this film is similiar to Jungle Hell with the obessive use of stock footage of animals (In this film's case, frogs).

Nice review InformationGeek,  but there is one plot point you and I seem to majorly differ on.  I think it's entirely possible that a snapping turtle could kill someone.

People have told me that it is possible for snapping turtles to kill someone, but the one in the movie I saw was way too small to have killed the girl.

THEY WERE CANE TOADS, DAMN IT!  IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE TOADS, CALL THE F***ING DVD "TOADS".  I AM AN AQUATICS BIOLOGIST AND...and...well, excuse me.  Not bitter at all.

I guess Toads for a title isn't as horrifying as "Frogs" is.  I noticed that problem with Frogs as well with most of these so called things really being toads.  Annoying really and as a biologist, you must have noticed that several of those creatures are most likely not native to the region the film is being taken place.


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Jordan on December 14, 2009, 12:38:43 PM
Lol. Nice review InformationGeek. Sorry you weren't a big fan. I actually have a soft spot in my heart for this movie; it used to be on TV all the time on the TBS Superstation along with such classics as "Day of the Animals," "Grizzly," "Island Claws," "Slugs," and numerous other nature gone amok 'thrillers.' While it's not my favorite killer animal flick, it did end up at number 9 of my Top Ten List of Killer Animal movies (http://bmoviefilmvault.blogspot.com/2009/03/vault-masters-top-ten-killer-animal_21.html)!


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Torgo on December 14, 2009, 01:45:47 PM
This is one tough movie to sit through. No matter how hard you try, you just can't make a frog threatening.  Add to the fact that literally almost NOTHING happens in this entire movie and it's a tough one for anyone to slog through.


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Flu-Bird on December 16, 2009, 01:44:30 AM
I think it was made about the early years of the eco-wacko movment and talk about over bloated filmmatic bull kaka like most of theo-wacko movies


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Reb Brown on December 16, 2009, 11:28:30 AM
My theory while watching the movie was that the frogs were the ringleaders and had psychic powers and could control all the other animals to kill the humans. In this sense, the frogs were the most dangerous threat and worthy of the movie title.


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Kitten_Pie on December 16, 2009, 01:49:38 PM
What everyone fails to notice is that even though Davy Crockett (yes I know it's Jason, but someone HAD to say it.) is polluting the area, the amphibian population is INCREASING. It's commonly known that amphibian's are a marker to pollution levels. Pollution goes up, frogs/toads die. Their skin is highly porous. An example would be my two African clawed frogs. The kids wanted to help out and they cleaned the tank for me. But they didn't know that they needed to treat the tap water before putting the frogs back in. Within 30 minutes of exposure to tap water (yes I know...) they were dead.

So with Davy Crockett spewing pesticides and pollution like it's his life work, there should have been no frogs (i know, cane toads, hold the hate) at all! And thus no animal rebellion to begin with!!

Did Al Gore help make this?



Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Intangible Skeleton on December 17, 2009, 09:41:25 PM
This movie was INCREDIBLY boring, yet I could not turn away. Somehow like the titular "frogs" it has a mesmerizing power.


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Bryan on December 19, 2009, 05:12:50 AM
I think this is the only movie the made "Night of the Lupus" look scary.


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: Doggett on April 22, 2010, 06:51:54 PM
I really don't like this film.

Really.

Just having shots of wildlife doesn't make them any more threatening.

Tedious. Very tedious.


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: JPickettIII on January 01, 2011, 08:31:44 PM
This movie was INCREDIBLY boring, yet I could not turn away. Somehow like the titular "frogs" it has a mesmerizing power.

It was the Hipno-toad from Futurama.  HEHEHEHE.

I liked the movie.  It was slow, but I like it.

A must buy for five bucks.

Later,

John   :cheers:


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: WingedSerpent on July 30, 2011, 09:44:46 AM
For all those talking about how there are toads in this movie instead of frogs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pfjRuaHkDU

and
http://allaboutfrogs.org/weird/general/frogtoad.html (http://allaboutfrogs.org/weird/general/frogtoad.html)


Title: Re: Frogs
Post by: mrsskinner on December 11, 2011, 04:32:09 PM
Michael Martindale choked on th spider that went down his throat