Frogs 1972 (Quickie Review)<br /><br />Frogs is just, quite simply, a very bad movie. One of the absolute worst out there. Walk through Wal-Mart one of these days and take a good long gander in that disheveled "2 DVD's for $11" bin. Otherwise known by myself, my family and friends of mine as the "Wal-Mart $5.00 bin." Dig through there and you'll find hyper Jesusy "Left Behind" movies, films Pierce Brosnan likely forgot he did, and disk after disk of Jean Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, and Chuck Norris crappy action flicks. Craption if you like. You'll also, eventually, see this movie. And at $5.50, it's overpriced by about six bucks.<br /><br />This monstrosity is about a family living in an old Southern plantation house surrounded by swamp. And eventually, they're getting killed by frogs. The cover of the DVD looks promising, true-complete with giant frog on the cover with somebody's arm sticking out of the mouth. Well, rest assured, nothing even remotely that cool is found anywhere in the film. Poor acting, vanishing story, zero atmosphere, and sh!t music carry this monstrosity along showing you that, yes, someone actually filmed something more boring than 24-straight hours of the New York City skyline (Andy Warhol did that once). The frogs never grow to gigantic proportions, nor do they propagate in such massive numbers that they could overwhelm even the most inept baby. Yet, somehow, they break into the house and the family members start to die. And that's the whole movie. You'll hear glass break, then you'll hear someone scream, then you'll see a body on the floor with anywhere from 3-7 frogs either on the body or on the floor nearby. Even as "camp" or "kitsch" this movie is unbearably bad.<br /><br />So next time you rifle through that $5.00 bin at Wal-Mart, do you're very best to avoid this this thing. Grab "Leatherface" or that cheesy-ass Chuck Norris movie instead. Fvcking don't waste money on "Frogs." 1/10 (I don't give zeros.)<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com