The Film Should Have Been Titled "Ribbit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

                                     Girls, as creepy as reptiles are--save, of course, Gojira and Baby Gojira--you have to hand it to the titular characters in "Frogs."  They must have had some agent, because they barely move or do anything, throughout the film.  They croak, they scamper, and they get more close-up shots, just lying around, than any actor in the film.  They also outact the actors, even the seasoned Ray Milland, and newcomers Sam Elliott, who does show off his gorgeous chest; not to mention Joan Van Ark, with her gorgeous gams.

                                     But what a mess.  Who is attacking who?  A Southern mansion on a Florida island?  A dysfunctional family?????????????  Where was Tennessee Williams when needed; because "Frogs," girls, comes off more like an ersatz "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof."

                                         The movie was all over the place, but the worst thing was, it never seemed to go anywhere.  But the time Milland was on the floor, covered with maybe three frogs, whom he could simply swat off, David was asleep, and I had had enough.

                                             George McCowan, and screenwriters Robert Hutchinson and Robert Blees did not get it right, with this "nature run amok" movie.  They should have watched Hitchcock's 1963 "The Birds," or Daniel Mann's hit the previous year--1971-- |Willard."   Both those film got it right!

                                                  I hope each and every frog was given the choice of a high-end pond to return to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!