vietnamgugl.blogg.se

Let loose the frogs of war
Let loose the frogs of war












Clint and Karen invite Pickett for the party in the private island of their grumpy grandfather Jason Crockett (Ray Milland), an old fashioned disabled patriarch that enjoys celebrating his birthday on the 4th July with his family. Out of the blue, he is hit by a motor boat piloted by Clint Crockett (Adam Roarke) and his sister Karen Crockett (Joan Van Ark) and capsizes. The free-lance photographer Pickett Smith (Sam Elliott) is taking pictures of the pollution in a swamp in Florida for a magazine of ecology in his canoe. For adults, it's value is mainly nostalgic. If you're looking for a "tame" horror picture to keep the kids interested, this might be it. Milland is good as the cranky old rich stereotype. Joan Van Ark and Sam Elliot debut here (Van Ark had done a soap). The acting is as good as can be expected for this type of film. Especially the alligator, where producers sped up the film to make him look like he's moving quickly. However, the animal performers are less than convincing. Since many of these creatures make people queazy, it must have seemed like a slam dunk to film- fearmakers. So they were thrown into the mix of alligators, lizards, snapping turtles, snakes, spiders, etc. Frogs don't kill anyone in the film, but they made a cool poster.

#Let loose the frogs of war movie#

Frogs is an example of a movie poster created before the movie was filmed. A large number of films catered to the horror fan, many were cheaply made. Keep the budgets low, and the base of horror fans will show up and you'll make a profit. This was the secret of success for American International Pictures.

let loose the frogs of war

Made for $200k, it grossed over $2 mill in the US alone. All in all, just be a little more respectful the next time that you meet any plant or animal, especially an amphibian of the order Anura. Whatever the case, it's a pretty enjoyable flick, silly though it may be. We could interpret it as a warning about messing with the Earth (when you battle nature, you ALWAYS lose), or we could just view it as a plain old fun movie. are out to dispense some justice! On the plot's value alone, there's no reason to interpret "Frogs" as any kind of high-quality movie. So it only makes sense that the frogs - in collaboration with the snakes, alligators, spiders, etc. The old man sprays chemicals all over the swamp with absolutely no regard for the plants or animals. A young Sam Elliott (more recently known as the narrator in "The Big Lebowski") plays a photographer who visits a southern estate where the patriarch (Ray Milland) refuses to live in harmony with nature. George McCowan's "Frogs" is considered the first eco-horror flick. The 1970s was the era of disco, blaxploitation, and eco-horror (aka nature's vengeance). If you like this wretched 70s film, also try EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (which is actually worse than FROGS) and NIGHT OF THE LEPUS (about killer bunnies). Many won't enjoy this campy a film, but bad film lovers will have a ball. However, like many of the animals running amok films of the 50s, 60s and 70s, it is also strangely watchable because it is so silly. And my favorite was when the guy wrestled with a gator-and if you looked closely, you could see that the animal's jaws were taped shut! From my description, you'd probably assume this was a terrible film-and it is. Another scene featured a man getting bitten and dying from a rattlesnake bite in less than 3 seconds. Aside from a few chigger bites, I can't see how Spanish moss could pose any health problem and a tarantula bite is about as bad as a bee sting! Another had a man killed by bottles of various poisons which cute little lizards pushed off the shelves in a nicely choreographed scene (though none of the reptiles were killed-they just scurried about the dead man's body). Some of my favorite stupid deaths in the film was one where a guy seemed to be killed by Spanish moss and tarantulas. Aside from gators and a few of the snakes, which were poisonous, it just seemed ludicrous seeing these totally harmless creatures supposedly on a mad killing spree-though none of them actually did a whole lot other than just hop scamper about-after all, they are just cute little critters.

let loose the frogs of war let loose the frogs of war

Most of the killer animals were actually toads, lizards, tarantulas, snakes, birds and alligators. So is it any surprise that the movie is a laughably bad film? They weren't exactly trying to make a remake of Romeo and Juliet here! One of the biggest problems I initially saw (aside from the horrible over-acting of Ray Milland and the dumb plot) was that despite the title, the film has very few frogs. Think about it.this movie is supposed to be about an outbreak of killer frogs.












Let loose the frogs of war