Is Frogs Worth Watching?
Answer: Maybe not, Frogs is likely a skip if you enjoy Horror movies.
It features a runtime of 90 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to mature audiences.

Verdict:Frogs is a confirmed FLOP based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 4.7/10, it has delivered a mixed experience for fans of the Horror genre.
Answer: Maybe not, Frogs is likely a skip if you enjoy Horror movies.
It features a runtime of 90 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to mature audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 1972, Frogs emerges as a significant entry in the Horror domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of Jason Crockett is an aging, grumpy, physically disabled millionaire who invites his family to his island estate for his birthday celebration. Unlike standard genre fare, Frogs attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a conventional take on its central themes.
The success of any Horror is often anchored by its ensemble, and Frogs features a noteworthy lineup led by Ray Milland . Supported by the likes of Sam Elliott and Joan Van Ark , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Frogs (1972) is negative. With an audience rating of 4.7/10, it stands as a highly recommended experience for genre enthusiasts.
Quick Plot Summary: Frogs is a Horror film that crafts an atmosphere of dread and suspense, using psychological terror and visual scares. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Breakdown: Frogs attempts to tie together its various plot elements. The finale presents its approach to horror resolution.
The conclusion addresses the core thematic questions, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of Frogs reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Consider Watching If:
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Worldwide Gross | $1.9M |
| Trade Verdict | FINANCIAL DISAPPOINTMENT |









Amazon Video
Apple TV
Amazon Video
Apple TVAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 4.7/10, and global collection metrics, Frogs stands as a challenging project for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 1972 cinematic year.
Frogs is considered a flop based on audience ratings of 4.7/10 and lower collections.
Based on the low rating of 4.7/10, Frogs may not be worth watching unless you are a die-hard fan.
Frogs may be available for rent or purchase on digital platforms like Apple TV, Google Play, or Amazon Prime Video. Specific streaming availability can vary by country.
**_Lazy pre-"Jaws" nature-nuns-amok flick_** Myriad swamp creatures (frogs, snakes, alligators, lizards, scorpions, tarantulas, crabs, etc.) vengefully attack a crotchety old man's Southern mansion in the swamp. Apparently, they’re hopping mad about the toxic chemicals used to exterminate them, not to mention pollutants in general. The film stars Ray Milland as the old grump, a mustache-less Sam Elliott and a young Joan Van Ark. "Frogs" (1972) predates "Jaws" by a few years. The creators were obviously going for a swamp version of the basic "The Birds" plot. The difference is that "The Birds" is a first-rate flick whereas "Frogs" is second rate, which isn’t to say that it’s unprofessional or that there aren’t points of interest. Any fan of nature-runs-amok flicks should find something to like. The film gives you what you pay for: Real swamp locations with real swamp creatures horrifyingly attacking and killing people, not to mention a grand antebellum mansion and grounds. The best thing is that the story is taken seriously. There's no silliness or camp to be seen as in, say, "Lake Placid" or "Crocodile" (2000). Another highlight is Joan Van Ark who’s quite fetching at 28 during shooting. Lynn Borden and Judy Pace are also worth mentioning in the feminine department. On the other side of the gender spectrum, there’s Elliott, who’s excellent as the low-key macho protagonist, as well as Adam Roarke and David Gilliam, amongst others. The main problem with “Frogs” is that there isn't any suspense; the tone is curiously lazy. But if you're a fan of creatures-on-the-loose films or any of the cast members then you'll probably find something to appreciate. It has more originality than the many post-"Jaws" flicks and there are indeed a few horrifying parts. Just don't expect a Class A film like "The Birds" or much suspense and you won't be disappointed. For any who complain that the name of the movie is inaccurate in light of the fact that there are various bog creatures attacking the people, not just frogs, think about it like this: The frogs are like little Napoléons sending their soldiers into the fray. It runs 90 minutes and was shot entirely at Eden Gardens State Park, Florida, which is located on the panhandle 20 miles west of Panama City. GRADE: C+
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.