Roses Have Thoughts

Synopsis- A group of helpless victims celebrate a birthday on an island estate crawling with killer amphibians, birds, insects, and reptiles.

Director- George McCowan

Cast- Ray Milland, Sam Elliott, Joan Van Ark

Genre- Horror | Science Fiction

Released- 1972

⭐⭐⭐

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.

Frogs is a classic example of a creature feature attempting to capitalize on the success of nature-run-amok films popular during its era. While the concept of frogs turning the tables on humans may have sounded intriguing on paper, the execution falls flat, resulting in a lacklustre cinematic experience.

One of the film’s major shortcomings is its underdeveloped plot. The narrative lacks depth and fails to provide a compelling storyline beyond the basic premise of amphibians wreaking havoc. The characters, too, are thinly written, making it challenging for the audience to connect or empathize with their plight. As a result, the movie struggles to generate any genuine suspense or tension.

The film’s special effects, even by 1972 standards, are disappointing. The portrayal of killer frogs lacks the necessary realism to induce fear. Instead of utilizing practical effects or innovative techniques to bring the amphibians to life, the movie relies on unconvincing animatronics and poorly executed visual effects. This detracts from the overall viewing experience and undermines the intended horror elements.

Furthermore, the pacing of “Frogs” is uneven, with stretches of monotony punctuated by brief, chaotic moments. The film fails to maintain a consistent atmosphere or build tension effectively, leaving audiences disengaged during crucial scenes. The lack of a cohesive rhythm hampers the film’s ability to sustain interest, resulting in a disjointed viewing experience.

While some may argue that “Frogs” falls into the category of so-bad-it’s-good cinema, the film’s unintentional comedic elements do little to redeem its overall quality. The dialogue is often laughably melodramatic, and the attempts at suspenseful moments are more likely to elicit chuckles than genuine fear. This unintentional humour may appeal to certain audiences seeking a nostalgic, campy experience, but it does little to salvage the film’s critical reception.

Moreover, the environmental message underlying the film feels heavy-handed and lacks subtlety. The ecological themes, while timely and relevant, are delivered in a manner that comes across as preachy rather than thought-provoking. The film misses an opportunity to engage with its audience on a deeper level, opting for a simplistic and didactic approach that feels out of place within the context of a creature’s feature.

In conclusion, “Frogs” may hold nostalgic value for enthusiasts of B-movies and cult classics, but it ultimately falls short of establishing itself as a memorable or well-crafted film. The underdeveloped plot, lacklustre special effects, uneven pacing, unintentional humour, and heavy-handed environmental message contribute to a subpar viewing experience. While it may find a place in the hearts of aficionados of so-bad-it’s-good cinema, it fails to rise above its inherent flaws and earn a higher rating.

IMDB