I tried so hard to watch this movie all the way through, but I just couldn't I was just so bored by this stupid movie. The actors were all so drab and painfully awful it made this movie a tragedy. Probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

No stars.


I rated this show a bit higher because during the first few years it was on, I didn't know anyone who didn't watch it. Granted, most of those people were kids, we still enjoyed the show.

The show centered around disco dancing and each episode was a dance contest where about 5 couples would compete for cash and an opportunity to advance to semi-finals and then the Grand Prix competition, where they would actually win a Pontiac Grand Prix. Denny Terrio would hand them the keys.

Terrio, a dancer himself, was the original host. He was accompanied by two dancer assistants, collectively known as Motion (Dianne and Toni were the originals), and Freeman King, a DJ who always wore a hat that looked like a record album on his head. I think King was only there for the first 1 or 2 seasons. There would be 3 celebrity guest judges and a singing performance by some of the top musical acts of the time.

Although it had a good run, there were a few things that really did the show in. One was the fading popularity of disco. Another was Terrio leaving the show and being replaced by Adrian Zmed in 1985. Also, probably with more focus going on music videos, I don't think they were getting the sponsorship they had in the beginning, so on a tight budget the quality of the judges and music acts began to sink. I remember Zmed himself singing a few times towards the end, for example.

But the show was decent and entertaining during the Terrio years.


I think that Demi Moore was bold to go with the little known Ocracoke, NC accent because most people will probably (wrongly) think that she was doing a very bad job at a North Carolinian/Southern USA accent.

Ocracoke is a small, fisherman's island at the bottom of the North Carolina Outer Banks island chain and is only accessible by ferry. This isolation has kept the accent there mostly unaltered since the 17th century days when it was inhabited by British seamen. The Ocracoke accent sounds like a mixture of Brit and Yank, so what you hear Demi Moore doing in this movie is really quite accurate.

I also enjoyed the cozy portrayal of the Manhattan (NYC) side street neighborhood life. The NYC avenues tend to be wide, impersonal and busy, but the narrower, townhouse and small shop filled side streets can be quite friendly. It gives me some nice, childhood nostalgic memories to see the happier, day-to-day aspect of NYC life shown in this film.

I watch this romantic comedy whenever it is on TV, and I have no complaints about it at all. I find it to be a sweet, feel-good film with occasional hints at magic realism, but without plunging too far into that iffy genre.

I feel that all the players did good jobs, and that the locations and settings felt very true. Nice production values too.

If you like "Moonstruck", then you will probably like "The Butcher's Wife" too.


I know, I know, it's basically a boiler-plate piece of Hollywood fluff but I really loved this movie. I am a hopeless romantic and thought this movie captured the essence of falling in love and finding your split-apart...er...soul mate. :)

Jeff Daniels is wonderful as the shrink who can't help himself as his world unravels and falls apart thanks to the whacky Demi Moore character. Demi is perfect as the ditzy but charming butcher's wife. I really liked Mary Steenburgen in this story... she looked beautiful and sang like an angel. I liked all of the little characters too. The music at the end is haunting and perfect for the finale which wasn't surprising but who cares!!!


I liked this romantic movie just fine. Demi Moore as Marina is in earnest even though she gets off to a wrong start by marrying a man she "thinks" is the right one, but her feelings aren't based on solid ground as it turns out. Jeff Daniels is less believable in his role as a psychiatrist and comes across as being more neurotic than his patients!

Introverted Stella, played by Mary Steenburgen, is a charmer and her singing is almost the highlight of the film, at least to me. As well, a certain butcher named Leo is also captivated by Stella's modest ways and they are drawn to each other and soon fall in love. This only adds to the confusion in everyone's lives and doesn't help solve their problems.

The movie isn't a first class romance but if accepted on its own terms it's very enjoyable with a message or two about life and understanding. I tune in to see it whenever it's on, might get the video too if funds permit.


For someone who likes modern fairy tales, this is a great movie. Granted, Demi Moore's accent wasn't the best- but I blame that on a bad voice coach- not her. There was actual chemistry between her and Jeff Daniels. If you liked Practical Magic, you'll probably like this one too. Basically, if you want a cute, distracting movie with a little bit of the paranormal (Moore plays a psychic- yes, a real one), like urban settings and slightly predictable love triangles with a happy ending, you'll love this one. This one is for the innocent in the audience- or the people who can overlook one bad point for the big picture, because in the long run, this movie is awesome. This one and Moonstruck are my two favorite 'chick flicks'.....and I don't normally like chick flicks.


I just love, love, love this film. The cast is perfect, right down to all the bit-parts. At first I was bothered by DM's accent (& her blonde hair is a shame) but the sweet script transcends all that.

All the characters are pitch perfect, the lines so funny & the message inspiring! The locations are also great, I don't know where this is in NYC, but I would love to live there!

I think Jeff Daniels is simply brilliant in this film, and Mary Steenbergen too. The scene where DM tells her she's a singer is lovely & the sparky scenes between JD & DM are so sweet and funny too!

www.menmoneyandchocolate.com


This movie is a sweet fantasy with a good message about life, love and destiny. I usually skip movies with medically-oriented protagonists but the fantasy/psychic elements more than make up for the fact that Jeff Daniels plays a psychiatrist. Demi Moore is lovely, though the blonde hair is not. She would have been better with her natural look. Molly Steenbergen is great. I like the way regular people are touched by magic. Less stereotypical than a lot of other romantic comedies. Some people might be distracted by Demi's Moore's accent but I thought it worked well. The movie deals with psychics in a normal manner for a change. Unlike so much of TV and movies now, I really liked most of the characters and believed they were good people.


I missed this movie in the theaters the first time around and just saw it on cable. Despite a few jumps in logic - like tying up one of the romantic loose ends by making one of the characters an instant lesbian - hmm, wish life were that easy - (and by the way - that's the spoiler) - I thought this movie was a sweet departure from current popular fare. This is the kind of fanciful movie they used to make in the 1940's - nowadays we're not asked to just go along for the ride and enjoy ourselves. Nice way to spend the afternoon. And by the way, I know Demi got roasted for this role - I thought she was charming, and I'm not generally a big fan.


Television director Terry Hughes tried his hand at features with this improbable and uneven modern updating of "Marty", with magical overtones and quirky eccentricities--not the least of which is a miscast Demi Moore as a psychic sprite with absurd golden locks. Moore believes she is fated to marry a lonely but charming butcher (the wonderful George Dzundza, looking a lot more handsome than we're supposed to think he is); after the nuptials however, she begins to have real feelings for another man, yuppie psychiatrist Jeff Daniels. It's this kind of thinking in Hollywood--that a younger, slimmer man would be a better catch for Demi Moore than a balding, chubby guy like George Dzundza--that sinks most romantic comedies, and nearly does this one in as well. Daniels is exasperating while trying to shrink Moore's head, while Dzundza's fire is lighted by local spinster Mary Steenburgen, a closet chanteuse. The film is not the merry romantic mix-up it wants to be, and Demi is too callow to be passed off as this blonde sweetheart (she fails to connect with anyone on-screen, not to mention the audience). Perhaps happily-ever-after stylist Hughes was just the wrong pick as director: he turns a promising scenario into a flat-footed sitcom. ** from ****


It's a harmless, little romantic comedy that entertains and delights me. I watch it every time it's on TV.

Demi's character conveys mystery and innocence...and the blonde hair is most suitable to that end. Plus it foreshadows (spoiler) that Jeff Daniels (also blond) and she are meant for each other.

The gay parts are subtle and sweet...I take no offense at all and am surprised that others do.

I no longer expect perfection in any movie. Having said that, if you just want to be entertained and need a break from violence, cursing, and nudity....give this movie a try.


I have screened this movie for the 4th time.

Watching Demi Moore makes it hard to remember she is not acting (re. suspension of disbelief). Jeff Daniels' character plays a good neurotic.

On the pro side, I found the direction fair to midland and the supporting cast excellent.

The screenplay is sweetly romantic and sentimental.

I did not find the theme overtly pro-homosexual. Rather, it was a mature look of life and love and it's happenstance. I would enjoy talking with my youngsters about the film as it embodies life's essentials.


This is the best performance Demi Moore has ever given in my opinion. She shows that despite her long time film career she is not the cookie cutter actress most people seem to want her to be. The accent she uses for this character is wonderfully eccentric and brings a realness to her that really makes her shine in this role. I loved her in the long blonde hair and flowy summer dresses much more then her typical costumes designed to show off her body. She was perfect as an out of whack psychic who can divine others fortunes accurately but not her own. This is a typical problem with true psychics by the way. The emotions they feel and the needs they have make it near impossible to accurately see their own future, hint: this is why you never see a psychic win the lottery. Demi is sweet and totally alluring in this film and anyone who says otherwise just has a grudge against her.

This is a wonderfully whimsical romantic comedy with great acting on all parts. Mary Steenburgen plays a perfect shut in turned night club singer and sings beautifully in my opinion. Jeff Daniels is perfect as the semi neurotic psychiatrist whose life is being turned inside out by this lovely psychic. George Dzundza is a great comic butcher and shows that he really has the chops to be a great actor. I think the problem with this film is just that some people tend to take it to seriously and want too much from it. I have watched it over 30 times now and I love it more every single time I watch it. I wish Demi Moore would play more roles like this instead of crap like GI Jane and Charlie's Angels. As for the lesbianism add in, I don't agree with homosexuality but I'm not going to force my sensibilities on other people. There are people that are homosexual, there is no getting around it, and as long as there are there will be some of that life style written into films. If you can't deal with it then just change the channel. Don't complain that Hollywood is trying to convert everyone because it simply isn't true. There is no homosexual conspiracy. Deal with it.


I guess they couldn't get Julia Roberts. This script was way above Demi Moore's capabilities. She was overshadowed by the talent surrounding her. Mary Steenburgen stole the show with her singing (don't forget, Jessica Lange was nominated for an Oscar in Sweet Dreams for not singing). Well, some have it, and some don't. I can't wait to see Meryl Streep do her own thing in Prairie Home Companion. The last time we heard her vocals was Postcards From the Edge. Jeff Daniels, Frances McDormand, and George Dzundza were fine. It was a good script and an interesting storyline. Butcher's Wife was well directed. Too bad it was brought down by the lead character. A perfect example of how Hollywood has sacrificed art for celebrity. Kudos to the movie and everyone in the cast with the exception of Moore.


If the Title "The Butchers Wife" puts you off watching this film count yourself lucky, take the hint and dont bother with this rubbish. The film is about a simple clairvoiant who marries a butcher after she dreams that her future husband will walk out of the sea.When she moves to New York she meets a group of people who she gives spiritual and relationship advice that turns all their lives around including her and her new husband's. If that description sounds dull you would be right to think so. This film is like an overlong , dull sit com that has no humour or pattern to it whatsoever. Is there anything good i can say about this film?.......no not really. 4 out of 10.


Comment first for Ian: Small town? They make it pretty clear that the name of that town is NEW YORK CITY--specifically Manhattan.

So again, here we have a sweet tale with no sex or violence and very little language. But I would feel uncomfotable watching this with my kids in the room because of the strong pro-homosexuality message. Does somebody in Hollywood actually get paid to purposely spoil otherwise "G" rated movies by throwing in just enough immoraity to make them unsuitable for general consumption?

Demi Moore shows here that she can be a knockout WITH her clothes on, although I'm not partial to blondes and would ratehr have seen her with her natural color. Jeff Daniels does a good neurotic. My only criticism of the casting is that the role of Grace should have been given to somebody who could really sing like Bessie Smith, and then given a chance to do so.


The Idol is an interesting mix that comes together into a stunning film. An Australian director working in France for the first time (in French language) with two American lead actors (one of whom apparently didn't speak any French when cast) and a script worked on by veteran scriptwriter Gerard Brach (Jean De Florette, The Name Of The Rose) could have been a mess but instead Samantha Lang has crafted a beautifully moving and delicate drama.

 Brief plot outline, no spoilers: The lives of the residents of a French apartment block are disrupted by the arrival of a young Australian woman (Sobieski), a struggling theatre actress. Her neighbour is an elderly Chinese man respected by the other residents, who is considering moving into a retirement community.

 The two are drawn together through their loneliness and a touching grandfather-granddaughter sort of relationship develops between them, reminiscent of that in Kieslowski's Three Colours:

 Red.

 The triumph of the film is the performances of the two lead actors. James Hong, given the chance to shine in a rare lead role, tackles the character and the language with an expert pitch, embuing Mr Zao with an almost mystical quality. He is both a man you wish you knew and a tragic figure that you want to comfort and care for.

 Equally impressive is Sobieski displaying an acting talent that she has rarely demonstrated in her recent poor choices of role in generic American thrillers like The Glass House. At first all smouldering eyes and wry smiles she also grows over the course of the film into a sympathetic and tragic figure, allowing the audience to truly care what happens to both these characters and understand the deep core of loneliness that brings them together despite their differences.

 The supporting actors also flesh out strong characters. Veteran French actor Jean-Paul Roussillon provides humour as the drunken upstairs neighbour who must sneak cigarettes from Mr Zao so that his interfering wife doesn't know he is smoking. While Marie Loboda as Caroline, a little girl who lives in the building (and bears a striking resemblance to Emmanuelle Beart) exudes innocence and charm. Both these characters also undergo changes as their jealousy of the relationship formed between Zao and Sarah (Sobieski) overcomes them.

 The only negative, and it is a small one, is that the score by Oscar winning composer Gabriel Yared (The English Patient, Betty Blue), while a lovely Woody-Allenesque jazz style, seems a little out of place with this film which often seems to be creating emotions that are in conflict to those the music suggests.

 The photography matches the story in its quiet mood and, along with the set design and locations adds a sense of loneliness to the film that draws you to the characters for comfort as well and therefore makes their lives all the more important to you. A particularly well played and haunting dream sequence will stay with you long after your first viewing of the film.

 I say first viewing because you will want to revisit these characters and return to see this expertly measured film all over again. A tender tale of loneliness and the gentle love that can exist between two people this is a must see for anybody who wants to be moved or appreciate fine acting and a delicate unrushed story. Truly wonderful film-making.


This is a film about human relationships and loneliness, reaching out and healing. It is not your typical old man seduces young beauty that you may expect. It is a thoughtful and introspective film. I think more than anything the title L'idole, or The Idol, is meant to revolve around the James Hong character. In that everyone in the building in which he lives respects him, and when a young and beautiful new tenant played wonderfully by Leelee Sobieski comes into the picture. He is the only one who finds a real meaningful connection with her. Therefore the rest of the buildings tenants also become somewhat envious of him in their own emptiness of depth-less or stale relationships as he and the new beauty grow closer. Perhaps even some viewers will be envious of the graceful and experienced Hong character, and I think that is part of the point. I guess you could twist around the idol idea, and say that Sobieski is the idolized one in certain ways. Nonetheless, loneliness and disconnect seem to be a major theme here. Pretty much every character seems to struggle with anything that would resemble a deep or truly meaningful relationship. All in all, L'idole is an intriguing watch as both James Hong and Leelee Sobieski are hard to not watch, as they easily out act the average Hollywood standards. The supporting cast also fits very well here, helping to make this a quality piece of character driven film.


I stumbled across this piece of divine French film whilst channeling surfing one night. I suppose the reason I put the remote down was that I am an avid lover of French Film and as a French language student, it was a wonderful chance to enrich my developing French ear. However, I soon forgot the latter and became bewitched by the mysterious and erratic struggling Australian actress Sarah and her tranquil and doting Chinese neighbor, Mr Zao.

Despite Sarah being very much disliked by all the tenants of her apartment building and Mr Zao loosing his calm patience for his obnoxious and piggish neighbor who visits him only for cigarettes and a chance to make vulgar remarks about Sarah, the lonely souls soon embark on a deep and touching friendship which sees awkward play rehearsals, delightful meals and a life saved.

Enchanting cinematography, a subtle romantic air and a perfect cast make this a true masterpiece of Art-house film.


I never really expect to enjoy French films anymore than I would think that I would enjoy escargot or frog legs. However, I did. I took the film out on DVD and consequently had the facility to go back over the film when I felt that I "didn't get it".

If you're looking for an action film, forget it. "I'm not that kind of film" it would say. The appeal in the film is generated by the very human tensions that exist between the characters, and not just between Sarah Silver (Leelee Sobieski) and Mr Zao (James Hong, whose acting career goes back to "Love is a Many Splendoured Thing" 1955). There is an interlacing of frustration, suspicion, jealousy, spite, anger, futility, despair, and villainy. Overlaying all of this is the sexual tension which is never consummated, nor is ever likely to be, between Sarah and Zao, which endows the film with a sense of foreboding. There is a feeling of imminent disaster. The disaster, however, manifests itself in a direction not anticipated when the lead actress, Sylvia Martin, whose place Sarah wanted to supplant, suffers fatal injuries. The effect on Sarah who had placed a so-called hex on Martin is to change Sarah's life.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the film was in the character of Caroline (Maria Loboda) who looks like Emmanuelle Beart. A girl who hovers around the aging Zao and relies on him to feed her birds, and who should be the very embodiment of innocence, is riddled with jealousy (for the 'artiste'), malevolence (her interception of Sarah's parting letter is truly spiteful), and greed - which nearly results in her death when she hungrily snatches up the poisoned cake.

Zao is also complex. A man who has suffered the atrocities of the Japanese invasion of China and suffers from the bitterness which resulted from his slaughtered child(ren), kindly succours Sarah who is clearly not looking after herself. But he prepares a lethal cake with Sarah's sleeping pills which he had formerly substituted with rice grains, when she tried to commit suicide, after she rejected him. She rejected him because he had frustrated her melodramatic moment of suicide.

Other characters are well drawn too. The thieving neighbour Castellac who tells Zao that if Zao needs him, he's there to help - as he filches Zao's bottle of wine. Suffering from lack of recognition in his retirement (he was a uniformed railway guard) his sexual frustration is partially assuaged by listening over the landing to Sarah's orgasmic cries which, in turn, lead to the intrigue of the 'petition' from the residents.

The entire film is shot in shadows and darkness to match the dark motives of the denizens. The film began and ended with the motif of the roller-skaters which brought the film to a pinpoint in time. Nothing was different despite the fatality, sexual assault, and murderous intentions.

One criticism: Leelee's Australian accent wasn't!


Australian director Samantha Lang has made a movie in Paris, in French, with an American actress playing an Australian actress, and a Chinese-American actor playing a Chinese-French retired chef. Intriguing? For a while. Leelee Sobieski's French is surprisingly good, much better than her acting. James Hong is a fine actor, but clearly an American guy struggling with his French lines. The story (two characters, each alientated in his/her own way, thrown together in a Parisian apartment building)is ultimately trite and uninteresting. Jean-Paul Roussillon does a nice job as the nosy downstairs neighbor, and child actress Marie Loboda could be Emanuelle Beart's little sister, much as Sobieski could be Helen Hunt's little sister.


Definitely the highlight for the few people that actually watch this film will be Leelee Zobiewsky prancing around in her underwear. She's not a bad looking woman and certainly many male viewers will regard this as the highlight of the film. That's not to say that this is the only thing men respond to, it's just that there's precious little else to entertain or occupy you during these long hours of this film. This film is tedious and it justifiably bombed at the box office, even in France, where they tend to be more sympathetic of a low=action film Many of the key people in this film aren't actually French, which is no bad thing in itself, but there is the feeling that the French setting is used to justify the worst excesses of this film; low plot, pretentious and clichéd. Not even LeeLee's knickers and bra could salvage any decent viewing figures.

If you have sympathy for young petulant pretty girls that invent crises of their own because their life is too uneventful, then you may sympathise with young Leelee, but the fact that she decides life is worth living because her Chinese neighbour cooked her some spring rolls with chop suey and then washed and ironed her dress properly pretty much sums up the vacuous nature of this character and also of this turgid film. There's no doubting that his cooking and laundry abilities look impressive, but given the fact that they extended the life of this fluffy irrelevant girl, and hence of this awful film, he has a lot to ask for.

I was never in favour of voluntary assisted euthanasia before this film, but I now believe that there can be a case made for it, at least in the context of this dreary and highly pretentious film.


i saw the film at the locarno festival and i was truly disappointed by the poor direction and the bad acting . The story doesn't hold up to anything and it's a real bore. It was not even the slightest emotional and i was really itching to see something finally happening on the screen which never really happened...


This movie, a re-make of Shirley Temple's "Little Miss Marker" gets little respect from the critics. As usual, I disagree with them: this is fun movie and one you should enjoy if you like Temple and laugh at Bob Hope's jokes.

I didn't always think Hope was funny but this movie had a lot of laughs, a great story and a cute kid. It isn't as hokey or dated as most of Hope's films and some of his lines in here are downright clever.

Mary Jane Saunders does a nice imitation of Temple-Margaret O'Brien, a combination of those two child stars. You also get Lucille Ball in here, although she's just okay, nothing hilarious. She does get some good wise-cracks in, however.

This is a solid, underrated comedy. I'm sorry to see I am only the second person to review this film on IMDb. A lot of people are missing out on a funny movie.


This is a remake of 1934's Little Miss Marker, a Shirley Temple movie. Sorrowful Jones, the cheap bookie, is played to a tee by Bob Hope, who suddenly has a little girl to look after when her father leaves her in his care as a bet marker, and doesn't come back. But the little girl doesn't mix well with his lifestyle, and provides him with some close shaves involving some errant gangsters, and a bout of horse napping. A predictable and sappy ending, but still a sweet little movie, with some hilarious one liners by Bob Hope and Lucille Ball. (Make sure you're not eating when you watch this, because they shoot them out so suddenly that you're likely to end up wearing your lunch.) Overall? 8 out of 10.


All the versions of the Runyon story are very good. It's just a great story, but this one is clearly the best. A seemingly heartless, stingy bookie accepts a little girl as a marker for a bet, but when the girl's father is killed by notorious gangsters, the bookie, Sorrowful Jones, is stuck with her. The events that follow range from hysterically funny to emotionally provoking. And those qualities are enhanced by great talents. Bob Hope is perfect as the stingy bookie, playing to his usual role. Bruce Cabot does well as the evil gangster, and Lucille Balllands another great role (she had to have the best agent in the business) as the mother figure. But the little girl, Martha Jane Smith, is absolutely divine as the sad faced girl that even makes Bob Hope melt. She is just zillions of times cuter and more emotion provoking than the bland Shirley Temple. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. A classic that need to come to AMC instead of those stupid boring movies they keep showing (Arnie movies, Stallone movies, Friday 13 movies, etc). How about showing real classics like this instead, something people will watch and enjoy!


To appreciate this movie the best you have to have lived in Germany during the 80s and 90s. My favorite scene is when Gunther looks for a bottle of Coke and is overwhelmed by "Coke with sugar, Coke without sugar, Coke with caffeine, Coke without caffeine, Coke with caffeine without sugar ... In Germany you only have one choice - Coke!" This was absolutely true! The reviewer who thought Gunther was saying his car runs on "tubers" is wrong. Gunther is saying "Rueben" which is the German word for Turnips. A car that runs on turnips is funnier than a car that runs on potatoes! "Driving Me Crazy" can be compared to "The Gods Must Be Crazy" (which I also like) in terms of comedy. Don't expect Woody Allen-type humor. Pretend you're back in junior high to enjoy this movie the most.


This was a fun movie. It's not to be taken seriously, and anyone who does will be disappointed. It's supposed to be a humorous take on the Trabbi and East/West Germany. Lighten up, folks. If you really know what's going on, you'll appreciate the subtle jokes more.

I'd MUCH rather watch this again than Eurotrip, which was just a blatant take on American's view of Europe. Driving Me Crazy was refreshing and silly with mild historical undertones.

Please, give this film a chance. I really enjoyed it and the people I showed it to did as well. This is a good movie to show a German class for a fun movie day or something.


This movie was bad. Painfully bad. I am one of the ten or so people who actually saw this in the theater. I went with two friends on opening night and we were the only three people there.

The first hint that the movie was bad was the premise: An East German inventor creates a car that runs on potatoes--or as he continually calls them "tubers." After the Berlin Wall falls, he moves to the U.S. to try to sell his invention.

Most of the movie consists of painfully obvious "fish out of water"-type jokes. My assumption is that every actor and crew member who worked on it took the money and ran to cash their checks as quickly as possible.

Avoid this movie like the plague. Please. Your brain will thank you.


This movie is a funny movie for when you don't want to have to do too much thinking. The actors were all well cast and Dom DeLuise especially brings this movie to life. I loved this movie and I recommend it to anyone and everyone.


Despite a seemingly hokey premise, Frogs is one of the more memorable and effective entries in the nature-revenge genre.

Family living in Florida's Okefenokee Swamp have been exterminating the local wild life, now it seems that the creatures are all out to kill them!

Frogs is a movie that never fails to be sweat-inducing, especially to those who don't like reptiles! All manner of swamp wild life is used for this film - snakes, spiders, gators, lizards, heck even a turtle! So with all these critters coming for our unsuspecting human characters there's plenty of tension to be had! Director McCowan makes good use of the boggy setting and gives it an atmospheric feeling of certain doom! The eerie score also helps as well.

The films cast is good. Veteran Ray Milland is perfect as the Crockett family's stubborn elder. Young, attractive Sam Elliot is decent as a nature photographer who happens on the scene. Joan Van Ark is good as Elliot's love interest and Adam Roarke as her no-account brother. The supporting cast is also on cue.

While Frogs may be a B thriller that's best taken tongue-in-cheek, it's solidly done and is sure to cause a few chills!

*** out of ****


This film is absolutely ribbiting. The action really toads the line between intense and dynamic. I was swamped with delight witnessing such awesome acting by the likes of Ray Milland, Sam Elliot, and Adam Rourke. This isn't one of those "Government tried a shortcut and ended up creating a monstrosity of nature that now has to kill all mankind" type of sci-fi creature films. This is nature verses man all the way, the likes of "Jaws", that'd come out a few years later. Well okay, this is no "Jaws", but folks, I'm telling you, it's pretty darn entertaining, if not in a "fun to bag on" sense. The pace is slow but intentionally so, as the froggies move in while a group of rich people (and Sam Elliot as the token environmentalist) are about to have a outdoor picnic. Sam Elliot as the do-gooder nature guy doesn't go over-the-top, and doesn't lecture like so many "nature first" characters can do in these films (i.e., no rants). Everything in "Frogs" is pretty subtle, even the attacks by the reptiles. Mind you, the frogs themselves don't move in till the end; but they are the silent generals of the surrounding swamp land's snakes, lizards, and giant spiders. Rent, or buy, "Frogs"... It's a truly ribbiting film! (The beginning credit sequence is one of my favorites of all time; and stick around for a little surprise after the end credits...)


Even though the film can never really top the brilliance of its own tagline ('Today the pond! Tomorrow the world!'), "Frogs" is a hugely entertaining and surprisingly well-made ecological horror film. These typical "creature features" were guaranteed hits back in the 70's and pretty much every animal species got turned into ravenous monsters enthusiast horror filmmakers, even the most unlikely ones like worms ("Squirm") and rabbits ("Night of the Lepus"). In this film, the frogs aren't just vicious killers but also strategic army generals that mobilize a whole island's ecosystem to commit nasty murders! The frogs are merely supervising whilst humans are being killed off by spiders, lizards, snakes, alligators and  oh yes  even a turtle! Pickett Smith is a freelance photographer who ends up at the private island home of obnoxious industrialist Jason Crockett during his annual 4th of July/birthday celebration. Also present are a dangerously increasing amount of frogs that no longer put up with the pollution and pesticides on the island and they plan a large-scaled attack on the Crockett family. "Ten Little Indians"-style, all the island's residents are imaginatively killed by ill-natured critters. The story naturally is silly and hardly ever scary, yet it's praiseworthy how director George McGowan attempts to build up an atmosphere of tension. Much like Hitchcock did in "The Birds" (only better), McGowan simply zooms in on the frogs and puts the emphasis on their eerie croaking. So, even though they're simple frogs they look a bit ominous! The best aspect of the film unquestionably is Mario Tosi's colorful camera-work that shows the beautiful environment from many creative viewpoints. The young Sam Elliot is quite good in his heroic role but the shows is obviously stolen by Ray Milland as the grumpy and bossy millionaire who thinks he can afford himself everything. The rest of the cast is quite wooden and their gruesome animal-inflicted deaths actually come as a relief. "Frogs" stands for great campy fun, not a single dull moment and a high body count! Damn, the 70's were cool.


A horror movie about killer frogs?? I had to check this out. Well, it was a waste of rental-film money. It committed two unforgivable horror-flick sins: 1 - it wasn't scary; 2 - it was downright boring.

Why was I not surprised the frogs weren't scary? Why did I think because Ray Milland was in it, it might be good? (Boy, it's sad to see a man of his "Lost Weekend" stature wind up in films like this in the '60s and '70s.)

It was interesting to see such a young Sam Ellliott, who I am used to viewing as a bearded, weathered--faced cowboy over the years. Elliott was in his '20s and had mainly done just TV work prior to this movie. He sure has come a long way from "Frogs!"

The worst part of this movie was the first 20 minutes in which absolutely nothing happened. Hello?? Nice to way to grab your audience, eh? Actually, this whole movie is just way too bland.

I've always thought frog legs were a delicacy and I like frogs in general but this movie is terrible. I am embarrassed for Milland, who I have always admired as an actor.


OK when i was younger and seen frogs for the first time it was kind of scary,then as you get older you find all the mistakes and plot holes and such.this is no way as great as Alfred Hitchcock's the birds.this one deals with a bunch of rich people all celebrating the 4th of July.y birthdays on a Florida island.the patriarch(Ray Milland)who was a hunter before his crippling accident invites his family members all doltish and strange with the exception of his granddaughter(Joan Van Ark)and a model(Judy Pace)and a photographer(Sam Elliot)who is just passing through after his canoe is capsized by a drunken boater(Adam Roarke)the scenes with the animals attacking are really bad.and don't come off as realistic.a harmless rat snake,harmless geckos and anoles,even a snapping turtle,a slow moving one at that.there is a scene where some of the characters flag down a motorist.and the motorist stops for them one of them is carrying a rifle.OK if thats me i would'nt stop for anyone especially if they are carrying a rifle. frogs has some really interesting poster art,a frog with a human hand sticking out of its mouth.as for the plot.it does'nt exist.pity the poor actors,especially the late great Ray Milland(lost weekend,dial m for murder)this was made by Samuel z arkoff and American international pictures,i had originally seen on a double bill with the incredible 2 headed transplant,another clunker thats actually better than frogs. 1 out of 10.


I find it hard to understand how a horror movie could be equated with a bunch of frogs. Frogs aren't scary. They don't have teeth or claws. What's the worst they could do? Croak all night and hop around all over the place. How could this make for a good horror movie? I would say this director lacked any sense of horror. I could have made a better movie than this and I'm not even a director. Check out "Food of the Gods". Now THAT is scary. It's full of giant mosquitos, giant rats, giant worms and snakes, even a giant chicken,all of which could mangle a human being. But FROGS? A pitiful subject for a horror movie. (this line added simply to fill in enough space so my comments would post. When are they going to change this stupid requirement?)


This is the best killer frog movie ever made. Although for the most part, the Frogs are the conductor of the killing symphony of reptiles that surround a southern mansion owned by Ray Milland. Gators, snakes, and spiders do most of the dirty work; till the finale, anyhow. The frogs are always there though, watching. The one main thing I liked about this movie is that it didn't involve biological mutations caused by the American military, like so many other nature-gone-wrong films. Like JAWS (that came a few years after) this film is plain old nature's revenge on humanity, and nothing more. Sam Elliot is the 'Chief Brody', as it were, of this film, playing an ecologist (so then he's 'Brody' and 'Hooper' combined). The thing I liked also is that he - and the movie itself - wasn't a bit preachy like other environmental sci-fi type movies. The victims of nature aren't really bad guys, just rich and spoiled and miserable. The filmmakers left a couple of unresolved things: like did the African American butler, maid, and girlfriend of one of the dead family members, live? Did the dog live? Well, since we didn't see them die, I assumed they did. Also, the beginning credit sequence is one of my favorite of all time, especially when the title FROGS is shown. And there's a neat little cartoon treat after the final credits roll. Well, all in all, I really loved this movie. It's a laid back gem indeed. Sit and enjoy. And stay away from fancy french food after watching!


What you should be watching out for is the horrendously established script, terrible death scenes, and the ever so questionable acting. I absolutely loathed this movie. For the first 30, 40 minutes or so, it was quite tolerable, and I was actually very entertained. Then it just took a turn for the worse. The death scenes were so cheesy and poorly done, and the acting just went flat out ridiculous. Oh, and it's named Frogs for a reason, they show them about every 5 seconds, and for what, to prove that they actually have a point to the story. Maybe if they would've named the movie different, I would've been expecting different, but this is just filth, and you can tell just by looking at it. Don't waste your time, it's not even laughable. Oh, and here's a giggle, this is supposed to be comparable to The Birds.Ha ha ha!!!!!!


Photographer Elliot, also an ecology expert, is taking snap shots of wild life, and especially pollution entering the river near a island swamp owned by millionaire curmudgeon Milland. It's 4th of July and Milland is having relatives(..mostly grandchildren and great-grandchildren)over for a birthday celebration which will be rudely interrupted by reptiles and other animal life disturbed by the poisons and pesticides he had used to kill off mosquitoes and vermin that were annoying/bothering them. It's up to Elliot to perhaps persuade the others to leave the island or else suffer the wrath of the animals who seem to be everywhere.

Using mostly natural sounds, Les Baxter's score is sparse but eerily effective, and the presentation, besides the hokey murders, is mostly understated and cold. While the movie might be titled "Frogs", the filmmakers use other wild life to attack and/or kill Milland's family, such as spiders, alligators, snakes, leeches, and birds...even a large turtle is shown closing in on a victim whose leg is trapped in the mud!

The dopey premise isn't quite played to it's campy potential..in fact the direction is rather subdued(..as are the cast, even though there are some emotional fireworks as the bickering between family members gets sometimes heated) though the kills themselves are often quite laughable.

Director George McCowan, cinematographer Mario Tosi, and editor Fred R Feitshans Jr make sure to establish the presence of frogs, even though they are merely ribbeting and hopping around, en masse, aggravating those attending Milland's gettogether. And, we get plenty of images of life surrounding the island such as snakes, lizards, and other reptiles always present as characters move about, startled by them when coming across these potential predators.

Like many other "when animals attack" genre movies, mankind seeks to harm them by poisonous means, met with retaliation when the creatures have had enough. Milland spends a fair amount of time barking orders at his family, or balking them for speaking "out of turn". Elliot remains zombie-like, and I'm guessing he doesn't exactly list this movie among the favorites in his impressive resume. Probably the most unpleasant death scene would be where one poor fellow is overcome by an alligator who catches him in the "death roll." A young Joan Van Ark(..pre-Knot's Landing)is Milland's beloved granddaughter who becomes a love interest for Elliot. Bad decision to market the film as a possible killer frogs flick..the title should've probably been different as well. Probably the weirdest scene has one dying from asphyxiation after lizards caused bottles of poisons to burst on the ground, with the victim unable to free himself from the greenhouse. Also strange is a scene where one victim shoots himself in the leg with a shotgun, and is subsequently accosted by spiders, "webbing" him afterward! Milland's incessant demands to remain on the island("I won't let anything interfere with today's schedule!")despite the obvious signs of real danger is rather mind-boggling.


Look, the frogs didn't do jack-Even in the end! They should have called this movie "Swampies" What a piece of crap!


I had seen "Frogs" years ago when I was a kid. To say the very least, I didn't really enjoy it at all. I was only 10 years old or so, and, well, the film isn't exactly wall-to-wall suspense and blood-boiling action.

I recently decided to revisit this film after seeing it in a bargain bin for a little over 5 dollars. I picked it up, and watched it as soon as I got home. And I must say...

Still not all that good.

I'm not saying the film doesn't have any redeeming qualities. Sam Elliot is good, and breezes through the material. While granted, he is an actor who deserves better, he treats the role with respect. Ray Milland is good in the few scenes we see him in. He plays an rich invalid and doesn't have a whole lot to do except bitch at his unloving family.

The death scenes leave a little to be desired. Although the title of the film is "Frogs", those particular amphibians don't take any lives. Instead the bodies pile up once the snakes, alligators and other swamp nasties attack. And check out those unending shots of bored looking (Do they have any other look?) frogs eyeing on as other animals kill the unknowing victims.

In conclusion, if you love bad movies, have a go at this one. Compared to some other stinkers that have been made over the past 50 years, this one looks like a masterpiece.

I'm giving it ** (out of four).


This movie was so bad that it was almost painful to watch. I have no idea why Sam Elliott would star in this bubbling half'gallon of foul swamp water. This film makes one actually wish for a snake bite; at least the Fade To Black would come mercifully sooner! The film involves a stupid family of rich, white, republican racists who do nothing but drink huge quantities of hard liquor while complaining about all the 'swamp noise'. Of course, if the refugees from the '700 Club' didn't like the sound of frogs and birds, they should have stayed in Houston or some other Red State conclave.

The rich idiots in this film earn nature's wrath by dumping poison into the swamp in order to 'quiet things down'. Nature fights back by sending snakes, crocodiles, and strangling vines to kill the GOP interlopers. My only regret is that Nature doesn't behave like this in real life. we could do well with fewer stupid, rich white people who somehow get their money for free.

The acting in this movie is terrible, as is the direction and the sound. The only redeeming factor is Sam Elliott as the Environmentalist. besides this, you'd get more enjoyment out of watching 'Swamp Thing'.

As a footnote: Maybe the acting was actually dead'on. After all, they did portray rich republicans as oily, amoral, wastrels who would cheerfully destroy th'e environment in order to suit their immediate wants. that's par for the course.


I remember seeing 'Frogs' on some horror channel when I was about seven but I switched over after about ten minutes because it was so boring. Now that I'm much older, I've watched it all the way through and it's not as bad as I thought it was! First off, we have Sam Elliot as a nature photographer who's scouting around Ray Milland's island seeing a lot of dumped waste and rubbish everywhere. Milland's island itself is host to a large family who only care about their money it seems. But the frogs nearby are getting sick and tired of the pollution from the family and start getting their revenge. There are so many shots in the film of frogs just watching and croaking. It's almost as if they are telling every other animal on the island to kill any human they see and that's what happens! Once the first death begins, the deaths just keep on going until the end of the movie. We have tarantulas, lizards, almost every snake in existence, leeches, alligators, a snapping turtle, crabs, even birds and butterflies contribute a little bit. All of them killing everyone in their path, even the frogs get their own back on Milland at the end. It's not so much scary, but more squeamish and creepy, especially the bit with the tarantulas. It makes me shiver just thinking about it! But 'Frogs' does have its bad points too. Milland's character is a bit too unbelievable, after all of his family's deaths he still wants to celebrate his birthday. The first twenty minutes as I said before are devoid of anything remotely interesting.

A snapping turtle killing a human also seems pretty silly to me, although I found out afterwards that snapping turtles actually ARE perfectly capable of killing someone. When we see birds attack someone, it is unclear whether the people were killed or just ran away, but I assume that we are meant to think them dead as they dropped their bags and stuff. Also half the animals in this movie aren't probably even native to the area where it is filmed.

Despite its bad points, I really liked this film and it still delivers shocks albeit in small doses.


I have a strange affection for "Frogs." I realize that it isn't a great movie, but it's charm lies in it's unintentional humor. Or perhaps it is intentional. I recently watched "Squirm" about flesh eating worms and it's obvious that the movie is tongue-in-cheek. I feel that "Frogs" was probably done in the same way. I'm sure everyone had a good time while making it and it's a good time watching it. This movie made me laugh, and I enjoyed it.

So if you've never seen this movie, and happen to come across it, don't take it seriously. Just try to have some fun with it.

My rating: 8/10


Frogs 1972 (Quickie Review)

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.

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.

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.)

www.ResidentHazard.com


FROGS (3+ outta 5 stars)

It's been called one of the best bad movies of all time... and far be it from me to argue with that. A bunch of spoiled rich twits in a secluded mansion in the Floridian wilderness pay the supreme price for years of pollution and the despoiling of nature... as nature's creatures (frogs, snakes, lizards, spiders, alligators, leeches and... snapping turtles?) conspire to kill them off one by one. Nature photographer Sam Elliot happens by and takes on the role of hero, protecting the women and children from the onslaught. I loved this movie when I was 12 years old... and I still have to say that, next to modern movies of this type (Anaconda, Arachnophobia), Frogs is still the champ! If you want a good, cheesy horror movie (and can stand the sight of all the creepy crawly critters) then you can't go wrong with this. The leech scene still disturbs me a bit... not so much for the gross-out special effects... but for the realistic sounds of distress from the actress (doesn't look like it would have been much fun to film this scene).


I would have to say, this is one of very few movies, that actually made me scream out loud. This film is not the best in the world, but its not the worst either. Some scenes Mystery Science Theater 3000, could have fun with. The end of the credits with the frog, and the hand sticking out of his mouth, that was good, I liked it, and wasn't expecting it either. I thought all the actors were good in it, including Ray Milland (from one of my favorite movies: "Panic in Year Zero", he was the director and star of the film). The cinematography was good in "Frogs" even through, you could see the shadow of the cameraman and the camera once in awhile, definitely in one running scene you could see the shadow of both the camera and the cameraman. All in all, I give this movie a 9. It was pretty good, and worth seeing. Check It Out!


Crippled Granddaddy Crockett and his family of whiners want to poison all the reptiles on his remote island estate. And the frogs? Well, let's just say they're not too happy about it. Neither are their scaley buddies, and they advance on the unsuspecting family with a vengeance. I saw this movie at the cinema when I was 12 and thought it was creepy. I just saw it again at 41 and I still think it's great. It deserves a retroactive Oscar or something. A high point is when pink and frilly Aunt Iris goes out butterfly hunting with net and gets pursued by hissing snakes. And when what's-his-name gets strangled by killer moss while hairy spiders eat him alive...well, that's just pure class. The younger members of the cast run around in skin-tight bell bottomed hip huggers and there's even a Foxy Black Mama with a psychedelic turban thrown in for fun. Cool! Not as good as "Let's Scare Jessica To Death" or "The Wicker Man", but still a must-see for people who are into this low-tech type of thing (like me). There's even a flesh-eating turtle! Long live the seventies!


Frogs is an exercise in inept film-making - from top to bottom. Then again, the cinematographer did a good job, but everyone else involved in the production of this terrible film should be flogged - by frogs.

Let it be known, I have a fondness for 70's drive-in cheese. Some of my favorite movies came from the Frogs period, such as Don't Look in the Basement and Funeral Home, but this film has nothing going for it. Every death scene - and I mean EVERY death scene, will elicit a laugh from your lips. The most inane death scene was when Lynn Borden gets killed by a turtle and a school of crabs. However, she is supposedly stuck in the mud, when she spots the enormous turtle, you can clearly see Lynn LIFT HER LEFT LEG out of her supposed implanted doom. Wow! This film is terrible, and not of that fun drive-in cheesy variety either.

VIOLENCE: $$ (All laughable. The characters all die at the hands - or various appendages, I should say - of the various critters hellbent on killing them for contaminating their environment. The nephew carries a rifle through the woods and proceeds to shoot himself in the leg before a pack of tarantulas descend upon him in an all-too laughable death scene Also, Sam Elliott gets to beat snakes with an oar and blast an alligator with a shotgun).

NUDITY: None

STORY: $ (The beginning is very promising. Sam Elliott, portraying a freelance photographer, takes pictures of animals at Ray Milland's island while also stopping to take photos of all the debris in the water. It has a heavy-handed environmental message at the beginning but never fleshes that out. Instead, we have a cantankerous old battle-axe who controls his family on Fourth of July -hellbent on enjoying the festivities despite his brood dying off one-by-one).

ACTING: $$ (Ray Milland plays the grandpa with over-the-top egotism. In short time you will want to punch the old buzzard in the snout. Sam Elliott gives the best acting job as Pickett Smith while Joan Van Ark compliments him well as Grandpa's proper grandchild Karen. Lynn Borden does a good job as a neglected housewife although that scene where she gets killed by the turtle - while having a conglomerate of crabs crawling up her legs - was the ultimate in low-budget cheese).


Think about it...this movie is supposed to be about an outbreak of killer frogs. 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. Most of the killer animals were actually toads, lizards, tarantulas, snakes, birds and alligators. 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.

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 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). Another scene featured a man getting bitten and dying from a rattlesnake bite in less than 3 seconds. 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. 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. Many won't enjoy this campy a film, but bad film lovers will have a ball. 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). Don't say I didn't warn you!


'Jaws' wasn't even around to rip off yet, so what was the rationale for this uber-silly retribution-of-nature allegory? We keep cutting to the same stock shots of frogs doing their best to look menacing, but the best they can do is hop up and down on Ray Milland AFTER he bites it. Of course, in the meantime they also send psychic messages to their buddies in the lizard kingdom - snakes can always wreak some havoc as can spiders, big lizards are well equipped to knock stuff over, and those turtles are more deadly than they look! As are Sam Elliott's bare-chested nature photographer/idealist/rhetorician, a pre-surgical Joan Van Ark, and a couple of African-American servants who eventually get to enact the new spirit of civil rights on evil old moneyed cripple Milland. AIP strikes again.


As an AIP film with a title like this, criticizing FROGS would be tantamount to kicking a puppy...

Wealthy Ray Milland and his brood gather for a 4th of July celebration at their bayou estate only to be picked off one at a time by snakes, spiders and what appears to be moss. It's pretty grim going. The film itself is not so much directed as it is nature shots spliced together with scenes featuring a mostly bickering family and one interloper (dependable Sam Elliott). It's not the worst movie ever made, but it might be the worst movie ever made about vengeful frogs. One is only left pondering whether Milland bothered to save ANY money from his heyday as a movie star in the 40s and 50s. This guy actually won an Oscar in his early days! Elliott isn't bad, nor is the supporting cast including Mae Mercer as "MayBelle" and Joan Van Ark (pre-TV stardom and

pretty well put together in 1970s hot pants).


This movie had political correctness before that disease even had a name. But that's the least of this movie's problems. A dozen upper-class people congregate on the lawn of a Florida swamp villa, and all they can talk about is how annoyingly loud the toads are. They must be really bored - but not as bored as the viewer. This is a short movie, but it feels like a ten-hour experimental French film. The pace is excruciatingly slow, and I'm not talking about Judy Pace who is in this one. What we get here are apathetic, fat toads that look as threatening as a basket of Florida oranges. And it's not even the frogs who terrorize; the real killing work is done by lizards, snakes, and crocks, but who gets all the credit and glory? Frogs. Milland, as Mr.Grumpy, plays a ridiculous character who, even when faced with a catastrophe, finds the time to grumble about trivialities, and everyone around him has to take note of him because of the testament money. But at least he amuses the bored audience a bit. At the end of the movie Elliot says that "it's a long story"; very long, indeed, particularly when one considers that there isn't enough actual plot to even fill a 25-minute TV episode of any "Tales of the Something or Other" type of show. The only positive thing is the photography which is not bad considering how bad everything else is.


I would say that there were spoilers ahead, but you couldn't spoil this film, and I think it's better that you're forewarned...

'Starring' Sam Elliott (The Big Lebowski's Western dude), it features the usual array of MST-able characters. There is the crippled patriarch with a tendency to hold impromptu parties on the lawn, while listening to 78s of marching bands. There is his 'ward' of somewhat ambivalent sexuality. Sam Elliott himself must have been instructed to stand side-on to the sun wherever possible so that his batch would stand gnomon-like and tell the time. There is the alcoholic 'wayward son' with a penchant for fast vehicles, and some badly-explained backstory concerning Sam's character. Did I mention that Sam's character is an ecological researcher with a camera but no note-pad? There is the highly-sexed 'daughter', and the traditional black servant family. Did I also forget to mention that this is set on an island in the middle of the Bayou in the Southern US?

Anyhow, amidst this group of alternately unlikable and unbelievable characters, a plague of frogs arrives. They hop over some cake, but are no more than a minor irritation. Minor, perhaps, but it is enough to stir our crippled patriarch to employ someone to poison the bayou in the hopes of killing them off. Our stoic 'hero', who spends far too long sans shirt, disapproves. As does the local reptile population, who begin to pick off the island's inhabitants one-by-one in pretty unlikely ways. Our hapless louche 'personal assistant', for example, wanders into a greenhouse. Lizards lock the door, before smashing two bottles of brightly-coloured chemicals on the floor. Unsurprisingly, these mix to produce an almost instantly fatal toxic smoke, from which the only feasible escape would have been for our victim to feebly tear his way through the polyurethane walls. But he didn't think of this, so he died.

Oddly, for a film called 'Frogs', that features so much stock footage of frogs, the frogs don't actually do any killing. I think it's meant to be implied that they are somehow co-ordinating their scaly cohorts, but it's not really clear. I don't see how they could get their message through to the turtle who chases down (yes, the world's least exciting chase scene) one of the victims. And speaking of message, the whole 'Nature fights back' message is risible. Anyway, the frogs look like they might be killing towards the end where two of them leap on the patriarch after he falls out of his wheelchair. He dies, but I can't see how two frogs leaping on his back kill him. They're not big frogs. They weren't holding knives. And anyway, the 'invasion' is just a bunch of frogs. Keep your doors and ground-floor windows closed, they'll go away when they need to spawn.

Halliwell's film guide gave this a star - the same rating it gave Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil'. Halliwell was dead wrong.


It's amazing how frightening this movie ends up being. At first it's just a typical killer creature picture, but it turns out to be a scary and fun film. Afterwards, you are a little more wary of the frogs, lizards, and everything else that causes mass destruction in this movie.


This film has it all. The characters are entertaining, the story is entertaining, the music is great and everything in this movie seems to fall into place. This movie follows a rich family who are having a birthday party for Ray Crockett, a grumpy old man. During the party, frogs, snakes, insects, turtles and other creatures of the swamp decide to take revenge on the family for their extensive use of pesticides. Ray Milland, Sam Elliot, Joan Van Ark, Adam Roarke and Judy Pace are all realistic in their performances as the family, and overall, this is just a fun film that is worth watching over and over again. I liked everything about this movie!


This past summer, there was a frog that sat on my doorstep every night. Presumably he was there to eat the flies attracted by my porch light, I don't know. But he was there every night, and gone every morning. And he would sit there and stare. It was really quite eerie. That frog was more frightening than this movie.

Let's face it: frogs just aren't that scary. The movie involves a wealthy family on an estate that get attacked and overrun by frogs. The filmmakers must have realized that little frogs, even in vast quantities, are not the terrible killers they wanted them to be, because they set them up more as the masterminds, urging alligators, snakes and scorpions to do most of their killing.

The film had an even pace that kept building slowly to a rather fun but ridiculous ending, and some interesting scenes. It is rather dated though, in slang and fashion, and it just didn't do it for me.

Overall, not a good film, but kind of fun in a watch once kind of way if you have nothing better to do.


FROGS is an entertaining entry in the sub-genre of Nature Strikes Back environmental horror films popularized during the 1970s. It draws part of its inspiration from Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"(1963)- though in Hitchcock's film the motive and reason for the bird attacks is not clearly defined, whereas in FROGS the viewer comes to understand why the local wildlife has it in for people. The film starts out slowly and quietly as ecologist and free-lance photographer Pickett Smith(SAM ELLIOTT), doing a photo spread on the despoliation of the environment for an ecology magazine, makes his way along a Florida waterway by canoe. The canoe overturns when it gets caught in the wake of a speedboat that passes too close. Smith is rescued by the occupants of the other craft, Clint Crockett(ADAM ROARKE) and his sister Karen(JOAN VAN ARK) and invited back to the family estate to clean up, dry out and meet the other family members. The choice of watercraft used by these two men serves to help define their character- Smith's boat is environmentally friendly whereas Clint's is loud, noisy, and polluting. Smith is taken back to the family estate which exists on a privately-owned, secluded island in Florida swamp country. Smith has arrived at an auspicious time- it's the annual family gathering to celebrate both the Fourth of July and Grandpa's birthday. Grandpa is family patriarch Jason Crockett, played by RAY MILLAND, who turns in an outstanding, tour de force performance as the wheelchair-bound, cantankerous millionaire industrialist who personifies the ugly rich at its worst. He has a mean streak in him as evidenced by his high-handed authoritarian manner and disdain for the natural environment. He believes that Man was put here as the Master of the Earth and all life forms must bow before him. When his handyman does not return from a poison-spraying mission in the swamp to kill the frogs whose incessant croaking is driving his family nuts, he asks Pickett Smith to look for him. Smith finds him alright- lying in a swampy pool, dead from venomous snakebite. It's here that the film's Dark Tone of Ominous Portent manifests- as one by one the various family members find themselves isolated and targeted by the denizens of the swamp. There is not a whole lot of gore in this film. To achieve its desired effect, it relies more on creating an unsettled mood and an atmosphere of quiet doom in a low-key understated manner. It's our stalwart hero Pickett Smith who speculates that maybe Nature is getting back at us for what we've done to the Earth. Crockett dismisses this as rubbish and stubbornly refuses to heed any warnings. These swamp creatures are going to show him the proper respect- or else. The title creatures of the film do not kill anybody, because they can't. They're depicted as the brains behind the operation, like generals getting their troops in position and waiting for the enemy to walk into an ambush. Long before the movie is over, we have a pretty good idea who is going to survive and who isn't. Though the Good People make it off the island intact, in spite of some close calls, for them the Horror may be just beginning. This movie is quite effective in an understated way. It benefits from beautiful location photography (it was filmed in Florida's Eden State Park), strong performances, good editing and the creation of a sense of claustrophobic horror. This is one of my favorite Nature Revenge movies and I give it an 8 out of 10.


I had thought "Frogs" would be one of those campy movies that is enjoyable in its badness... But no. I won't say it's the worst movie I've ever seen (that "honor" goes to "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"), but it's in the top 10 bad movies of all time. Or is that the "bottom 10?" The premise of nature rebelling against humanity's ecological indifference is a good start, but most of the characters are uninteresting, and idiots to boot. The dialogue is painfully bad, and the acting is worse than anything in a Roger Corman movie. At least in Corman's movies, you can tell the actors are having fun. In this fiasco, however, I get the feeling that the actors were blackmailed into doing this film, judging by the pained, or sometimes completely numb, expressions on their faces while they get themselves into moronic situations or deliver stilted, unrealistic lines.

I forced myself to sit through about 2/3 of this movie, hoping it would get better (or at least funny). Ultimately, however, I had to shut the damn thing off; I mean, I could feel brain cells committing suicide while I watched this travesty. I had to stop it before I wound up as intelligent as the characters in the movie.

I rated it "1" because there's no "0" or negative numbers available.


i believe that this movie should be renamed. for one simple reason. they do not use an actual frog in a single shot. if you watch the movie closely, you will see that all the 'frogs' have warts on them, except for the one at the end that they show for five minutes. This movie has the cheesiest special effects i've ever seen in my life, as can be expected from a movie from 1972. for example, when an alligator is following this dude, you can see that they had to speed up the film. i laughed a bit at that one. the cheesy special effects were all that made this movie good. it was very funny. The plot and characters were badly carried out and badly acted, respectively. to simple. 4/10.


This film I consider a very good example of how a film may elicit a variety of responses. I have learned not to take too seriously the comments by others or I may miss a real gem. Not that I would put this film in the gem category but definitely the good side of in-between. I am amazed to read how some abhorred the music. I recall how the music in Keoma drove some people crazy while others (like me) liked it. In Joshua the music fit the film perfectly, especially the low growl when the camera turned to the black rider. So (as we well understand) people's tastes vary. I went for the acting in this one also. I even liked the bad teeth on those ugly bad guys. Though I prefer an unpredictable story line, this film can be good when one prefers sometime something simple. Credibility got stretched for my taste but the music saved it for me. Not bad. I won't forget this one.


I agreed completely with Robiep's review. I too saw it/ own it on DVD. I got it in a 20-movie "Mean Guns" westerns 5-DVD set. It was a sight-unseen purchase which has turned out to be a VERY good purchase. A lot of rare "gems" were in this movie set. And Joshua I felt is Definitely a excellent Fred Williamson film & western! Fred Williamson is an amazing actor & writer. Many have said that "Joshua" is not an "original" plot or idea. While that may be true, (Some of the scenes we have seen in many a western) I felt they were handled from every original angles. ***SPOILER ALLERT***

The "rattlesnake" scene is hilarious!!


I don't usually like westerns, but I enjoyed this immensely.

Twice!

I didn't find the music irritating, as some found it. I thought it developed the drama all the more with each drumbeat & rhythm, as if embracing the beat of hooves on the mostly primitive landscapes encountered! I enjoyed the adventure from the comfortable distance of a lounge room setting, far removed from rattle-snakes & even more vicious & treacherous humans, who were shown generosity of spirit & heart, that they attempted to cruelly & aggressively turn on their hosts.

Such remains mostly unresolved, but I liked the coolness of the loner, quietly righting wrongs along the way, mostly against the odds, but with effortless precision & skillfulness if not mastery as he goes about his unfolding journey. You can't help but think this guy would have been a hero, probably much unappreciated, in his earlier journeys! Hence, "the black rider"! Probably relentless & skillful & talented beyond what he has cause to display in each interaction!

Personally, I was mindful of the concept of 'vengeance is mine says the Lord!' I could well imagine God inspiring such a man in pursuit of love for his beloved, mother or wife or other aspects of love, as variously reflected here in the powerless but generous farmer, & the quiet ways of the returned war hero on a new mission, who seemed to be threatened more than he spoke! But in his own way, he was a VERY believable "007" in a real world setting of immense hardship & injustice we are not much removed from, but we should be grateful much of the world has moved on from much of what is found here!

"The Wild West" was not a place we'd want to return to mostly! Yet its somehow all around us in each advertising break & news bulletin & insights into worlds we are free to observe but not interact with or help, secure we think, but always being observed. Even from the comfort of a lounge chair, where the viewer is free to journey into frontier land for a gripping journey like this, mostly of hardship & heartbreak & enduring suffering, but of much merit, courage, relentlessness into bravery & towards justice & love against the odds!

And take with you, as with me, the drum & simple rhythmic beat the repetitive music masterfully captured. As a man of good heart marches on to his inner beat of heart & spirit & soul! Whatever those around him make of him & his love & his quietly honoured concept of justice, integrity & love!!!


Wow, what a great film, I can't believe how some of the reviewers did not enjoy this movie!!!! Sure some of the acting wasn't that great. The music really set the tone on Williamson's character. He was quiet, calculative and ominous. He wasn't riding to play no games, nor have much conversation - he was riding to avenge his mothers death and the music and lack of dialogue from him showed that.

Some people are just to critical on films like this. This movie was not made to win no Oscars or any other awards. It was made to entertain, and in my opinion it really did do just that for me. For those whom tend to be to critical I say - LIGHTEN UP!!! Just stop looking for things to complain about with a movie like this and just enjoy it.

Great film.


The previous poster commented that this movie was not available in Widescreen.

There's at least 2 ways to get this in Widescreen. I've got one on the 'Quality' label - it's a 2 movie set on one disc. The other movie is some William Shatner film. I was pretty shocked to see it in widescreen considering the package was only $5.00.

The 2nd way is on the 'Legends of the West' 8 Movie Collection. I'm pretty sure that's widescreen as well.

Slow movie that drags on.

The theme song repeats all the way throughout the movie. Don't remember if there was more than one actual song played throughout it's entirety.

This movie is really only for Blaxploitation/Fred Williamson completests.


********SPOILER************

Fred Williamson's Joshua is your basic Vengeance themed Spaghetti Western. This one is about a black civil war veteran who returns home to find his mother has been murdered by a gang of white thugs. He sets out to track them and extract his vengeance. Although it is well-mounted and beautifully photographed, the film is lacking in about every other respect. It is basically without plot with no twists or turns other than the obligatory hero gets shot and recovers scene. There is little character developed, almost no dialog, a couple scenes that make absolutely no sense and that do not advance the story in any way. There is no intimacy in this film with any of the characters. Isela Vega plays a farmer's wife whom the gang kidnaps and repeatedly rapes. By the end of the movie she has developed an unexplained and unexamined relationship with the head of the Gang. The fetching beauty is totally wasted in this movie in a thankless role.

This is a cynically scripted film that asks very little of the viewer other than to watch Mr. Williamson awkwardly ride a horse across the countryside. Ken Maynard, he is not.

One feels that had Williamson developed his characters and plot more he might have had something here, although the vengeance themed Western has been done ad infinitum with two much better examples being Nevada Smith with Steve McQueen, and Last Train from Gun Hill with Kirk Douglas. By the end of this contemptuous movie, the viewer doesn't really care about any of it.


I had the pleasure of joining a near capacity audience for the North American Premier of "That Man: Peter Berlin" at the Miami Gay & Lesbian Film Festival. The film provides a provocative and entertaining look at the life of this 70's gay sex icon who has for years shunned any camera but his own. Containing hundreds of Berlin's pictures of himself (every inch of himself), his vain, self absorbed persona drew me in much as it apparently drew in thousands when he was a 30 year old exhibitionist hunk cruising the streets of San Francisco in his white, skin tight, pants (with a bushel sized basket) and blonde page-boy haircut in the 70's.

Armistead Maupin, John Waters and porn legend Jack Wrangler, together with Producer Lawrence Helman provide insight and commentary into this extraordinary life. Robert Maplethorpe and Andy Warhol provided a glowing peer review from the grave of this interesting photographer cum street performance artist. Possibly most remarkable was the on camera interaction between the Director and the painfully shy Armin (Berlin's real name) about his life experience and his unique take on sex and sexuality.

Director, Jim Tushinski, did a remarkable job of introducing us to both the persona "Peter Berlin" and the reclusive 62 year old from San Francisco who created this iconic persona during his youth.

This is Tushinski's first documentary. While the 80 minutes passed quickly with so much eye candy, the film could benefit from some additional editing and deletion of some stock footage of seemingly irrelevant gay pride parades and such improving both the pace and the length of the film.


This documentary is a very polished retrospective on a sexual icon of the 60's and 70's, on both coasts. The celebrity interviews are very well done, and the entire picture is extremely well edited to hold the viewer's interest all the way through. A man like Peter Berlin who caught the attention of Andy Warhol and his social circles is certainly a personality worth knowing more about. There's been no one like him since. I saw the film in San Francisco, in a packed theater, with Peter Berlin in person interviewed after the show. All attendees certainly seemed as fascinated by the man as I was, whether or not they agreed with his lifestyle, or the values that he represented -- and still does. I urge you to see this very well done work and judge for yourself.


This feature length documentary gives us an honest and privileged look at the life and times of the large-as-life unrestrainedly gay character, the perpetually beautiful "Peter Berlin". We meet the very attractive man (now in his sixties) who lived that character nearly 24/7 in the early 70's. He is a very talented photographic artist (and his own model) who cared much less for money than he did for enjoying life and artistic expression. He is also just as proudly gay in private life.

Instead of feeling like mere voyeurs (and there's plenty of pleasing imagery on offer) we really do gain a valuable insight into a life lived to the max - including enduring love and the grief of loss. We hear testimonies on how Peter Berlin's persona affected his contemporaries, including gay icons John Waters and Armistead Maupin.

This is a wonderful and unique film.

P.S. It's warming to know that some beautiful people are also genuinely nice guys.


A provocative and thoughtful profile of the man both behind the camera lens and in front of it. Peter Berlin's iconic status as a photographer, fashion designer and his subject are juxtaposed with interviews with the famous, if reclusive, star. Well-chosen and articulate "talking heads" astutely contextualize the importance of Peter Berlin's seminal role in gay male porn. By turns graphic, poignant, and humorous, the film brilliantly captures the relative innocence of a lost eroticism as it follows Berlin from his European beginnings to his present life in San Francisco. This is a very welcome addition to the historical documentation of the erotic lives of gay men.


Before seeing this movie, you may say to yourself, "Peter Berlin? What's the big deal?" But stay with it, as the story is rewarding. Director Jim Tushinski obviously saw a chance to put the urban gay-lib era of the seventies under a microscope by focusing on one man's story instead of a general documentary--and the man he focused on just happens to be "the" icon of gay sexual life at a certain crossroads. The film's imagery is evocative, the sexuality palpable, and the cameos from Armistead Maupin, Robert W. Richards, and others are witty. But the best moments of this film are during Mr. Berlin's touching recollections about his own life. As Berlin talks candidly about the losses he experienced as the seventies faded into the Reagan years, it's impossible to look away--partly because there are so many men whose experiences are reflected in his story. It's during these revelations that Tushinski knows to keep the camera trained closely on his subject, and these moments are what elevates this film from historical document to riveting cinema.


I might not want to go to a party with Peter Berlin but I really enjoyed hanging out with him for a while. It's a challenging film. It addresses so many issues but ultimately it is about art and narcissism. It's not a gay film. It's a film about making statements and Peter Berlin's happens to deal with his self-image and part of that is his sexuality.

The film reminded me that we all define ourselves and that it's good to know yourself. It also reminded me to be in the fully moment and that whatever I think is beautiful is beautiful.

Not bad things to be reminded of in my opinion.


It doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, male, or female, or any combination of the above. You will find the images of the young Peter Berlin arresting, and the story of this in-your-face 70's sexual icon by turns funny, ironic, and mournful. We hear from John Waters, Armistead Maupin and others who knew of Peter in his prime, and from Peter Berlin himself, now in his 60's. What is it like to live your life as an object of desire? The answers are not always what we might expect. The film explores questions of voyeurism - why are we so entranced by the beautiful - narcissism, fame, and age. A visually compelling film that combines social history with personal story, and leaves you with much to think about. Top quality film-making.


I caught a festival screening of THAT MAN PETER BERLIN with really no knowledge of him or his place in either queer or porn history. I was drawn by the Garbo aspect of his life; basically walking away from a film 'career'(such as it was) and onto the streets of San Francisco, where sightings of him evoke the kind of response one heard about the Swedish Sphynx in New York. Apparently well off financially (or maybe just thrifty) his story is never tipped to the tragic, nor is it ever truly comic. What WAS incredible was to see icons I admire,John Waters and Armistead Maupin, have the same sort of giddiness towards spotting Berlin that I might have towards spotting them(although that doesn't happen in my town). As for the film, the pace moved swiftly and succinctly, and the color of the 70's footage was spectacular. I felt the filmmakers presented the facts, but ultimately lets the viewer judge Peter Berlin and draw our own conclusion; is he crazy, or merely the quaint and eccentric archetype you'd expect to find in San Francisco? Was he ahead of his time, or an aspect of a time we're just re-discovering? The footage of 'vintage' Peter(in that glorious color) interspersed with Peter today were not as jarring or 'Norma Desmond-y' as you might fear,and in that respect the film never fell into either camp celebration or spiteful mockery, which I found refreshing. Considering so many men of Peter's era were lost to the AIDS crisis, THAT MAN is an 'essential': a filmed document of a time in queer history nearly lost. We should be thankful this story has been recorded.


What I liked most about Jim Tushinski's film was that he avoided "commenting" on his subject. In the true spirit of the documentary he leaves it up to the audience to draw their own conclusions concerning Peter Berlin, his motivations, and his inner life. Peter remains an enigma through much of this documentary and is dubbed the "Greta Garbo of porn". I found the film very thought provoking. "That Man: Peter Berlin" joins the pantheon of gay culture and the interviews by such gay luminaries as John Waters and Armistead Maupin are an added treat. If you liked this film check out Jim's "Jan Michael Vincent Is My Muse". It's touching and humorous.


The persona was always unique, but I didn't find him sexy--rather exactly the visual object he mostly saw himself as, and continually sought to create.

This was very worthwhile, though, and he was very much an interesting part of the Andy Warhol Pop period. The snippets of 'Nights in Black Leather' prove that the film work was inferior even for porno of the time. A short such as 'Chute' with Al Parker and the far more gorgeous and naturally sexy Colt model Toby (it would be interesting to know what has happened to this long-ago, never-surpassed porn icon as well; I only know he is apparently still alive, but there must be something, since such illustrious authorities as 'Smutjunkies' have decided that, if they do know anything, it's on the q.t.) was actually a nice, even poetic bit of work, and not sloppily edited like the Warhol things with Holly Woodlawn, Jackie Curtis, etc. Peter De Rome's 'Adam and Yves' was exciting when it arrived in 1974, although De Rome can be a bit corny.

I do agree with the porn spokesmen in the film that the concentration on this persona was very intense and that does make him a real artist, although quite minor. It was interesting that there was a lot of footage of him in informal appearances during the 70's. However, calling him the 'Greta Garbo of porn' is a bit much, as this film alone proves he wants some more visibility. As solipsistic as she became, her knowledge of life and art was considerably wider than his appears to be. Furthermore, his work is of interest, but not that of a cinematic genius, which hers is.

And what is interesting is that, even with this strange persona still intact, he is to me visually by now quite beautiful--there was a cheap look to the self-conscious Peter Berlin of the tight white pants; by now, the mouth has widened and is more relaxed and he is by now at last a truly beautiful man. I paid little attention to him during his heyday, when his face, in particular, looked like that of an inflatable girl dildo.

So that he and others concentrate on his look as well as his imaginative use of various forms to capture it--most fascinating perhaps was his hiring of Tom of Finland to give him even more exaggerated self-images. However, facts such as his long friendship with James, which was very touching and showed his less purely narcissistic side, and his confession that he had fornicated no one in the U.S., were quite rarefied, given his street performance.

There was interesting commentary by Jack Wrangler, who apparently also has rooms made into self-shrines but is much more the part-hetero guy his parents must surely have preferred to his burlesque 'n' porn days (even if his wife is 20 plus years older than he, himself no spring chicken, is.) The problem of this kind of neurosis, even when successful, is that there is a peculiar lack of interest in much of anything else. Anti-war comments are merely childish, but some of the family background was interesting. This kind of 'dream person', though, tells about early childhood, and there is no follow-up about any further relationships with his family, leading one to assume he left them for good, and remains intoxicated with the days when he can still walk the streets and be told he's 'cute.' He is definitely 'cute' now, and could afford to wear a lot of dressy things and be a great stylish older beauty by now, and the looser clothing he is seen in when interviewed in the film shows that his taste is still sharp. Some of us have even found it to be improved. I didn't remember until the very end of the feature that I did see him once around Christopher Street in his 'That Boy' period, which I found interesting but not alluring. He definitely had his audience, though.

Best wishes to Mr. Peter Berlin.


If you don't like self-absorbed crazy people, this film isn't for you. You should probably also avoid moving to San Francisco, because he's not really that unusual by SF standards. I remember seeing him standing around in the Castro (at Hibernia Beach!) in the seventies. Even though it was an era of sexual freedom that we can barely conceive now, seeing him was shocking. The film doesn't really convey what it was like to see this caricature of male sex in his see-through pants with enormous basket on display. The first time that I saw him, I just kept thinking, "Isn't he going to be arrested?". Later that evening, I had other thoughts. I had no idea who he was until this movie came out, but that image is still burned into my brain. It was transfixing, and this film is a nostalgic look at the era that made him an icon.


This could've & should've been a documentary short. Peter Berlin is just not that important nor that interesting to justify this stulifyingly dull & overlong shot on video documentary. If the directors wanted to make a feature length documentary they could've expanded their scope to other erotic artists at the time such as James Bidgood (of PINK NARCISSUS fame) or Wakefield Pool (TAKE ONE, BOYS IN THE SAND). Peter Berlin is a forgettable & mostly forgotten footnote in gay erotic history & this snoozer of a documentary will not change that.

If you want to check out a good documentary on an obscure cult figure check out Andrew Horn's THE NOMI SONG. If you want to see a fun & fluffy look at gay erotica from the 1970s check out Joseph Lovett's GAY SEX IN THE 1970s. But skip THAT MAN PETER BERLIN. If you waste your time & money on this you'll say the same thing my boyfriend did as we exited The Cinema Village: "That man, Peter Berlin owes me $10.50 plus 85 minutes of my life!".


I find this movie to be really funny on many, many levels. Sure, I think it's a bit much at times, but there are so many great moments in this movie! Also, it reminds me of my college days as both a punk and a theatre major who partied way too much with way too many weird people like Gnome. I guess it's all this truth that I see within this movie that draws me to it, and I frankly enjoy the inner-dialogs. It's evidence of the naive yet self-centered people we were at the time.

If you're looking for a good movie that doesn't demand too much of your own psyche to understand it, then give this movie a watch - besides, Donal Logue's performance is NOT to be missed! He has the best part in the entire movie.

Does anyone know if they filmed this in Vancouver?


I can't believe I actually took the time to rent and watch this piece of crap movie! It's awful. National Lampoon has gone downhill since their "5 Deadly Sins" movie. *Shudders* The only good parts of this whole movie, if you want to call it that because it's an hour long, were "The Whore" and "The Amazing Racist, Part I" Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend this to my worst enemy. I've seen film on my teeth that was more entertaining than that. Look, if you're gonna parody reality shows, do something that's actually funny. Otherwise, don't bother wasting people's time. This goes for YOU, National Lampoon. Get back to me when you become funny again.


"Lost reality" is laugh out loud hilarious. Its very well done. In fact, it's so well done you find yourself asking the whole time: "Is this real or not"??

After awhile you don't care and you just go with it......

A great crowd pleaser!! What better way to spend an hour of your time than drinking with your buddies and watching these incredibly hilarious skits?? All the "shows" are outrageous, and they are all very funny. I particularly enjoyed the prostitute show (especially the way she bashes the men after having sex with them) and the "what would you do for money" show; where people are asked to do various disgusting things for $$$

Comedy never tasted so good.....


First, it's important to note that this is a SATIRE. Second, these are largely staged events with paid actors (and a few unsuspecting participants and bystanders). Now that that's said I'll give my reaction and analysis. There were times I had turn away from the screen, I don't particularly like viewing feces, those segments I couldn't wait to get over. But there were other times I was laughing out loud, such as the Amazing Racist, he acts very closely to the way that way too many people think and behave, he's just braver and more brazen than the average person with his combination of ignorance and arrogance. I think this segment is one of the reasons many people are offended by this film, it IS good satire in that it is more honest about reality than most people care to admit. As Archie Bunker, the racist character from the television show "All In The Family" said: "There's a little of me in all of youse." Meaning we all have our prejudices and ignorant generalizations, the important thing is to be aware of them and admit they exist and are not positive traits, which takes much of the steam out of racism. As I watched the other segments I couldn't help but compare them to the "reality" shows they were satirizing. In every case, I actually found them to be less offensive than the "real" ones. For a start, none of the "shows" in this film are presented as anything other than what they are: grotesque pandering to the participants' greed and vanity and the audience's deviant voyeurism. The similar styled shows on television, as well as many of the other shows, particularly the so-called "comedy" shows are almost always misrepresented as "wholesome family entertainment" when in fact they are thinly guised (or not so thinly guised) sadism, racism, and/or pandering to any number of the lowest human traits. Much of the film you will be incredulous "do people really do that for money or fame?" Of course they do, anyone who's watched "reality" television or Jerry Springer see how cheaply people sell their souls for a little money or fame, parading the most intimate details of their sordid lives for the whole world to see. Again, the fact that this film does nothing to hide this fact nor that it blatantly exploits anyone and everyone for any number of self interests, makes it satire of a moderately high level. I think its honesty is the reason many are offended by this and not the "real" thing on television: they don't want to admit they have a cruel voyeuristic streak, or are a racist, or whatever. If people dislike it for its grossness I can certainly appreciate and concur with that reason but to find it more offensive than the "real" thing is ludicrous and misses the whole point of satire.

Some people have compared this to the "Jackass" series. Actually it's pretty much a satire of that as well. In the "Jackass" series they try to be as offensive as possible and they succeed rather well most of the time. "Lost Reality" is more obviously staged and slightly more thoughtful. It almost crosses that line between satire and blatant pandering at times (and actually may some could successfully argue), but the cruelty is not real and is obviously staged in Lost Reality, while in the examples it satirizes it is less staged and often presented as something else. If for no other reason, watch "Lost Reality" just to see the "Amazing Racist" those cringes you get and incredulous laughter will come as you recognize way too many others in his portrayal, perhaps even elements of yourself.


This is one heck of a funny DVD. The funniest shows on here by far are "the whore", "The Amazing Racist", and "Money". The Amazing Racist and Money both make it to the second DVD. The Whore is about this paid prostitute who goes around humiliating guys after she has sex with them!! Very funny show that should have made it on the air. The Amazing Racist the funniest show on this DVD is about pretty much this dude Ari Shaffir walking around insulting people of different races. Why I say this show is so funny is because he's Jewish and doing this. Money is a show that pretty much shows that almost everyone will do pretty much anything for money. There's other funny shows on here that I liked but those are my personal favorite shows. I recommend this to anyone who isn't easily offended by disturbing content or sex.