Frogman

OK, i expected it to be muuuch much worse. I was pleasantly surprised that they actually put some efford in the movie as a story and script.

It's found footage movie, that kinda reminds you of Blair witch. They managed to make it look like quite "vintage" and it does carry the spirit of the old style found footage movies.

Acting is not great, but it's not terrible at all.

There are some inconsistencies esp towards the end , kinda like "time gaps", but let's not be too picky for very low budget movie. The end has some "twists" , tho they are predictable. Still some good VFX there.

Giving it 5/10 because they did put efford, unlike so many other bizarre cheap movies. Also no pointless nude scene to boost the rating .

When the movie started, I was really enjoying it. My friend was talking and it bugged me because I found I wanted to be engaged - even if the concept was a bit silly or whatever, on the face. I thought the first reveal of the Frogman was fun, and was looking forward to the rest of it.

But found footage films are all about the thrill of immersion - feeling like this somehow could be real. If it's done right, it can make something average feel very impactful (see - Blair Witch Project). Unfortunately, Frogman suffers from some bad acting at times, but especially from 'film effects' that don't make sense. If we're watching 'found film' it doesn't make sense within the world of the movie to have glitches and flashbacks and psychological effects - so you get pulled out immediately. Unfortunately the end of the movie suffers a lot from this so I found the ending just a letdown because of it. It's too bad, cuz I wanted it to be good.

I thought this movie was fun from start to finish. For me, it had a midnight movie feel--cheap trash just made to entertain. It's found footage, and it definitely uses low-res shots and shaky camera work. The story feels like someone saw The Taking Of Deborah Logan and decided to do a Spinal Tap-like parody of it. I don't actually know if the tone was meant to be comedic, but there were plenty of moments that they couldn't possibly have thought anyone would take it seriously. I also liked how everything builds to an off-the-wall climax where they just totally go for it. I couldn't take my eyes off of the screen. It was a sweet rush of low budget horror.

I've always had a soft spot for those offbeat, lower-budget found footage movies. They have this raw, unpolished charm that I just can't resist, and this one definitely tapped into that familiar vibe. The acting is fairly average, and the camera work is rough, even by found footage standards. It also drags on a bit longer than necessary, which can make it feel sluggish at times. However, I have to give credit where it's due-the creature effects and a few scenes near the end were surprisingly well done. The handheld, shaky camera style really worked in its favor, masking some flaws and adding a layer of tension to the overall eerie atmosphere.

Look, we all know that horror is a truly subjective genre, and found-footage probably gets the worst rep out of any of the sub-genres. I genuinely don't understand the outright vitriol people have for it, where they automatically dismiss anything FF because of 'bad acting", "bad special effects" or some other subjective opinion. As one of my favorite sub-genres, found-footage has an authenticity that usually isn't found in other types of horror. It seems like so many people are busy trying to be scared that they fail to enjoy these movies for what they are; low budget entertainment made by regular folks and not seasoned Hollywood vets. That being said.....

I do agree that the premise is weak and the entire mythology around the creature is laughable at best, but for a low-fi, low budget found-footage film, it actually did what it said it was going to do, and it was fairly entertaining to boot. We got some genuine comedic elements, some decent acting, the pacing was good, and the film does not overstay its welcome. Although the creature itself could have spent a lot more time in the design stage, I guess what we got should be commended since it was actually exactly what anyone could expect from such a thing. So the film itself is pretty middle of the road, as far as FF films are concerned, and I've certainly seen my share of absolute garbage ('The Curse of Aurore' comes to mind as one of the worst).

My issues with this film are almost all related to the visuals. Yes, it's low-fi. Yes, the budget is limited. Yes, the frog has telepathic abilities that affect cameras and prevent them from working properly every time you want to get a really good look at the thing. But yet again we have a movie were all the action happens at night, no one carries flashlights or any other sources of light, and cell phones are only brought out at the very end. It's all very bizarre. You think I'd be caught dead in the woods without a survivalist lantern in this day and age? I mean, come on, now. Horror using darkness to hide its budgetary shortcomings isn't new, but I'm just tired of it. I'm tired of having to squint to make out "something" in the background, or having people running blind in the woods because they think it's much more effective to have people frustrated at not being able to see anything. I can't wait until someone has to balls to film an entire movie in daylight or with great light sources. I just think that keep everything hidden in darkness is no longer an affective way to make a horror movie.

Overall, I did enjoy this movie, it had be gripped to the end (as ridiculous as it was), the mid credits scene was a nice touch, and it definitely wasn't the worst FF movie I've seen. But with a premise as weird and hokey as a "frogman", they really should have knocked this out of the park with the execution, and they just didn't. I understand why others disliked this film, but I also think many people are just being overly critical because its FF. All of the reviews mentioning the 'bad acting' every time a FF releases proves it.