User reviews

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.

Starts off quite slow but the last 30-40 minutes or so is absolutely bonkers. The movie feels surprisingly longer than its very short runtime due to its slow start. There's definitely some unnecessary filler. You can really feel the low budget but some of the practical effects work is surprisingly good. But the ending. OMG the ending. The ending literally had me shake my girlfriend in absolute shock. 😂 It's not necessarily a super creative conclusion but if you are having fun with the movie and its lore, it really punches you in the face. I went into this movie embracing the absolute absurdity of the titular "Frogman" and if you embrace its insanity, you'll have a good time. It's definitely a decent watch if you can tolerate the found footage look.

Chuck the Movie Guy on TikTok recommended this poorly acted, terribly paced, and awful found footage movie. He pushed this garbage for weeks to get people to rent it and it was awful. The guy is a conman. Look, I'm not a smart man but I know when I'm being fed a bunch of BS. I rented this movie off a bunch of recs from social media people (the ringleader was Chuck the movie guy) that got an early viewing of it. All of them said it was a "banger" "slaps" or "fantastic" lol no it most certainly was not. Air was awful. The people that saw this early must have gotten paid of getting something in return to hype this up because again, it was GOD AWFUL. Don't waste your money. I will never again rent any movie based off of a rec because they got an advanced copy of it. This was awful and this score is at an 8 right not and will most assuredly will DROP to a 2 or 3 within a month when actual viewers review this movie like me instead of friends and family giving it a 10. Junk movie.

I'm gonna preface this by saying I have a soft spot for B-Tier Found Footage films. I've loved em since the good old days of Lost Tapes, and I still love them. Frogman hits a similar vibe as to that old show.

The acting is meh, the cinematography is pretty bad (even by found footage standards), and it definitely overstays its welcome by about half an hour.

I will say that the practical effects of the monster and a few of the scenes near the end are actually quite good, especially covered up by the handheld camera appearance of the film.

I don't review films really as there are plenty of reviews to form your own opinion, but there are so few for this one that I though I'd put in my two cents. It's a fine film to sit down with for an hour and half and laugh and cringe at the poor acting and filming, but it does have plenty of nostalgia factor for those like myself who grew up on the Lost Tapes.

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.

When I first heard about this movie I was obviously skeptical. It had the premise of a cheaper version of "The Blair Witch Project" but instead of a witch, the threat would be a "Frogman". However I like found-footage and had to give this a try. It's basically exactly what I expected with three characters asking locals about the Frogman and if they believe that he exists. They even visit a little gift shop with Frogman related items. In there you can spot a few funny things and memes which is a nice detail. It takes quite a while for something relevant to happen and once the Frogman appears on screen it was not particularly scary but rather funny in a strange way. It was a little bit hard to take this "threat" seriously but the movie sure has some ideas to make it interesting. It reminded me of a V/H/S/-segment which probably wood have worked better because the even shorter runtime would have made the pacing much better. It also definitely suffers from some of the usual flaws of found-footage movies. Once something interesting happens on screen, there are weird and annoying glitches and the camera starts shaking like the camera man has Parkinson's disease. Overall it's a fun idea with an enjoyable third act and some decent effects and I would recommend it if you enjoy found footage movies and don't mind their downsides. [5,9/10]

My admiration for found footage features brought me here; my inquisitive nature led me to this, but now I'm regretting my decision hard.

I understand the financial restraints and the logistical challenges, but I cannot get behind the shortcomings in the writing.

The process of writing any story and turning the same into a film script does not mandate any unmanageable resources, and hence, lack of funds will not cut it as a passable excuse.

Frogman, despite having a novel idea, failed to provide thrills or even some degree of excitement, and that is mainly due to its literary limitations.

The writing sucks. None of the characters had depth, nor did they come off as likeable. Not to mention, their performances are dramatic and far from convincing.

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.

I'll start off by saying I watch a lot of movies- and a lot of them are quite bad. I don't really like movies from major studios- they're made for a certain type of person and I honestly just feel like they're often overrated and uncreative. I'd much rather watch a low budget "schlocker" w a decent concept and an equal amount of heart. Frogman was that type of movie. A lot of the stuff special effects wise was kinda cheesy, but at the same time kinda cool for such a low budget. I love cryptic stuff, but slot of those movies are just awful. The acting in this was pretty good. At times it had a more humorous tone. It didn't take itself too seriously but was not a spoof or mockumentary. It kept my interest, was relatively short and really had a pretty good ending- actually like the last 20 minutes or so. Anyhow, it reminded me of something from the 70s or 80s, and it was nice to see people come up with an idea that was unique and interesting.

When I stumbled upon the 2023 horror movie "Frogman", I was initially drawn in by the movie's cover. I have to admit that I found it rather interesting. I had never heard about the movie, so I didn't know what I was in for here from director Anthony Cousins.

Right, well had I known that this would be one of those dubious movies that is filmed on someone's dad's camera, complete with shoddy camera work all over the place, then I wouldn't have given it a time of day. I have to admit that I am not a fan of foud footage and movie that look and feel like they were made by a group of teenagers attending High School video club. And "Frogman" was exactly that.

The best part about "Frogman", aside from when it ended, definitely had to be the scene where Dallas brought out a flute and started randomly playing in the forest to lure out the frogman. Pure cinematic genius writing right there.

Needless to say that I wasn't familiar with a single actor or actress on the cast list. But, despite the questionable concept and shoddy camera work, then the acting performances in "Frogman" were actually fair enough. Fair is fair, and just because the presentation of the movie was a dumpster fire, then the actors and actresses deserve due credit.

The effects in "Frogman" were just as questionable as the rest of the movie. And whenever something even remotely good is about to happen or happening, lo and behold, the camera starts glitching and gets static. This is just lazy film making at its finest.

I will never become a fan of movies that are shot and presented in a way that is even more shoddy and questionable than what I can do with my own digital video camera. And "Frogman" was one such movie, so this was definitely not my cup of tea.

My rating of "Frogman" lands on a one out of ten stars.

There are two key elements to making a Found Footage film work. The first and biggest one is obviously the ending. Everything is leading up to that moment that is going to explain why the footage needed to be found.

The other part though is the build up. Even though most Found Footage horror is on the shorter side of runtimes generally, there is still a long time where the audience has to follow these characters around in anticipation of what is going to happen. The build up has to be tense and has to fill us with a sense of dread. We have to be worried about what is to come. This is where 'Frogman' lets itself down.

The build up wasn't very good at all. It was never established why anyone should be afraid of 'Frogman' (or even if anyone was, for that matter). Everything in the buildup just felt like filler. Yes the characters had a little bit of charm but that wasn't nearly enough.

It leaves a massive weight on the ending to basically carry the entire film, and it simply couldn't do that. 5/10.

I'm on a FF streak right now, and I kept seeing this one come up. I've seen movies with stupid names and they were awesome. So I figured this would end up being a little gem. This movie truly sucked. The minute you see the image frozen on screen at the beginning, I was definitely not hopeful. I trudged through the first half hour and couldn't stay awake. Started where I left off the next day and fell asleep. This movie is massively boring and, as I suspected, really cheesy...but not fun cheesy.

I hated the characters, the acting was really bad, and the story wasn't interesting. I was waiting for something mildly interesting to come in and save the day. That did happen...when the credits began. This gives FF a bad rep. Seriously, though, avoid this one. The title is not ironically silly. It's a crappy film with zero redeeming qualities.

This was a movie that I heard about through podcasts. It went on a list of movies that I wanted to see before doing my end of year list. I got a press release saying that this came to Screambox, which is one of my streaming services. Since there wasn't a new release at the theaters for me to see for 2024, I decided to make this a featured review for Journey with a Cinephile.

Synopsis: three friends in search of the Loveland Frogman finds out that he is more than just a local legend.

We start this back in August of 1999. There is a family on a vacation. What I like here is that we get an idea of everyone as well as seeing there could be deeper issues. The father is doing what he can for everyone to have a good time, but it gets on the nerves of the mother. The son is Dallas (Liam Hage) and he's filming everything. His sister is Lizzie (Shea Mikel). This trip takes a turn when they get lost and pull over. It is then that Dallas captures an image of the Loveland Frogman.

There's an interesting transition from here because this video is being seen on an internet video, trying to decide if it is real. Jeremy J is the host of a show called Monster Soup. He also introduces that another man, George (Jack Neveaux) also claimed to have seen this cryptid. Jeremy J decides that Dallas' video is fake. Part of that decision was because he wanted to become a director and did a couple of shorts. This goes even more meta for us seeing that Dallas, now as an adult, is played by Nathan Tymoshuk. What Jeremy J said hits deep and bothers him.

We then see that things aren't good for Dallas. He is staying with his sister and her husband. They allowed him to stay until he got back on his feet. It's been two years and it is time for him to move on. This is where he decides to do a documentary to prove that his footage wasn't fake and that the Frogman exists. He seeks out his friend, who is a videographer named Scotty (Benny Barrett). He declines to help at first. There is a paying job of filming a wedding. The issue is that Scotty hates doing these.

While these two talk, Dallas learns that their high school friend Amy (Chelsey Grant) is leaving to work in Los Angeles. Dallas isn't sure that he's invited to her going away party, but Scotty tells him to come. There was a night, not too long ago, that Dallas and Amy hooked up. Neither expressed their feelings about what happened and were afraid to put it out there. Amy asks Dallas what he's been doing and he tells her about the doc. He invites her to be a part of it. She has time before leaving so she agrees to come along.

What Scotty and Amy thought was going to be a fun trip takes a turn when Dallas gets upset that they're not taking it seriously. They go to Loveland, hoping to find proof of the Frogman. What they find will change their lives forever like the synopsis said.

That is where I'll leave my recap and introduction to the characters. Where I'll start is that this felt like it was going to be a version of The Blair Witch Project. Both are found footage films and we follow a similar premise. This one has Dallas being obsessed with seeing this cryptid as a kid. He decides to do a doc, taking him back to where it all started. Other things that they have in common is being a trio with two guys and a woman, they're filming everything that happens and then they go into the woods. That is where the comparisons end. I also don't want to influence anyone reading this and make you expect what that classic did.

With that out of the way, I like Dallas as our lead. Life hasn't gone his way. He saw this cryptid as a child. The footage of it is his claim to fame. We learn that as a child, he wanted to be a director so he always carried a camera, hence why he caught it on film. Things haven't gone his way and he's struggling to find his place. Seeing Jeremy J mock him online and I'm sure there are others, this makes him want to prove everyone wrong. It doesn't help that his sister and brother-in-law are letting him know that he needs to move out. He takes this documentary seriously. I do think he's a bit intense, but Tymoshuk's performance was good in bringing Dallas to life.

Let me then discuss his two friends. Scotty is also struggling. He works at a coffee shop and does videography for weddings. He's doing what he can with his passion while still paying the bills. I like Barrett's portrayal as he is fun loving. Grant on the other hand seems to have a chance to make it. She went to LA, was signed by an agent and she's excited, for good reason. There are feelings between her and Dallas, but both are scared to put themselves out there. Like I said previously, Scotty and Amy are doing this for fun. I think they also believe that if they do this, Dallas will give it up and move on. Because they're not taking it as seriously, this upsets their friend. Grant is also good at bringing Amy to life.

Now the last part of the story is something that I'm going to tread lightly with and that's Frogman as well as the local lore. This is where I wondered if we were going to get Blair Witch, where we were going to have nothing happen until the last stretch, then end with a crescendo. I'm glad that this does things a bit differently. There are great callbacks here as well. We get so many throwaway lines from characters who are interviewed or from our trio that come back into play later. What is good there is that there are so many, but if you're paying attention, they are there. This went places I wasn't expecting, but I'm glad that it did.

I think I'll then shift to filmmaking. The found footage stuff is good. There is an older camera being used so that explains the graininess. We also get information about the Frogman having special abilities so that could be a reason for digital messing up of the footage. I'm not always a fan of that, but I am forgiving at times here. This is more backloaded with effects. When we see the Frogman, it does look practical for the most part. I do think the framing helps here to keep it to the shadows or only giving quick glimpses so we can't fully critique it. The sound design is good. The music were here is diegetic. No issues there. I'd say this is well-made overall.

All that is left would be the rest of the acting. I've already said our trio fit their characters and their good. Hage, Mikel and the actors who play the parents are good. Neveaux is solid as the other person who is known to have seen Frogman. Chari Eckmann, Michale Paul Levin, Brandon Santiago, Stephen Hage and the rest of the townspeople were fine for what was needed. I love that they're embracing the Frogman like people do with Mothman or other cryptids. That feels real.

In conclusion, I wasn't fully sure what we'd get here and this exceeded what I thought we'd get. This has good premises. Dallas is struggling to find his way and the only claim to fame he has is questioned. He's determined to prove that Frogman is real and willing to not only put his life in jeopardy, but his friend's as well. The acting is solid across the board. Tymoshuk, Barrett and Grant leading the way there. The rest push them to where they end up. This is well-made. Being found footage helps to hide things and gives it a more intimate feel. I'm glad they went practical with the effects where they could. This won't be for everyone. I think fans of found footage or cryptids will enjoy this one.

My Rating: 7 out of 10.

Either the director/actors took this film way too seriously or this is all one supposed to be one big parody of the Blair Witch Project. If it's the former then how embarrassing for everyone involved. If it's the latter, then it was too subtle on the parody part of it. Unfortunately it never comes close to reaching "so bad it's good" status. It's just bad.

The thing that will make you the most uncomfortable watching this is knowing anyone involved in the making of this movie no longer has a future in the film industry. You watch 90 minutes of people ruining their careers and it's hard to watch.

Only thing keeping this from getting one-star is the makeup effects in some of the shots. Kudos to anyone who still uses practical effects.

As many have already noted, Frogman didn't really do anything different or and anything new to the found footage genre. It follows the same formula as other found footage films such as The Blair Witch Project. I went into this movie blind and after hearing a few people on YouTube mention it as one to see I took a leap of faith and went for it.

Even though this film was for the most part a cookie cutter film, I enjoyed it. It was shot well and the use of a cassette tape camcorder was effective. The film starts off slow but once we get into the Frogman territory things pick up and an excellent unexpected ending, at least for me.

Could the story have been better fleshed out, sure. Could the acting have been a little more polished, yes. In spite of all that I did walk away pleasantly surprised and intend on watching it again, paying a little more attention. One other awesome part for me is the fact that the Loveland Frogman is a real thing! I had never heard of this legend before, and that made it even more interesting to me. Bottom line, it is one to watch if you're a fan of found footage. Just make sure you watch through the credits 😉

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.

Let's be real...found footage horror films can be pretty bad.

But it's also a medium where you can make a pretty darn entertaining film on an extremely low budget...if you have the imagination, and a good group of friends to make it with.

Enter Frogman.

Which is a perfect example of the latter.

You can tell they had virtually no budget to make this with, simply by watching it.

But it sure as hell was entertaining!

Sure, the concept is ridiculous...but it's also ridiculously fun!

Is it also bad?

Of course.

But in the so bad it's good kind of way.

The concept is super imaginative.

And it looks like they had a helluva lot of fun making it.

I must say, I thought the post-script addendum was an excellent touch, as well.

To give it that extra air of authenticity.

This is found footage horror done right.

So it's definitely worth giving a chance, in my personal opinion.

Cause, to put it bluntly...Frogman certainly f---s!

4 out of 10.

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 .

I will preface this review with saying I am from West Virginia and love a good creature lore. Mothman is my guy. But I am halfway through this movie and I keep checking to see how far I am. The characters are insufferable. The story isn't really moving along, and you see the creature at the beginning of the film to which I laughed out loud. It would take a lot to redeem itself in the second half of this. I don't review often but i remember when this movie came out and it was hyped up. WHY. You may disagree, but if you can't will yourself through this horrible first half then what's the point. I appreciate low budget horror, but this has been mostly more about these people's drama instead of frogman. Idk I could be wrong, and unless there's a second half shop stopper I'm not real impressed. Good idea badly executed.