Not even Barbara Hershey could save this farce. If it was supposed to be a comedy it was a total failure. There wasn't a laugh in the entire movies. Bizarre plot. Too much needless and graphic violence. If this movie was supposed to entertain, the blood and gore made certain that it did not. Hershey was badly miscast in this movie. If she was supposed to be a sympathetic character, it never showed and that is too bad because Hershey is an accomplished actress and this movie doesn't help her career. If it had been for Hershey, I would not have even considered watching this movie only to be very disappointed in her role.
Add a Review
-
jackjack-230 July 2000
-
I didn't know what to make of this movie...a lot of dark humor, but I couldn't make sense of what the theme was. The screenplay is well-written, but this movie is hard to follow, much less understand. I'm still not sure whether it was really good or really bad, thus the "5" rating.
-
beav-720 November 1999this was quite a jumbled mess of a film... hershey is cast as a much too young actress, and mazur is completely wasted... this film has no idea of where it wants to go, and is turgid and confusing in many parts... clarence williams is wasted too... too bad because the cast is interesting enuff
-
jrbry27 February 2003I actually like this movie. I can see how some people might find it pretentious but those people are just not buying into the concept. It's kind of a campy send-up of Tarantino-ish films substituting a motley group of sleazy actors for just plain sleaze-balls. Instead of long monologues by inane lowlifes about pop culture (a la Pulp Fiction) you get more articulate and literary monologues culled from films, sometimes done with some style and finesse, other times done just for unintentional self-parody, by a colorful group of actors/gangsters. As with any parody, there are times when the characterizations seem over-the-top but mostly I found them clever and funny. To the film's credit, it doesn't take itself too seriously, simply drawing a parallel between the actor's process and the process of the gangster getting into character for the gruesome deeds they do. Barbara Hershey plays the lead character trying to `get out of the life' and out of acting. She is not the most charismatic actress but she does have her moments even if there are times it seems her character's disaffection for her world fails to hold our sympathies. Robbie Coltrane never quite seems convincing as the thick-accented Eastern European gang leader and aspiring impresario. However, Lisa Marie as Myrna is wonderful as the incredibly hot if not-so-talented actress and there are other fine performances from others in the film. The ending is schmaltzy but for the most part the film is quite entertaining.
-
antcol826 April 2006There is almost no reason for me to write. Many of you have done the job for me. But I take the misuse and co-option of a "Downtown" NY vibe in this movie as a personal affront. Amos Poe has some kind of Alt -street cred, although now I can't remember for what. Something to do with Debbie Harry. But he (on the basis of this film) is not an artist, not an entertainer, not a good post-modernist, not very smart! As many have pointed out, he knows how to quote from much better things. And he knows how to cast weirdly iconic actors and use interesting East Village locations. But the killing scenes are excessive, the acting scenes are unconvincing. And neither illuminates the other. Jim Jarmusch, forgive me! Any doubts I have had about your genius have been erased by this slop. I understand now (I already liked it a lot) what a massive achievement Ghost Dog is. You have quoted Godard, but added something to our understanding, as Godard did with such as Fuller and Ray. This guy, on the other hand belongs in the Press area of a European Blondie Reunion concert, holding a Poloroid camera. He totally wasted my time with his smarmy, hipper-than-thou bullshit. Lisa Marie is hot though.
-
Barbara H: pretty sad, dear. Neither the youth nor the presence to carry your role. The film is painfully aware of its aspirations -never approached in quality, sadly - of successfully passing as a mere mediocrity. Dream on. The would-be female lead seems to have used all her resources, all the accrued influence available at the autumn of her career- not to entertain but rather to keep her "credit" from the leading titles, ...BH only admitting to having perpetrated "Eva" at the final moments of film.
Without a better performance (and any high school drama aspirant could readily cough up a more nuanced and convincing effort than did BH... the film is worse than bad.
Not all are to blame: Mike Starr (a standout in Mad Dog & Glory) never does less than fine work: an underrated actor who deserves better than this stillborn wet poop.
The screenplay is awful, the direction is amateurish, and the cinematography ... is actually quite good.
All in all, a painful and humiliating waste of time. It was much more fun to pan it than to watch it.
Try a little less lipstick, BH? (It gets farther and farther from her mouth.) ------------------------------------------- -
audeo29 June 1999Poorly acted, lamely scripted, unnecessarily violent, and pretentious far beyond the typical indie films, "Frogs and Snakes" was one of the worst films of 1998. While a bad film may be enjoyable on some level for its cheesiness or other lame aspect, this film's self-importance and supposedly "deep" dialogue makes you want to gag. Nothing redeemable.
-
NateWatchesCoolMovies8 April 2017They say actors will literally 'kill for a role', and in the long forgotten, bizarre NYC set indie flick Frogs For Snakes, that's the very concept. A handful of Bronx lowlifes all directly involved with criminal kingpin Al Santana (Robbie Coltrane, before he went all Hagrid on us), discover he is putting on a play, and promptly begin to literally murder each other for parts. Now, such a premise should provide a downright brilliant film, but sadly that's not the case with this dreary gutterball. The possibilities are just endless, and all these miscreants do is just languish in alleyways, decrepit apartments and dive bars, monologuing about.. nothing much at all. It hurts when you have a cast this good in such fuckery as well. Al's ex wife (Barbara Hershey) works as a debt collector for him, while she pines for her thespian boyfriend (John Leguizamo) who spends the majority of his scenes reciting overblown monologues that have nothing to do with the story, or lack thereof. There's all manner of creeps and hoodlums running about like New York sewer rats, played by an impressive lineup including Harry Hamlin, Lisa Marie, Ian Hart, Clarence Williams III, Nick Chinlund and briefly Ron Perlman, but none of them have much to do and seem to aimlessly shamble through their scenes as if they were never given much of a script. Being the weirdo that I am though, I did get a sick thrill out of hearing potty mouthed Debi Mazar explicitly describe giving a blowjob to Coltrane's character, a mental image I won't soon erase from my head. It's a whole lot of nothing for the most part though, and kinda makes you wonder how the thing ever got green-lit, let alone attracted such talent. If the film itself were a play, it would be run out of town on opening night.
-
ragana30 April 2005This movie is about a group of off-off Broadway actor wanna bes who moonlight as illegal money collectors. One of their crew (Barbara Hershey) wants to leave and start a new life with her young son. Unfortunately, her ex-husband (Robbie Coltrane) is the theatre impresario/loan shark who pulls the strings of everyone's ambitions.
A very unusual vision of the gangster comedy theme. It takes the generalized neuroses and psychoses of actors (ego, ambition, narcissism, paranoia, etc) and runs the gamut from somewhat healthy to psychotic. People alternate from friends, lovers, and assassins at the turn of an audition announcement and will begin monologues from plays and movies with little to no warning (this will be fun for theatre/movie buffs). The plot, unlike some movies, actually requires attention and a large cast (most of whom are one to two sceners) delivers excellent performances all around.
FYI: has some scenes of graphic violence.
Worth a rent/buy used. Due to its singular style, I would suggest renting first, as it will not be everyone's cup of tea. -
DocFilm12 November 2002Yes, it's on film, it is around 90 minutes like a feature, it's got something that resembles a plot that provides and excuse for the performances, and it seems to participate in a genre marked by "Pulp Fiction." But take this for what it is, some very good actors jamming. Barbara Hershey's characterization is superb -- hers and the other performances had me mesmerized (like a frog by a snake?)-- it's that thing that actors do, that transformation that gives a shiver of the uncanny.
-
DavidNichols25 March 2001Some movies are like olives or wine; you need to have developed a taste before you can fully enjoy them. The story was unexpected and definitely better the second time around since I was paying attention this time. If you like dark humor you'll love Barbara Hershey and this great cast doing a wonderful job. It is well above par for this genre.
-
Infofreak29 September 2001Maybe it isn't THE worst but it sure comes close! The concept? A group of wanna-be actors moonlight as collection agents and thugs for a theatre impresario cum gangster. In between shooting people, including each other, they recite scenes from movies, everything from 'The Third Man' to 'Repo Man'. Does that sound stupid? You bet!
Watching this until the end is a chore. Only masochists or people with a perverse fascination for truly awful movies will manage it. Writer/director Amos Poe probably argues that "quoting" from other (MUCH better!) movies is some kind of post-modernist statement about art and creativity. Really it's because he doesn't have enough talent to write his own original dialogue and characters.
An unspeakably AWFUL movie that everyone involved with should be embarrassed about. -
"Frogs for Snakes" **1/2 "FFS" is a hard movie to describe. There is this group of actors in NYC. They work together. They know one another. At various times in their lives they "love" one another. And they compete for the same parts in off-off-off Broadway plays. The owner of the theater, where they most often act and compete for parts, is run by Al. Al is a gangster and he employs these actors to make collections for him. To this point in the description of the movie it sounds like a kind of slice-of-life type story. But, "FFS" slips back and forth between the actors, Al and their day-to-day lives and killing one another. If one of them thinks someone might have a leg up on them for a part in a play, they kill rather than compete. And, after a kill the remaining players might slip right back into a dialogue that makes the killing seem like just another day at the office. Entwined in all the dialogue are these really interesting scenes, played out by the characters, from movies and stage plays. My favorite was a tryout where one of the actresses is doing Harry Lime. "FFS" is a cross between "Pulp Fiction" and "Living in Oblivion." I won't go so far as to recommend this movie but I will say I was fascinated by "FFS."
-
palmmgt19 January 2011I would not trust the review or ratings on this site. Over the years, I've found that if you like independent, quirky films that are not predictable and cliché, you can disregard most of the ratings here because people that are active are no help. I only recently joined to give my two cents, only because I finally got sick of the awful reviews and strange ratings.
This movie is hilarious, and offers a dark, comic backstage view of the NY theater, and the New York street that's without compare in films. The actors are top shelf, and they are not out there doing it on a hunch.
You should rent it and make up your own mind rather than listen to anything written here, including me. -
retrodaze28 December 2003and a really HUGE warm pile of crap. This stinker can be smelled from a country mile away. Dont go too close or might get some on you. Idiotic story and even worse acting..if thats possible. Run! and dont look back, or you may just turn into a pillar of salt.
-
movieman-13816 October 2000awful awful... you can't even say this is a tarantino rip off because in doing so you would imply this is like a tarantino but its sooooooooooo bad...i haven't seen a film this bad in a long time . so go ahead and rent this or buy it but its out of print for a reason not one bit interesting and worse they try to act in the movie the whole thing ... it's even worse than it sounds alot worse.
-
TheDude-10 September 1998Underground director Amos Poe presents this Tarantino-esque gangster movie, which is also a close portrait of a woman trying to break free from her old life. All trimmed with some violence, black humour and loads of quotations from the world of theater and movies. (watched @ the world premier at the Filmfestspiele Berlin)
-
JustMe-817 April 2000I found "Frogs for Snakes" poorly done and if at all, badly researched.
Early in the film one of the characters mentions that her boyfriend was sentenced to prison for 4 years, until 1969. A bit later she talks about the 69 Corvette he bought her. A remarkable feat -- getting a 69 car in 65.
Still later, the term "dissed" is used, a term that didn't come into being until the mid 90's.
Still later, characters used cell phones, which certainly didn't exist in the mid 60's.
Just a bad film overall.