“Frogman Returns” felt like a chore to sit through, which is frustrating because there’s definitely some untapped potential buried in there. This sequel (yes, it’s really a sequel) tries to capitalize on its predecessor’s culty charm but mostly collapses under a rote script and grating performances.
When a television host turned cryptid hunter (Nathan Tymoshuk) returns to Loveland to chase a creature in tunnels, things quickly go awry. The plot is painfully basic, and director and co-writer Anthony Cousins fails to build on the previous story or evolve the concept with this lazy rehash. There are barely any stakes raised or momentum granted, just more of the same old recycled found footage.
Characters are thin and annoying, and the ensemble behaves like cardboard stand-ins whose improvised-sounding dialogue crosses the line from natural into aimless mumblecore that is monotonous and boring. Their awkward rambling makes them forgettable, and it’s hard to care about what’s happening when you don’t care about who it’s happening to.
The only positive thing I have to say about this horror indie is that the creature design and effects are solid. Frogman is creepy enough, and there are flashes of body horror that are gruesome and effectively staged. But good creature effects can’t paper over a story that doesn’t earn its scares.
The sequel pads runtime with weird cult trappings and random sci‑fi aside from the main hunt, which creates tonal whiplash instead of meaningful world building. Found footage tropes are used without innovation, and the annoying camerawork and shaky POV that could add urgency instead just feel tired and generic.
Sadly, “Frogman Returns” never fully commits to being either genuinely scary or meaningfully weird. It tries to lean into its silliness, but that self-awareness doesn’t translate into something fun. Perhaps there’s a better version of this movie somewhere in its concept and execution, but this isn’t it.
By: Louisa Moore
Screen Zealots 