Bug (2006)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Jeff "

  
  I think the misconception that people have with Bug is that they expected a straight forward horror film. Well, Bug is most certainly that, and more. After viewing it, I realized it had other genre elements such as drama, thriller and psychological mixed with body horror. At least,… More
  I think the misconception that people have with Bug is that they expected a straight forward horror film. Well, Bug is most certainly that, and more. After viewing it, I realized it had other genre elements such as drama, thriller and psychological mixed with body horror. At least, that's what I thought of the film. The film is a good mix of drama and psychological horror. Director William Friedkin steadily builds up the tension and in doing so, adds human emotion between the two characters. Bug is fairly underrated and doesn't deserve the flack it has received. The film is quite different from other horror films, and the thing that people expected from this film was a straight forward horror film that jumped right into the action. But Friedkin took a different route by adding other elements to the film, and it works well enough to appeal to viewers looking for something different in a horror film. The acting is good here, and the chemistry between the two leads is wonderful, and works well. There are things that could be done better, but for what it is, Bug is a totally different horror film than what has come out in recent years, and it's a refreshing take by combining elements of drama and psychological thrillers. Bug is a good film, but if you're expecting a horrifying, straight forward horror flick, you'll be disappointed. This is a different style of horror film, and I enjoyed it a good, intricate story with good acting and good directing on behalf of William Friedkin makes this a good viewing for any horror fan. The film is disturbing and scary enough at times and it doesn't deserve the negativity it has received.

• Tony G

  
  An unhinged film based on an unhinged play, "Bug" is paranoia gone wild. "Bug" gives Michael Shannon and Ashley Judd lots of occasion to play crazy - and they rise to the occasion. Judd is a surprise, she may not have Award-winning chops, but she proves with… More
  An unhinged film based on an unhinged play, "Bug" is paranoia gone wild. "Bug" gives Michael Shannon and Ashley Judd lots of occasion to play crazy - and they rise to the occasion. Judd is a surprise, she may not have Award-winning chops, but she proves with "Bug" that she can elevate her acting above popcorn-flick, tough-ish damsel-in-distress roles. But "Bug" belongs to William Friedkin who keeps a lot of the intimacy of the play to capture these two souls in their descent into madness. "Bug" doesn't entirely work, it's probably a bit too weird keeping audiences at arm's length - but Friedkin directs with abandon and delivers a film you probably won't ever see the likes of in a long while.

• erika b

  
  This film did not have a good plot. the whole film was not really good.

• Greg S

  
  When a delusional escaped mental patient holes up with a slow and extremely lonely white trash waitress, good things will not follow. Well-acted, if a bit wearying, adaptation of a stage play that traps the viewer deep in a claustrophobic web of paranoia and conspiracy theories

• Conner R

  
  Completely original and out of its mind. The story/characters are so convincing that it makes the movie 10x better than it theoretically should have been. The dialogue was realistic and emotional, staying away from corny sappy monologues. The look of it was also really well thought… More
  Completely original and out of its mind. The story/characters are so convincing that it makes the movie 10x better than it theoretically should have been. The dialogue was realistic and emotional, staying away from corny sappy monologues. The look of it was also really well thought out and effective. It is an addictive experience throughout, you can't wait to see and understand what is the root of the character's dilemma.

• Robert C

  
  This is one of the few "horror films" that is actually an "actors film". By that I mean the characters (there are really only four with any major screen time) are well developed, with the two leads getting the opportunity to REALLY show some range. And it is… More
  This is one of the few "horror films" that is actually an "actors film". By that I mean the characters (there are really only four with any major screen time) are well developed, with the two leads getting the opportunity to REALLY show some range. And it is the two leads (Judd & Shannon) that really make this film work as well as it does. Which (for me) was good, solid, but not GREAT. The film succeeds in creating a creepy, claustrophobic, manic environment. However there are moments when the environment (and the acting) seems like "too much" and starts to feel a bit over done...almost cartoonish. There are a few "gore scenes" that felt sort of tagged on to make it more sellable as a "horror" film. But I feel like the story is intense enough that these scenes ended up cheapening it more then enhancing it. Michael Shannon (as with Revolutionary Road) "knocks it out of the park". Few people can pull off "obsessive compulsive nut job" like Shannon. Judd is impressive as well, but not as consistently as Shannon. All in all it is a pretty solid psychological thriller.

• paul s

  
  To be honest, I don't really know what to say about this film. It is creepy more for its seedy underbelly of a woman caught living on society's fringe (which Friedkin does an excellent job of depicting), than it is for it's final horrific half hour, which, while making… More
  To be honest, I don't really know what to say about this film. It is creepy more for its seedy underbelly of a woman caught living on society's fringe (which Friedkin does an excellent job of depicting), than it is for it's final horrific half hour, which, while making me squirm (pulling your own tooth out with a pair of pliers was truly an impact moment), didn't have the emotional impact of what had gone on before. To me, the story is more about a lonely loner type woman who seems somehow a step out of sorts with those around her. She plays kissy face with a fellow barmaid (obviously a dyke), does coke with her and her aquaintance, yet doesn't want to accompany her to a party. She is obviously bi, and yet the hints are there that it's more a statement about lonliness and trying to connect than any commitment to any kind of sexuality, other than her innate need to be dominated. Her lonliness is amplified and the signals are subtle; she seems tethered to an abusive relationship with a con who say he loves her, but it's obvious that he only loves that he can control her. You begin to wonder about her, if all the phone calls at the beginning of the film, where there is no-one there when she answers, are legit. When the story comes out about her child's dissapearance you begin to see the cracks in her facade and that her little tough girl routine is, as the song cleverly plays in the backround, just a masquerade. This makes the absurdity that follows at least somewhat plausable, and it is a revelation that she is just as unhinged in her own way as the lunatic who believes that his body is infested with government planted bugs. There are times when it is obvious that this screenplay was developed out of a play, but for the most part it remains just quirky enough to hold your interest; at least until the final payoff, which is a major letdown which, I suppose, is where madness eventually leads to, but it still comes off as a contrived bit of theatre.

• Arash X

  
  "Paranoia is contagious"

• Roy G

  
  A disaster on every level.

• Gordon A

  
  Interesting premise to look at paranoid delusions but I just didn't believe Judd's character would be taken in by the delusions of someone in a psychotic state, to the extent shown here.

• Emily A

  
  Good lord, this is one of the most screwed-up movies I have ever beheld. It's coherent yet inconclusive, unified yet disorienting. It's scary because it looks so real: the characters are three dimensional, the sets are ugly and nothing special and the fantastic horror is set… More
  Good lord, this is one of the most screwed-up movies I have ever beheld. It's coherent yet inconclusive, unified yet disorienting. It's scary because it looks so real: the characters are three dimensional, the sets are ugly and nothing special and the fantastic horror is set against a real-world backdrop of violence; something that's already scary enough. These people go crazy so slowly that it's impossible to pinpoint the spot at which you stop believing them. If you stop at all. This is really remarkable, and really bloody unnerving. The violence in it is hard to watch, it's so gritty and painful-looking.

• Dean M

  
  This William Friedkin's gripping film is one of the very possible best movie since <i>The Exorcist</i>. This is a searingly intense thriller that fans of films like <i>Naked Lunch</i> and <I>The Machinist</i> should not miss. Ashley Judd does a… More
  This William Friedkin's gripping film is one of the very possible best movie since <i>The Exorcist</i>. This is a searingly intense thriller that fans of films like <i>Naked Lunch</i> and <I>The Machinist</i> should not miss. Ashley Judd does a fascinating performance as a lonely waitress who mistrust threatens to destroy her very existence.<br><br>Highly recommendation!

• Bruce B

  
  Far from what I expected. One of the worst movies I have seen. This should be in the $3.99 Bin Soon. Don't say I didn't warn you. It Sux

• Nani V

  
  Hah! I don't know what category this film is supposed to be in, but, I laughed so hard.

• Drew S

  
  People really fucking miss the mark on this one. I think it says a lot about America's collective maturity level with the amount of complaints sounding like "It wasn't what I was expecting, so I hated it! Worst movie ever!" I mean, I'll admit - the first half… More
  People really fucking miss the mark on this one. I think it says a lot about America's collective maturity level with the amount of complaints sounding like "It wasn't what I was expecting, so I hated it! Worst movie ever!" I mean, I'll admit - the first half an hour didn't really catch me. I started it online, had to stop, and never bothered continuing. It wasn't until I picked up the DVD that I was truly riveted. In earnest, this is not a movie for everyone. It is probing, but emotionally exhausting and creepy in an entirely different way. Different is the key word here - Bug's great BECAUSE it's different. It doesn't take a traditional approach to horror. It puts these two people, especially poor miserable Ashley Judd, through hell and does so in the most pragmatic way possible. One scene involving a tooth, for instance, is filmed with long and deliberate shots, completely unsympathetic of the pain that both of these characters are going through. It is one of the most horrifying and powerful scenes that I've sat through in a very long time. Bug is not a perfect movie. The ending is rushed and it could have used a more radical adaptation of the play from whence it came. More later.

• E.J. B

  
  Not a great thriller. It boasts a self-importance that is not needed in horror and it just isn't as creepy or psychologically unnerving as the Saw films.

• A.D. V

  
  Not a horror movie, barely a thriller, this is more like a psychological drama. Great performances by Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon and it was a nice surprise to find out Judd (who I already thought was hot) looks even better in the buff but that's the only things positive I… More
  Not a horror movie, barely a thriller, this is more like a psychological drama. Great performances by Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon and it was a nice surprise to find out Judd (who I already thought was hot) looks even better in the buff but that's the only things positive I can say about this odd film. My fellow Flixster, Rubytue said it best when she called it a tweaker nightmare. I found myself stressing out watching these people come undone.

• Steve K

  
  One hour of a terrific psychological horror film that sort of devolves into an atypical actor's showcase, the performances are all top notch but there's something about the end that is less than satisfying and perhaps a bit obvious. Easier to admire than to enjoy.

• Michael S

  
  One of the stranger films this year. BUG is a real love or hate affair, but I was completely captivated by it. I suggest renting it before you buy it.

• William D

  
  [size=3]Bug, the new film by legendary director William Friedkin, proves once and for all that Friedkin lost his capacity for great filmmaking when he finished The Exorcist in 1973. His talents will never be recovered.[/size] [size=3][/size]… More
  [size=3]Bug, the new film by legendary director William Friedkin, proves once and for all that Friedkin lost his capacity for great filmmaking when he finished The Exorcist in 1973. His talents will never be recovered.[/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3][img]http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/af/200px-Bug_(2006_film).jpg[/img][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3]I don't know how a filmmaker can completely lose his talent, but it happened to this man, and at a pretty young age. (Woody Allen is the runner-up for this prize, and then maybe Francis Ford Coppola.)[/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3]Bug is an absolute embarrassment. It starts out incredibly well. The set-up is brilliant. Very eerie. We meet an Oklahoma bartender (played quite well by Ashley Judd) who has a violent ex-husband (Harry Connick Jr.) just getting out of prison. [/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3]Then there's the mysterious drifter who wanders into Judd's life and ends up staying for a long time. Their incipient romance is very tenderly conveyed. These two misfits are made for each other, and it is beautiful watching them sense it. [/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3]Pretty quickly after the drifter starts sleeping over, he starts claiming that there are very small aphids biting him during sleep. He and Judd decide to fight the infestation together, and almost immediately the bugs become an obsession. The man then starts to claim that he's being hunted by the US Government because he escaped from an Army hospital where experimental treatments were being performed on him.[/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3]It's all down hill from there. There turns out to be no mystery. This guy is simply a nutjob, and one grisly, preposterous thing after another starts happening and none of it has any meaning. Watching a nutjob lose his marbles just isn't that intriguing. I've never heard a movie audience howl with derision as I did in Bug. People were literally yelling, "I want my money back!" Yelling it at the top of their lungs as the credits rolled.[/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3]And they had a right to be furious. What a stupid movie.[/size] [size=3][/size] [img]http://cdn.channel.aol.com/pmms/productpagemovies/00/04/2128663[/img] [size=3][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3][/size]

Read all 20 featured audience ratings