Bug (2006) User Reviews

This movie is really starting to BUG me

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 3 October 2007]

OK, cheesy joke, I know, but actually the movie really did get to me. I picked up this movie at Hollywood Video, I was pretty curious on what it was, if it was a thriller, horror movie, or drama, it's pretty much a mix of all. But also William Friedkin had directed the film, William isn't just the director of The Exorcist, he's an incredible director who has many works of art under his belt. So I rented Bug and watched it last night and I have to say that this was an incredibly disturbing psychological thriller that really freaked me out. I mean, these performances were absolutely amazing, most people are raving about Ashley Judd's performance, but what about Michael Shannon? In my opinion, he had the best performance, he was so intense and he really draws you into the scene and the story.

Agnes is a woman who is pretty much on her own, she lives in a cruddy little motel, has an abusive boyfriend who is out of jail and won't leave her alone, and also lost a son a while back in a grocery store. She's also a drug addict. When her friend, R.C., brings her friend, Peter to Agnes's house, Peter and Agnes pretty much click from the get go, but when Peter tries to get away from Agnes, he confesses the reason why, that he was part of an army experiment and he's escaped. She asks him to stay anyways, that she's so lonely, and he does, but soon they have delusions of a bug infestation and start destroying each other over something that they swear they can see and is watching them.

The story is so beyond intense, I couldn't believe how much this film got to me. Especially when they reveal the ultimate damage that Peter does to his own character, it sent shivers down my spine. Ashley, Michael, and Harry all brought in great performances and really made this story incredibly interesting and scary to watch. The whole ending was beautifully shot by Friedkin, I was a little disappointed with how quickly it did end, but thinking about it, I'm not sure if there could have been a better ending, but you'll have to see what I mean when you watch it. I would recommend this film, I don't think many users are understanding what it's about or are just focusing on the wrong things here, but this movie I warn you is not for the faint of heart.

7/10

How insane can the human brain be?

[mario_c · 7/10 · 14 August 2007]

"Bug" was a surprise since I was expecting a very different movie. It takes you into a story of paranoia and illusion showing us how insane the human brain can be!

The movie was an adaptation of a theatrical play and we can notice that by the settings: almost the entire plot is passed under the same scenario (a motel room); but it only increases even more the intensity and the insanity of the story, as that room was a kind of "cradle of insanity"…

The performances of Ashley Judd (Agnes White) and Michael Shannon (Peter Evans), which play the main characters, are excellent. They can really look like insane people in this movie!

I was kind of surprised because I was expecting a "biological" movie with real bugs and horror scenes by them, but instead of that I found a crazy story about human insanity!

The government can't be trusted: they're watching me even as I type this.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 4 September 2013]

I really don't know what to make of Bug, William Friedkin's bizarre tale of either delusional paranoia OR a sinister government plot to control the masses through the use of genetically engineered parasitic insects: it's certainly one of the strangest and most perplexing films I've seen in recent years, Friedkin messing with his viewers' heads so that they become as unsure about what is reality as the central characters. It was certainly a far cry from what I would call 'enjoyable', particularly when viewed as a study of mental illness ('harrowing' would be a better description), and the film's pacing is tortuously slow at times. 'Interesting' is a better descriptor...

Solid performances aside, where Bug scores most points in my eyes is in never resolving its many questions, leaving the viewer to pore over what has happened, dissect the evidence, and come to their own conclusion about what they have just witnessed. Although it seems probable that Peter and Agnes were seriously messed in the head and imagining the whole infestation, one cannot say this with absolute certainty; besides, sometimes its more fun to simply believe the less likely explanation.

BUG is how theater should exist on film

[mickeyshamrock · 7/10 · 19 January 2010]

I'll just come out and say it – I love this movie. But is it a movie? I can't really answer that. Honestly, this doesn't really feel or play out like a movie but maybe that's just me. Keep a few things in mind: this is based on a stage play, the screenplay was written by the author of the play, Friedkin is a big fan of the play, and the lead (Michael Shannon) is from the original production of the stage play. Got that? Good. You know how they say Sam Mendes brings "theater" to the "big screen" (and I say F that) - well, BUG is how theater should exist on film. I don't know, maybe I'm over analyzing. But while I'm over analyzing I'll throw this out there - Michael Shannon gives one of the best performances I've seen in a long time. And screw it - Ashley Judd really surprised me in this too. Harry Connick Jr. is a little dead weight but you can't win 'em all Harry. Mix some old Cronenberg with a pinch of Lynch (can I coin that?), throw it on an Off Broadway stage and see what sticks, then have Friedkin direct it and you've got BUG.

Interesting Friedkin project

[sylvestergoodwin · 2 December 2019]

Bug is William Friedkin's offering and now the aged director may have lessened his output flow, but there's no denying that he still chooses interesting projects: Bug is as further from the mainstream as one can get. There's no doubt that Bug is intense. It's a fairly nightmarish experience, complete with a scene of self-administered dental care that squeamish viewers will not be able to endure. Yet, for all that the movie is harrowing, it's not entirely successful. After a well-constructed first act, the story becomes a little tiresome and repetitive and the characters, who are will defined to begin with, stray ever closer to the edge of overwrought one-dimensionality. There's something to be said for a movie that is this far from the mainstream; it is not uninteresting. Calling Bug a "horror" film may be misleading. Although the movie includes some of the trapping's genre fans would expect, it's more of a psychological drama.

Folie a deux

[aliencat · 7/10 · 12 November 2006]

I saw this film today at the AFI Film Festival in Los Angeles. I had seen some previews of it once and thought it looked interesting. I wasn't sure what to expect -- a horror flick, a spy/government secret thriller, science fiction. My basic contention is the movie was a study of folie a deux, a disorder in which two (or sometimes more, but generally just two) people with a close relationship share a psychotic delusion. While only one person in the pairing is psychotic, the other develops psychosis -- including delusions, paranoia, even hallucinations -- by virtue of their closeness to the psychotic person. Often, such couple will be isolated and avoid contact with others. I came across this phenomena years ago while researching some other subject, and thought about it tonight while viewing the film. Aggie's final speech about how incidents in her life have tied together with Peter's arrival was an over-the-top example of how she now shared his paranoia. Generally, folie a deux develops between an extremely close couple (such as a married couple), but Aggie's loneliness, misery and fear (due to the recent release of her con ex-husband), along with her drinking, smoking crack, and doing blow, accelerated their feelings of and dependence on each other.

That said, the movie started out spookily (you're paranoid from the word go) and it held my interest for about two-thirds of the time. The acting was good all around. Unfortunately, it really lagged towards the end. I kept waiting for someone from the motel to come in (probably curious about all the noise) and have them both hauled off to an institution. Or for RC to call someone. (Surely she must have realized that her friend Aggie was now certifiably nuts.) And when I saw how far gone the situation had gotten, I predicted the ending of the movie about twenty minutes before it happened. Frankly, I had lost interest in the characters at the end, but I'd still rate it a 7 for an interesting concept, energetic directing, good performances.

A bad dream of a film

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 17 January 2011]

BUG is a creepy psychological horror yarn directed by William Friedkin, the man behind such '70s classics as THE EXORCIST and THE FRENCH CONNECTION. Is this film in the same league as those films of yester-year? Not by a long shot. While the premise has a great deal of promise behind it, by the end this is a huge disappointment, a film that sacrifices disturbing realism for over-the-top theatrics by the climax, which is a real shame.

Theatrics is appropriate, as in the end this turns out to be adapted from a stage play, as evinced by the single-room setting. The first half is quirky and unusual, as we watch the film wondering how it's going to turn out. It flirts with a lot of themes and genres, without ever being easily pigeon-holed into a single one. Is it a psychological study of madness? Is it a creature feature horror flick? Is it a study of domestic violence, a romance, a two-hander character piece? It's all of those, but by the end the intense script falls apart and ends up tackling over-the-top sci-fi themes and becoming somewhat laughable.

One thing that does keep you watching is the calibre of the acting, which is top dollar. Ashley Judd is a fine piece of casting as the put-upon, run-down heroine, and she lends this film a sense of gravitas that would have otherwise been missing. Michael Shannon is a scene-stealer, his quirky, paranoid war veteran one of the most charming performances I've seen in the past few years, and there's a neat extended cameo from Harry Connick Jr, too.

The film has plenty of strong moments, a few bits of nasty violence, and a rather silly climax. It all mixes together into a rather unsatisfactory brew by the end, but hey, at least it's different.

Interesting movie with interesting premises, but un-enjoyable.

[theglovesareoff · 5/10 · 29 May 2007]

I'm kind of left on the fence after this one. This is not a film that one 'enjoys,' as it is a portrait of insanity and insanity's effects on the vulnerable. Here are some pretty cool things about it:

1. The setting is entirely done in a motel room, and it is interesting to see how it changes throughout the film. 2. The main character, Agnes, changes from a vulnerable, lonely woman into a psychotic self-destructive woman who severs ties with everything but her boyfriends delusions. Once again, another interesting change to see take place. 3. It forces the audience to make decisions as to who to empathize with and why. And to be honest, the basis for reality is not established until the end.

Like I said, it's a beautiful film to watch, especially since it is shot in a small space with a lot of fixed angels, very little panning. The lighting is something pretty spectacular, as well. The acting is dead on, and the characters are believable and consistent throughout the movie. The only significant criticism that I can bring against this film is that empathy with the characters is challenged by the radical nature of their circumstances.

This movie is worth a watch, but don't expect jumpy-type horror or unnecessary gore. This one is meant to make your question, to puzzle. So if you don't like that, you won't like this one.

Utterly compelling and disturbing psychodrama...

[MrGKB · 8/10 · 7 February 2008]

...lays to rest forever any derogatory commentaries on Ashley Judd's acting chops. She and co-star Michael "World Trade Center" Shannon are simply astounding in their roles of (eventually) co-dependent paranoids on an express elevator to hell. "Bug" is one of the creepiest and most unsettling of stories one could hope to watch. Why it's rated so poorly here on the IMDb (including an astonishing 13.7% "1" votes) is mystifying. I can only surmise that IMDbers were so freaked out by it that they reflexively expressed their unease disproportionately. That, and there are no explosions or special fx or action sequences to be had.

"Bug" strikes me as one of the best stage-to-screen adaptations I've ever seen, and I say that without ever having seen the play! Steppenwolf Theatre alumnus Tracy Letts really hit the mark with this one, and director William "guess" Friedkin was the perfect choice to bring Letts' vision of loneliness and paranoid fear to claustrophobic life. "Bug" deserves a far wider audience than the IMDb vote tally indicates it's gotten, let alone its picayune (though profitable) box office.

"Bug" is, at its core, a cautionary tale about the dangers of isolation and loneliness, compounded by drug and alcohol abuse. It details the meeting of two broken spirits and their eventual destruction, drawing the viewer in like an automobile accident you can't tear your eyes away from. Superbly acted (Michael Shannon originated his role on stage), dynamically shot by Michael "The Dead Girl" Grady, impeccably edited by Darin Navarro, and scored by Brian "Rambo" Tyler, "Bug" is a must-see for any aficionado of films that plumb the darker depths of the human psyche. The only real criticism of it I might have would be the Act III appearance of Dr. Sweet, not because of Brian F. "The New World" O'Byrne's acting, which is ensemble perfect, but because of the character's seeming disregard for the obvious danger posed by his patient. Beyond that, there's not a false note to be found.

Outstanding psychodrama.

Edit: a recent rewatch reminded me I overlooked mentioning the fine support of Harry "Memphis Belle" Connick, Jr. as the heavy, and Lynn "John Carter" Collins flexing her chops. 11.05.12

Claustrophobic Paranoia

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 15 November 2007]

The loser and lonely waitress Agnes (Ashley Judd) lives in a cheap motel in Okalahoma grieving the disappearance of her beloved son Lloyd ten years ago. Her abusive ex-husband Jerry Goss (Harry Connick Jr.) has just left prison on probation and is insistently calling her. When her colleague and only friend, the lesbian RC (Lynn Collins), brings her drifter acquaintance Peter Evans (Michael Shannon) to visit her, they have an affair and Peter stays with Agnes in her room. Peter finds bugs in their bed, and discloses to Agnes that he was a soldier in the Gulf War submitted to experiments by the army and presently he is infested with bugs. Agnes feels the same symptoms and the couple believes in Peter's conspiracy theory of the American government.

"Bug" is a weird low-budget movie, set practically in one location, about paranoia and schizophrenia. The unpleasant story is very well acted, and Ashley Judd surprised me with a great interpretation of a lonely woman with a tragedy behind that feels attracted by a gentle man with delusional paranoia and schizophrenia tendency brilliantly performed by Michael Shannon. This movie is not bad, but it is absolutely predictable; I was disappointed since I expected a surprising twist in the end that never happens. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Possuídos" ("Possessed")

Not worth the match it would take to set the reel on fire!

[scottys2004 · 1/10 · 25 June 2007]

This film belongs in the "call my dentist, I'd much rather have a root canal" category. My wife and I attended this film, ignoring the fact that the usher had told us people were walking out on this movie in droves, and there were more than a few asking for a refund. We had already paid, and I thought, "How bad could it be"? I, and the three other people (including my wife) in the theater soon found out.

I love Ashley Judd. She is a superb actress. Harry Connick Jr. is a name actor/musician, but neither they, nor any actor on the planet could make this film enjoyable for me. Aside from these two names, you won't recognize anyone in this film. One of the main reasons is there are only three or four scenes that take place outside of the hotel room, and there are a total of five billed actors/actresses in the film. In addition, this movie is about paranoia in its most schizophrenic form, and the director of the film follows suit.

The story starts off boring enough… uh, I mean in the standard character developmental stage, but then it spirals downward into a twisted mess. The story/director are attempting to make you think, but really only annoy you with childish and transparent plot twists. The agonized guilt ridden mother is so easily manipulated that you want to retch your incredibly overpriced popcorn onto the screen. How, in this day and age, does a transient become significant part of your life in a couple of hours? Well, just watch Agnes White (Ashley Judd) forsake everything in her life for an ex-military transient who is so psychotic that he actually believes he has bugs in his teeth, planted by, you guessed it, Uncle Sam! Now it's bad enough that this character is that paranoid, but somehow, he is able to transfer this paranoia to our Heroine… speaking of which, they are using various drugs throughout the film. Not being a drug user I have to ask the question, do drugs make you this crazy? (SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER)

So, after all is said and done… our antagonist completes the psychotic paranoid transference to our protagonist… they come to accept their fate, and actually relish the fact the "bugs" (that do not exist of course) are their offspring… it is here they decide to pour gasoline (which has been inside the hotel room for hours, maybe days) over their bodies and burn themselves alive. Okay, it is here that I am actually happy because this film is OVER. The thing I like best at this point is that Agnes White (Ashley Judd) seems to realize how crazy this is in her final second of life and actually gasps when the flame is lit.

So there you go. If, after all this, you still want to see this movie I'm thinking you must be a masochist, but hey, to each his own. Maybe I'm the one that's crazy. Maybe this is the best film of all time. If you're in to the "12 Monkeys" or "Jacob's Ladder" type of films, you'll probably love this film. Me, I'd rather douse myself in gasoline and set myself on fire… oh wait, is that plagiarism?

Intense and Unique

[olsh666 · 10/10 · 23 November 2006]

Certainly not for everyone...but if you appreciate completely unique and intense cinema...check it out. I am so impressed by Ashley Judd, who I always liked, but had no idea of her range and courage. The film is very disturbing...I would describe it as a dark comedy that gets darker and darker and darker...calling it horror is too limited although there are horror elements to it. It reminds me of Cronenberg or early Polanski (Repulsion). But comparisons don't really do it justice. It's exciting to see that there are directors that still have guts. I was exhilarated and disturbed by the end of this film. I recommend it highly to anyone who wants something different and powerful.

What a great piece of film.

[red-nevermore-smith · 7/10 · 2 May 2021]

Both Ashley judd and Michael Shannon are amazing in their roles as two codependent delusional addicts.

Well worth a watch as they spiral ever deeper.

And stay tuned for the mid and after credit scene.

It Bugs Me and Most Everyone Else

[gorillagolanking · 5/10 · 30 May 2007]

I'm not sure why Ashley Judd continues to make suspense/horror/psychological thrillers? What compels her to these rolls of battered women on the verge of something terrible in the face of something awful at the threshold of something demonic/evil? Bug pretends to be a horror movie wrapped up in a meditation about abused women, drug abuse, love and the military-industrial complex as it pertains to conspiracy laden delusions spouted by a odd mumbling Heath Ledger in Brokeback type drifter played by Michael Shannon.

Adapted from a stage play by Tracy Letts this film starts well with interesting and sometimes surprisingly original dialog as would be expected from a semi-successful play. But alas, we are destined being the audience, to follow this inconsistent movie into the depths of paranoid dementia.

There's something about aphids running amok on and under the skin of Ashley and Michael. There's a muscle bound Harry Conick Jr. as Ms. Judd's ex-con ex-boyfriend, there are mysterious phones a ringing, and even references to the Tuskeegee experiments, and I'm sure something about UFO's even though I may or may not have heard that.

Basically, this is a movie that starts kind of well and descends quickly into an implausible conclusion that leaves the audience, well at least the audience I was with, to moan derision and to ho-hum all the way home.

Not so good. Don't do it.

Empathy will make you love this

[damianphelps · 6/10 · 26 September 2020]

I really enjoyed this movie. Judd was great in representing the suffering of her mental stresses. Shannon also delivers great support and drive, in their madness.

As the movie goes the insanity just keeps climbing and so do the performances.

I think if you disconnect from the movie and develop an 'as if ' attitude you will hate it, however if you buy in, you will connect with the paranoia and have a pretty entertaining if not an itchy time!

Get them off, GET THEM OFF!!!

Haha good fun film

A Very Different Sort of Horror Film...

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 7 June 2007]

Director William Friedkin (best known for a little film called "The Exorcist") brings us the tale of a woman (Ashley Judd), her violent ex-husband (Harry Connick, Jr.), her new boyfriend who may be a government experiment (Michael Shannon) and millions of invisible bugs. Paranoia, psychosis, drug use and possibly even the government combined to create a world of terror in one small apartment.

I went into this film blindly. I didn't see any trailers or know the plot -- I just saw the poster and my best friend Hannah said we were going to go see it. I can't say no to any film billed as horror if Hannah asks, so I went. While what I saw may not have been "horror", it was a great psychological trip that really worked best by not knowing what I was about to see.

The primary storyline is a drama mixed with very dark humor. The lead (Ashley Judd) is living alone in an apartment while fearing her husband, who is out of jail. She works as a waitress, has a crystal meth addiction, and no friends except for one (a lesbian named R.C.). So when a new man enters her life, she grudgingly accepts him before becoming completely enamored.

The dark humor follows almost completely from the dialog. Michael Shannon's delivery of lines is really funny. He has a start-stop approach I've never heard before and it made even very simple questions and answers very comical. This, more than anything, kept me focused on the film.

The horror elements don't show up until much later, when there are scenes of what I'll call "tooth trauma" and the death of one character (but I won't tell you who) in a fairly violent manner. I could call this psychological horror, but that's not really accurate -- if it scares you in any way, it's a scare to never do crystal meth.

What I liked about the film is when it was over the story seemed pretty concrete and even the stranger elements were wrapped up with a pretty common sense answer. Yet, upon further reflection, you have to wonder: who was making the phone calls? How did the doctor know about the missing son? Why was a doctor doing drugs? These questions are either anomalies or point to a much bigger behind-the-scenes plot from the very beginning.

This is the sort of film I loved but cannot recommend to anyone. I get the impression most people would come back and say, "you made me watch something incredibly stupid". And that's understandable. So, let's say this: I loved this film, think everyone should see it, but I don't recommend it, so if you do see it, I wasn't the one who encouraged you.

Exhausting modern-day horror story; Judd gives an Oscar-worthy performance

[george.schmidt · 7/10 · 27 June 2007]

BUG (2007) **1/2 Ashley Judd, Michael Shannon, Lynn Collins, Brian F. O'Byrne, Harry Connick, Jr. Unnerving and at times precious portrayal of paranoia-induced madness based on Tracy Letts' play about an abused white-trash woman (Judd, giving an Oscar caliber performance in one of her strongest turns in years) whose life takes a drastic change when she meets a seemingly nice, haunted man (Shannon getting his ya-yas out) who isn't all he appears to be when he reveals a psychosis triggered by the delusion he is infested with 'bugs' and transfers his fears onto the gullible lover. Director William Friedkin returns to the fold as a filmmaker to be reckoned with by making the horrors more esthetic and visceral than graphic (but indulges a bit there as well) yet by the finale (if you hang in there throughout the craziness) the viewer is spent in this exhaustive yet original modern-day horror story.

"BUG" - Different & dark, but still see this film...

[Angel-X · 5/10 · 5 June 2007]

Wow...is the first word I want to mumble! Talk about a different movie, this was what they tried to do here with this film "BUG" and with great success this was indeed accomplished. You never really know for certain in this movie, if this man was really a schizophrenic or was all he claimed real? He makes far-out claims to his only friend in the world, who happens to be a screwed up drunkard and junkie woman (that soon ends up being also a girlfriend) to this guy. He insists that he has been a victim of top secret experiments! Nothing less than a human guinea pig and example of a secret military government experiment. He says, he has been deliberately infected and implanted with the eggs of a supposedly high tech bug. Which is now out of control, taking over his body and living on his blood supply. The government supposedly did this to him as a top secret experiment on him and one other person? We never do really hear the truth or do we? But the case is, we even might believe that this man is (perhaps) instead very insane and schizophrenic and imagining this entire thing???? See it, if you dare. I can promise you this is a very strange film, but at the same time a very strong film and very well directed. You may never know the real truth? I can say, this man is insane and this woman also very insane! But before this film is finally at its end, you will be wondering too, just which story is indeed the true story? Remember we see mostly what they (think) they see or do we? This is a dark film and as it progresses it becomes even darker and it continues to do so up until its twisted end. The directer and the writer both did a great job creating this story line and making it work on film. As dark as this movie might be, it is still done without loosing our attention to its storyline and the presentation of the convincing talents of these actors. I think the intention is obvious here with this film, they wanted a strange and different tale to tell and they did a wonderful job doing just this. "BUG" the movie is filled with total paranoid ideas and plots all against this one man (or perhaps is it against the entire world?) Who knows or who can really say? Go see this one and be your own judge and jury! I have to say, this isn't the best film I have seen, but I am glad I went to see this one to be honest, just because I am the type of person that really likes movies that deliver some good challenges. The directer for this film deserves an applause.

~Angel-X~

Freaky and Tweaky

[delj · 9/10 · 28 May 2007]

*** CAUTION CONTAINS SPOILERS****

The commercials and previews for "Bug" are very very misleading. Most people go in expecting a sci-fi/horror flick. This movie has nothing supernatural or extraterrestrial about it. It's about drug induced paranoia and how insanely out of control it can get. "Bug" has more in common with "Requiem For A Dream" than say "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

Essentially "Bug" was about crystal meth addiction although I can't recall the word meth ever being used. There were cocaine references but I think those were curveballs so not to point out what was really happening. Think about it. White trash can't afford cocaine but they usually can afford crank, especially if they are cooking up their own. Crank lasts much longer than coke and a user needs a lot less. That there was always some powder on the mirror is more apt to be true about speed then coke because cocaine lasts a shorter amount of time hence runs out much faster... That Friedkin didn't feel the need to show them smoking/snorting every other scene was really quite clever. Here are several major hints.

1- Meth heads are uber conspiracy theory paranoid sorts. Crystal meth destroys the brain and induces schizophrenia/paranoia. The amazing rants that they go on is very true of what full blown tweakers do. Not to mention seeing imaginary bugs and picking at themselves to the point of self-mutilation.

2- Peter's diminished sex drive and then the ability to perform as well as he does is typical of users. When Peter brings back one small muffin for each of them for breakfast that's because tweakers don't eat much. When Agnes says 'we've only been together once but I would rather just talk/listen to you than be anywhere else' is also something a speed freak would say. They're spun and they're doing the tweaker thing together.

3- Goss keeps mentioning that she's lost weight and the disheveled condition of her room is also very telling. And when Goss sees the powder he makes a comment, tastes it, but does not snort up. You really think a convict like Goss would pass up a line of coke?

4- Full blown paranoid tweakers have been known to wall paper their entire apartments/ houses with aluminum foil. That the writer used this amazing element speaks volumes.

5- Crystal meth is cooked up with bug spray and gasoline. When Doctor Sweet sits on the gasoline can, he make a comment about knowing what the gas is for. I think Friedkin was hoping that the audience would figure it out instead of scratching their heads wondering when Agnes was going to turn into a giant spider...

Nice Dive

[Tweetienator · 7/10 · 28 August 2019]

Two people in a motel room are going more and more nuts. That's the story in a few words. What makes this movie special and highly recommendable are the performances by Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon. Bug is for sure no movie for the pure lover of mainstream, but for the connoisseur of the unusual it can be a rich dish. Bug: a nice chamber play and a dive into the maze of madness, and a story that gives so much and intense focus on the two main characters so the actors just can shine bright (skill provided).

Someone actually liked this?

[lil_h85 · 2/10 · 25 May 2007]

I went and watched this movie with my family,I chose this movie over Pirates of the Caribbean 3. Big mistake. I wanted to see something fresh, something scary and something that got good reviews. Bug was not a horror movie, it was a psychological thriller. But it isn't even that, if anything it is just a psychological mess. The whole movie just continued to drag on, everyone in the theater was very uneasy and expected something to happen. Nothing ever did happen, at least nothing good. I would advise people to watch something else at the theater and if you are curious about this movie, save your money and wait for it to come out on DVD. That way you can forward the movie to the end after realizing your wasting your time.

It is what it is...

[NAPOLEONWILSON1979 · 9/10 · 11 June 2007]

Many viewers have been bashing this film, and for the mainstream crowd expecting an obvious crowd-pleaser focused on one genre, I can completely understand why you didn't like the film. However, the film goes much deeper than it appears to be. Many people are expecting a horror film, and are confused by the intense monologues and the dark comedy mixed in with the self-inflicted torture and self-defense from the outside world, which are clearly characteristics of a psychological thriller. The movie was not meant to have any "heroes" or "villains", but it was meant to show everyday people in an everyday world, with one woman so lonely, so desperate to have someone who can love her, who finally finds someone who can read her, that she sets aside the fact that he is a paranoid schizophrenic who believes that someone is out to get him. After many hours and days spent together, cut off from society, she gradually becomes one with him, his madness slowly sinking into her mind as she joins him in his own delusional world. The film is not your average film, and will understandably turn off or confuse many viewers. Please note, however, that the film deals with an extremely serious illness that can't be "prettied up" or be made simpler to try and understand what's going on. It just presents itself in a straight-forward, natural form, which is usually tougher to understand and accept, much like the film.

I wasn't prepared for this the first viewing

[labng · 7/10 · 2 July 2020]

It was no less disturbing the second time. Being single can really be a pain sometimes... Stay off the internet. Meth is bad.

Just plain terrible!

[globalhunter22 · 1/10 · 25 May 2007]

Just to remind you all before I go any further with the review, I absolutely adore Ashley Judd! She's an amazing actress! However, this is easily one of her worst films to date! Technically, I can't blame Ashley for this movie sucking so bad, those hands lay solely on the director William Friedkin.

This movie should be panned for false advertisement, they practically had to trick movie goers into believing that this movie was about real bugs, when in fact it's nothing more than two nut cases in a shack! Everyone of my friends who attended the movie with me, all came to the same conclusion that this movie is "complete garbage!". Quite frankly, this movie should have went straight to DVD, at least then it would have been forgotten about in the bowels of the bargain bin. (Where it should lie dormant forever!)

The movie never really gets anywhere, it just spirals out of control and just gets more boring as time goes on (not to mention crazier). I kept praying that the movie would get better, but nope it just got increasingly worse! I strongly feel that Friendkin wanted the audience to feel as crazy as the two main characters! For those who cherish their sanity and their money, please do not waste your ample time with this mess!

Is this the "neo-grindhouse" type of movie?

[BigBabe0 · 27 May 2007]

Roy Orbison late in his life recorded a tune with the lyrics "Anything you want, you got it; anything you need, you got it; anything at all…." This came to mind as I was watching the new one from that veteran of "arty" schlock, William Friedkin. It amounts to a two-character stage play, only slightly "opened up" for cinema. Ashley Judd plays Agnes, a barmaid who's been "self-medicating" since the disappearance of her young son about a decade previously. Michael Shannon plays Peter, a drifter who's introduced to Agnes by the latter's apparently only friend, a gorgeous lesbian called R.C. (Ever notice that lesbians in real life never seem quite as cute as those in the movies?) Most of the rest of the movie is about the two of them going crazy together because Agnes will do literally anything to hang on to him. Warning for horror fans: despite the cleverly edited trailer, there are no actual bugs here (that we can see, anyway) (except in a few hallucinatory inserts) and very little gore (one scene will remind you of Nick Nolte performing some home dentistry in "Affliction"). This is more like Friedkin channeling David Lynch and Harold Pinter.

Judd is the chief reason to see this; she's so keenly on the mark (at least until the script asks her to jump off a cliff; more on this below) that after a while I was wishing I could preserve this character for a better flick. Her Agnes has a convincingly worn-around-the-edges look. She reminds me of some women I've known working in factories and whatnot, maybe not the highest IQ but they have "street smarts" and are used to fending for themselves in life, often with minimal assistance (if not abuse) from the husband/boyfriend/significant other(s). Agnes' own "ball and chain" is an ex-con named Jerry who re-appears in her life out of the blue after possibly making a series of prank phone calls to her (exactly who made the calls and why is one of the items never spelled out for us). Harry Connick Jr. is perfect as Jerry with his laid-back menace and tattooed musculature. The scenes with the two of them ring so true that they make the later histrionics with Peter (whom we can spot as a nut before he even opens his mouth; it's always "the quiet guys") seem all the more outlandish in comparison.

Here's why this ultimately doesn't work for me: Judd from "Ruby in Paradise" onwards has always emanated a kind of inner strength and core of common sense, a residual humanity that is what has always attracted me to her. Even in those potboilers from the 1990's and early 2000's she was able to transcend her often two-dimensional character and make you believe the person has existed beyond the confines of the screen. In "Bug" she is asked to betray this quality; while she's a good actress she's not quite good enough to pull this off. It doesn't help that her transition into shared lunacy is handled so jarringly; one moment she's questioning the existence of bugs that only Peter can see, the next she's sharing his hallucination of helicopters shaking the building. We know Agnes is one of the "walking wounded" but there are many such people; they mostly don't "lose it," which is why it's news when one of them does (e.g. that female astronaut). We would have needed to see right from the get-go that Agnes has a few screws loose; if Judd was showing us that, I for one missed it. (If she's as DESPERATELY LONELY as we're asked to believe, why not just let Jerry back into her life? Or why doesn't she just go find a guy, or gal? Oklahoma's not the surface of the moon, believe it or not.) From the moment we see all the fly paper hanging from the ceiling, "Bug" gets ever less buyable (and more derivative). With Peter and Agnes dissolving into a mish-mash of shrieks, screams and self-mutilation, I kept wondering where were the cops with a couple of strait-jackets. Judd's performance comes to remind one of Julianne Moore in "Freedomland": the more she hysterically emotes, the more conscious we are of watching an actress as opposed to a character; "suspension of disbelief" goes out the window. The movie's early naturalistic tone also makes the later plot holes more gaping: Why do we never see Agnes' neighbors getting alarmed (is she the only one living there?); when Jerry arrives with the alleged doctor, where is he biding his time until knocking on the door again after the murder; who ordered the pizza? If it's all just taking place inside someone's head like "Videodrome" or "Identity," what are we left with? I think Friedkin wants to have his cake and eat it too: have us accept it both as externally viewed drama and inner phantasmagoria, but as the late Dwight Macdonald pointed out, "If all the cards are wild, you can't play poker….."

To be fair, there are some nice creepy moments and foreboding atmosphere in the best "X-Files" tradition, in fact this probably would have worked better on the small screen; I wouldn't be surprised to see it available on demand on "FEARnet" in the near future. (Sometimes not having had to pay to see a film frees it up to be more likable….sometimes not.) The handful of actors all rise to the occasion. I liked the suggestion that Peter was acquainted with the late Timothy McVeigh (I won't remind you who that is; it's a shame if I need to) but such references (government conspiracies etc.) would have been more compelling if we'd heard them during Peter's earlier more lucid stage. Still it's nice to see Friedkin this late in the game working so low-budget and "balls to the walls"; I'd rather go see this again than the umpteenth "Spiderman" or "Shrek" or "Pirates" or whatever other pre-fab corporate crap comes down the pike…..