Bug (1975)

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

This is a movie about fire breathing bugs that come of the earth when there is an earth quake in a small American town. Like all horror movies it as an interesting concept. But this one does not have a good script. It is not scary. The story line is awful. The ending is awful. The acting is awful. I do not know what motive of the mean character is. He makes designations and not why he does them. They over did it victims. I need more line and I am running out of things to say. This a bad movie. Bad movie bad movie. Do not waste your time. Do not waste your money. Do not see this movie. This movie is stinky pooh pooh. It is one of the worst horror movie ever.

BUG is a truly awful film.The "story" is a about a scientist who studies some underground bugs who turn up after an earthquake opens a small fissure in the desert. The scientist studies them and realizes that they're intelligent and can also burn people. A few (and I really mean a "few") people fall victim to these bugs. When a "queen" ends up in the fissure, the bugs start flying, burns the scientist who conveniently ends up in the fissure, which subsequently gets covered up again, leaving no trace of the bugs behind. That's it.It spends a slow 99 minutes to expand on a not so complex story (one man vs big pyro-cockroaches) and then effectively doesn't go anywhere with a climax that kills its only main character and the potentially cool idea of killer incendiary bugs. You basically spend 99 minutes with a single unlikeable character, in a grubby surrounding along with some not too convincing insects, all for nothing. Not scary, not suspenseful, not fascinating in any way, shape or form. Had this been a 30 minutes Twilight Zone episode, it would have been fine but for a feature film, it's painfully flat and dreadful. I can barely describe it as a movie. It's a micro-movie.If you want to see a fantastic "man vs bug" story, check out PHASE IV. Now that's a brilliant movie to be reckon with.

This was a surprise: not only is it a solid entry in the monster animal cycle of the 1970s, but it eventually took a totally unexpected path which elevates the film above most of its kind (reminiscent of the well-regarded PHASE IV [1974]). Another big plus here is the excellent central performance by Bradford Dillman – his presence in any film is always welcome, but I've rarely seen him this good! I'm not squeamish about bugs, so I wasn't bothered by having to watch a film with hordes of them menacing a community (unlike snakes, for instance – which has kept me from checking out SSSSSSS [1973] during this Halloween challenge!); even so, it's not that the insects are used throughout for any overtly revolting effect. Like I said at the beginning – thanks also to the unenthusing write-ups on it by both Leslie Halliwell and Leonard Maltin (online assessment at the time of Paramount's DVD release, then, is split pretty much down the middle) – I had anticipated this to be a typical (read: low-brow) small-town-invaded-by-insects film a' la THE SWARM (1978), presenting a succession of contrived situations where various cast members meet a grisly death at the hands of the bugs.While it has a few scenes in this vein to cater to just that section of its intended audience – and the fact that they are combustible (their sudden emergence the direct cause of an impressively-staged earthquake) certainly provides a novel touch for this type of film! – the second half virtually revolves exclusively around Dillman's obsession with the insects (following the death of his wife, who fell victim to them). In fact, he isolates a number of bugs in a pressurized container for experimental purposes – the result of his endeavor is, however, far greater than he could have imagined: the concept of intelligent carnivorous bugs must have seemed like the height of silliness on paper, but there's no denying that its execution in cinematic terms is reasonably persuasive and downright scary (especially since they keep evolving into ever more diabolical creatures)! The film makes use of an electronic score for maximum unsettling effect; incidentally, this proved to be notorious showman producer William Castle's swan-song (he also co-wrote the script with Thomas Page, author of the novel on which it was based).

Cockroaches are creepy enough. Cockroaches with incendiary powers are creepier. But cockroaches with arsonist capabilities who can reason and think and mount an organized attack, that's just downright terrifying. The special effects weren't all that special, yet somehow this movie always frightened me. I remember rumors that somewhere they had used real foot-long roaches, but I don't know the validity in that. Still, this is not just another monster bug movie, like all those killer bees, killer ants and killer spider movies that dominated the '70's. Based on a Thomas Page novel called The Hephaestus Plague, Bug centered on a scientist played by Bradford Dillman, studying subterranean roaches released from an earthquake. The scene that always stuck with me; bugs on the wall, spelling Parmiter, the scientist's name. So if you're looking for explosions and action, or if you're looking for blood and gore, you might want to keep looking. But if you're in the mood for something original and a little creepy, then you might want to check this out.