Bug
  • Release Date: May 25, 2007
  • Starring: Ashley Judd, Harry Connick Jr., Michael Shannon
  • Summary: Probing the blurry lines between paranoia and nightmarish reality, Bug is an intense, mind-bending psychological thriller in which nothing is quite as it seems. (Lionsgate)
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 29
  2. Negative: 1 out of 29
  1. A triumph for Judd and the director.
  2. Reviewed by: Don R. Lewis
    60
    It's a tough one to recommend to everyone. Just know now this isn't a horror film as they're making it out to be nor is it a true return to form for Friedkin. Even so, it's worth seeing but perhaps as a DVD rental further down the road.
  3. 30
    A humorless picture, a somber, arty exercise in deep denial of its exploitation roots. The dialogue is stiff and mechanical and the performances are too.

See all 29 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 57
  2. Negative: 26 out of 57
  1. This film is a huge **** It starts off interesting and ends perfectly and it shows just how far 2 people can go into madness. I think the leads were great and played their roles perfectly. I really liked this film. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. 5
    This is a very strange film. A friend recommended it to me, so I went for it. In the beginning I was excited, I thought it had potential, for it seemed an original idea; but after the first 30 minutes, it started becoming slow, and so repetitive that I started predicting what will happen...or I better say: I thought that nothing more interesting will happen- and I was right. Still, I had hope. Nevertheless, the movies started losing its appeal and became disturbingly monotonous, almost soporific. Sadly, It ended up being just a below average movie with great performances. It was so tedious that there was a point in which I only wanted the movie to finish, so I could take it out and play another one! Someone may say that this is a good movie for those interested in human psyche! Yeah, it may...but well I am a sociologist and anthropologist, doing my PhD in cognitive-aesthetic Anthropology, so I am definitely into human psyche, and even though this movie explores some aspects of it, yet, it ends up being a cliche. As a scientist, I don't think is truly psychological film, but a psycho-mess; but, The producers want you to believe that this is a clever, original, resourceful, incredible psychological thriller, when it is not! (Evidently, this is not horror,). There were also many lose things; I am sure it wasn't purposedly for in this case, ambiguity doesn't add anything to the movie, but the opposite. Some possible questions, however, were subtlely answered: after the credits, we heard the phone ringing and the camera leads us to the room, where is stops and shows us some toys; thus, we can infer that what they are trying to tell us is that the one calling was the kid, Lloyd, who by that time would be 16yo. As a whole, lots of talking, but a static, tiresome plot . The ending : Predictable! An Interesting idea for a movie that ended up going nowhere. Somehow, I feel cheated!... Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. MartinZ.
    3
    Suspension of disbelief is what my professors & books said about filmmaking... This film, sadly, does not allow me to experience that concept after the first 30 minutes. It starts out very slow and then just gets unbelievable. SPOILER ALERT (kind of) - how do you not get kicked out of a motel with no income...how long does it take for a working, responsible, lonely person to become totally insane (there is NO concept of time in this film, that's why I ask...days/weeks/months/who knows)...why would the ex not pop-in a little quicker once the screaming begins...why would a pizza show up at that moment and nothing come from it - nothing at all... I wanted to like it but the last 20 minutes I had my hand on the remote ready to hit the power button. That's what I get for being curious. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes

See all 57 User Reviews

Trailers