Bug

  • Release Date: May 25, 2007
User Score
4.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 95 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 95
  2. Negative: 40 out of 95

Where To Watch

Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Frank
    Jun 1, 2007
    2
    Very slow and pointless. Terrible beginning, middle, and end. Not even worth seeing for free.
  2. JoM.
    May 28, 2007
    1
    The only reason I am giving this movie a "1" is because Ashley Judd is a fantastic actress; her character in this movie is sweet, desperate, and vulnerable, and you can't help but be convinced. Otherwise, I will say that this is the absolute worst movie I can ever remember seeing in a theatre. Do not be deceived by the critic reviews, this movie will waste 2 hours of your life... We The only reason I am giving this movie a "1" is because Ashley Judd is a fantastic actress; her character in this movie is sweet, desperate, and vulnerable, and you can't help but be convinced. Otherwise, I will say that this is the absolute worst movie I can ever remember seeing in a theatre. Do not be deceived by the critic reviews, this movie will waste 2 hours of your life... We left the theatre amid snickers and mad comments from fellow audience members; apparently no one could believe that they had wasted money on this movie, much less that the movie ever made it to the big screen. It starts off slow & never picks up, and just goes downhill from there, spiraling into a train wreck of weirdness and stupidity. If you want to see a film about paranoia, stick with "A Beautiful Mind" or take a psych class. It would've been almost comical if I hadn't spent twenty bucks on the tickets. Heed my warning; don't waste your hard-earned money. Expand
  3. JSmith
    May 28, 2007
    0
    First movie in a long while that I was tempted to walk out on. This flick is for only those people who like to watch wack-o people doing their wack-o thing.
  4. Wooderson
    May 28, 2007
    2
    Rapidly descends into arch absurdity. A little restraint by the lead actor or opening up to a more cinematic feel might have helped.
  5. KayB.
    Oct 9, 2007
    1
    hello? hello? are you kidding me? where are the bugs? two crazy lonely people that can't face reality alone. don't we have enough of that in our day to day lives.
  6. M.V.
    Jun 4, 2007
    0
    Can I give this a -1?? Warning: Stay Away From This Movie!! Do not pay any money whether at the cinema or as a rental. I begged my wife to let us leave the theater to no avail. She wanted to see if it got better. It got worse. People were laughing and leaving. By far the worst movie I have ever seen. Ashley Judd's career is officially over, RIP... her husband won the Indy 500, so at Can I give this a -1?? Warning: Stay Away From This Movie!! Do not pay any money whether at the cinema or as a rental. I begged my wife to let us leave the theater to no avail. She wanted to see if it got better. It got worse. People were laughing and leaving. By far the worst movie I have ever seen. Ashley Judd's career is officially over, RIP... her husband won the Indy 500, so at least someone is doing well. The Critics Gave This Slop a 60, So It Is Official, Critics Know Nothing About Movies... Expand
  7. BrookeW
    Oct 1, 2007
    2
    Previews for Bug made the movie seem like a thriller about a virus that causes insanity or delusions
  8. BrandiJ.
    Jun 3, 2007
    0
    I cannot believe that the critics found this movie so intriguing. I had to convince my husband to stay thinking it may get better. I was mistaken. The movie began badly and continued to get worse as the movie progressed. It was painful to watch 2 people become more and more insane as the movie proceeds. I could not recommend this movie to anyone even as a renter. I normally find value in I cannot believe that the critics found this movie so intriguing. I had to convince my husband to stay thinking it may get better. I was mistaken. The movie began badly and continued to get worse as the movie progressed. It was painful to watch 2 people become more and more insane as the movie proceeds. I could not recommend this movie to anyone even as a renter. I normally find value in every movie I see but this was a waste of 2 hours and $9. Expand
  9. RicardoC.
    Jun 3, 2007
    0
    Don't waste your time with this piece of nothing.
  10. JR
    Jun 4, 2007
    0
    The worst movie ever! I will be asking for a refund on this movie. Someone must've owed a favor to let this movie hit theatres!!
  11. KayannS.
    Jun 7, 2007
    0
    This movie made absolutely no sense whatsoever please do not waste your precious time (which its so not worth) and money to see this senseless film. By the way there were no BUGS in the movie...and a total of seven characters. Wow this is the first and worst ever movie for me.
  12. Frankv
    May 28, 2007
    2
    Distasteful is all that I can say. WHY would Ashley Judd make play a role as a drugged-up, alcoholic, lesbo? Is this a good career move? It was certainly misrepresented in the trailers as a sci-fi horror movie, which it is not. Virtually everyone coming out of the movie wanted a refund. I even saw someone coming out warn away someone who was buying a ticket for the next showing.
  13. GeorgeH.
    May 29, 2007
    0
    The "Showgirls" of Horror!!! The most unintentionally funny thriller in recent memory. I am very surprised people are taking Bug" seriously. At fault - Friedkin 100%. It starts out fine with charming, subtle and quirky humor when the bugs start to come out, he has Judd and Shannon hamming it up so greatly that all sense of reality is broken and it's then that the movie becomes a The "Showgirls" of Horror!!! The most unintentionally funny thriller in recent memory. I am very surprised people are taking Bug" seriously. At fault - Friedkin 100%. It starts out fine with charming, subtle and quirky humor when the bugs start to come out, he has Judd and Shannon hamming it up so greatly that all sense of reality is broken and it's then that the movie becomes a comedy. I saw the film in a crowded Chicago theater and we roared with laughter! Even the set in the final scene got laughs. A well-made film but totally misguided with very poor choices abounding. Still, my advice is, "Go see it! It's hysterical!" Expand
  14. AW.
    May 29, 2007
    0
    This movie has no redeeming value... it is clear that it was made for the stage and was probably a decent enough piece for the theater, but it dies a painful and annoying death on the screen. The theater was full when it started and half the people walked out along the way... I kept waiting for it to turn the corner, however, perhaps mercifully the credits started to roll.
  15. BobJ.
    May 31, 2007
    0
    the most appealing part of the movie were the preveiws before it, not even flashing some breasts makes the movie watchable
  16. JimS
    Jun 4, 2007
    1
    Terrible movie. If you had nothing to do on a rainy Saturday afternoon, and you were stuck inside in traction; and your TV were stuck on one channel; and Bug was playing on that channel, I would still not recommend it. It is really bad. Ashley Judd way over acted. Her co-star, what's his name, is much better. This is an adaptation of a stage play, and maybe if you really like stage Terrible movie. If you had nothing to do on a rainy Saturday afternoon, and you were stuck inside in traction; and your TV were stuck on one channel; and Bug was playing on that channel, I would still not recommend it. It is really bad. Ashley Judd way over acted. Her co-star, what's his name, is much better. This is an adaptation of a stage play, and maybe if you really like stage acting, you will enjoy it. I personally do not like the over-dramatization necessary for stage acting and I really did not like Bug. Expand
  17. TomY
    Jun 5, 2007
    0
    It tries to present two sides of a story that leaves the viewer in a state of stupendous wonder. Instead, they leave thinking "why should i care?!?!"
  18. MartinZ.
    Jan 18, 2008
    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 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
  19. JenC
    Nov 20, 2007
    1
    that was the biggest waste of my time. What is the deal with the bugs, are they really there or are the people just delusional? And was it really necessary to light yourself on fire? The only part that sparked any emotion is me is the pity i felt for Ashley Judd's character, that she needed to be loved so bad that she was willing to put up with psycho path bug boy. Lame.
  20. DWilly
    May 26, 2007
    3
    Come on, critic-people, this is not a good movie. I saw the play with Michael Shannon and he and it have not translated well to the screen. It's just stupid... at times, laughably so. It would have taken real interpretive talent (way beyond Ashley Judd's skill set, never mind Harry Conick Jr.'s) to bring off what has here just been done by the numbers. Maybe the material is Come on, critic-people, this is not a good movie. I saw the play with Michael Shannon and he and it have not translated well to the screen. It's just stupid... at times, laughably so. It would have taken real interpretive talent (way beyond Ashley Judd's skill set, never mind Harry Conick Jr.'s) to bring off what has here just been done by the numbers. Maybe the material is just so whacked the reviewers thought it had to be important. Expand
  21. AutumnM.
    May 28, 2007
    0
    This is the worst waste of time and money I have ever encountered...I was sorely tempted to leave half-way through the show.
  22. BeckyG.
    May 31, 2007
    0
    Absolutely the worst movie ever made, ok, maybe not ever made. I too wanted my money back as did just about everyone in the theater. Why would such a talented actress to this to herself. I love scifi, but this was definitely not that. A huge disappointment. Run far, far away. Don't even recommend spending money to rent it, as it will be out on video soon enough.
  23. MelissaD.
    May 31, 2007
    1
    This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen...I was expecting it to be good after reading that it received so many favorable reviews, but I was severely disappointed. It started off ok, but just as soon as I thought it was going to get really interesting it just got irritating. The dialogue was too forced, and the last 20 minutes were way too over the top and it ended in the most This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen...I was expecting it to be good after reading that it received so many favorable reviews, but I was severely disappointed. It started off ok, but just as soon as I thought it was going to get really interesting it just got irritating. The dialogue was too forced, and the last 20 minutes were way too over the top and it ended in the most disappointing way...definitely do not recommend it. Collapse
  24. D.Martinez
    Jun 14, 2007
    0
    Unbelievably bad movie! Total waste of money, horrible story, you name it. Probably in the top 10 worst movies of all time.
  25. OhWhen
    Jul 15, 2007
    0
    I hadn't even seen the previews before I saw this flick. I wasn't expecting a horror movie and had an open mind. What I saw rivaled the "Ernest Goes To....." movies in its retardedness. I can't believe this movie was even made. Not even Ashley Judd's marginally attractive breasts could make up for the worst screenplay in years. If you liked this movie, I can virtually I hadn't even seen the previews before I saw this flick. I wasn't expecting a horror movie and had an open mind. What I saw rivaled the "Ernest Goes To....." movies in its retardedness. I can't believe this movie was even made. Not even Ashley Judd's marginally attractive breasts could make up for the worst screenplay in years. If you liked this movie, I can virtually guarantee you own a Nickelback CD. Expand
  26. MikeF.
    Sep 26, 2007
    0
    worst movie of the year. It's watching two mildly retarded people talking in a hotel room becoming more and more paranoid. The plot makes no sense. This is not a thriller nor a horror. It is not intense nor provocative. It is ridiculous, slow, and confusing.
Metascore
62

Generally favorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 29
  2. Negative: 1 out of 29
  1. With his (Friedkin) vigorous camera compositions and a talented cast, he manages to straddle a wickedly fine line between taught portrayal of paranoia and parody of paranoia.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    40
    A ranting, claustrophobic drama that trades in shopworn paranoid notions, William Friedkin's overwrought screen version of Tracy Letts' play assaults the viewer with aggressive thesping and over-the-top notions of shocking incident, all to intensely alienating effect.
  3. Has the feverish compression of live theater and the moody expansiveness of film. The mix is insanely powerful.