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. halb
    Oct 5, 2007
    6
    Wow, what a final 30 minutes. I liked it up until that point; then Agnes (Judd) simply goes WAY overboard, which I guess we could all see coming, but it simply wasn't believable... "I AM THE SUPER MOTHER BUG!!!" ?? Puh-leeze. Probably works much better on the stage. Oh well, at least it wasn't boring. The actor who plays Peter (Michael Shannon) gives an incredible performance. Wow, what a final 30 minutes. I liked it up until that point; then Agnes (Judd) simply goes WAY overboard, which I guess we could all see coming, but it simply wasn't believable... "I AM THE SUPER MOTHER BUG!!!" ?? Puh-leeze. Probably works much better on the stage. Oh well, at least it wasn't boring. The actor who plays Peter (Michael Shannon) gives an incredible performance. And Judd looks pretty darn good naked. Collapse
  2. BillC.
    May 31, 2007
    5
    MY rating is a bit of a cop-out. The movie is excellant , IF you decided to see it and you go in knowing something about what's in the film.At times it seemed very David Lynch-ish. If someone is billing this as a horror film or a slasher movie they got it wrong. It's a well done , small film about insanity/madness and how bizarre and far away from reality someone can get. MY rating is a bit of a cop-out. The movie is excellant , IF you decided to see it and you go in knowing something about what's in the film.At times it seemed very David Lynch-ish. If someone is billing this as a horror film or a slasher movie they got it wrong. It's a well done , small film about insanity/madness and how bizarre and far away from reality someone can get. It's a well crafted , well acted movie about a subject few may find entertaining to watch. It's about as far as one can get from being a popcorn movie. Expand
  3. PhilO.
    May 30, 2007
    5
    If one intends to enjoy this film thoroughly, one must unequivocally submit themselves to it, investing every ounce of attention and logical reasoning possible. At times, this can be very exhausting, considering the fact that the causes and effects of the storyline are not wholly apparent. However, with that being said, the film is not a passive experience, and this bit of success can be If one intends to enjoy this film thoroughly, one must unequivocally submit themselves to it, investing every ounce of attention and logical reasoning possible. At times, this can be very exhausting, considering the fact that the causes and effects of the storyline are not wholly apparent. However, with that being said, the film is not a passive experience, and this bit of success can be attributed to the claustrophobic-style of filming that can only be executed this well by the director, William Friedkin. Also, Ashley Judd and the relatively new actor Michael Shannon provide astounding performances, seeming to abandon themselves to their characters. Connick, Jr. also provides a gritty performance, worthy of applaud. Nonetheless, the screenplay is based on a theatrical play written by Steppenwolf grad Tracy Letts, which speaks volumes to me: Bug would probably fare much better on stage than on screen. Expand
  4. MarthaP.
    Jun 2, 2007
    5
    There is a lot to like in this gritty, claustrophobic, sometimes funny, horror movie. But the writing lacks coherence and logic. The political rants are not grounded. Implausible tragedy and madness, granted, are hard to write well.
  5. JonathanH.
    Jun 3, 2007
    5
    This movie was a big disappointment. The title and movie poster give the idea that the film is a science fiction/horror film along the lines of 28 Days. Only about halfway into it, did I realize it was just an overwrought drama about characters with various forms of mental illness. The opening sequence (a distance shot of a trashy motel taken by helicopter) was fantastic and full of This movie was a big disappointment. The title and movie poster give the idea that the film is a science fiction/horror film along the lines of 28 Days. Only about halfway into it, did I realize it was just an overwrought drama about characters with various forms of mental illness. The opening sequence (a distance shot of a trashy motel taken by helicopter) was fantastic and full of promise (reminiscent of one of the early scenes of the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead which shows the carnage from a distance, by helicopter), but how boring to realize that the movie is not about real bugs (an interesting topic in these days of germ warfare) but imagined ones. Expand
  6. SamK.
    Sep 28, 2007
    5
    I'll have to go in between.....awesome acting, and the first hour or so is really intriguing..and then it sinks into craziness. Oh, and there are no bugs to be seen, in case you're wondering. Great performances by Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon if that's your things. And some full frontal nudity if you wanna see what Judd looks like with no clothes on but other than that I'll have to go in between.....awesome acting, and the first hour or so is really intriguing..and then it sinks into craziness. Oh, and there are no bugs to be seen, in case you're wondering. Great performances by Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon if that's your things. And some full frontal nudity if you wanna see what Judd looks like with no clothes on but other than that nothing to write home about. A strange movie indeed.... Expand
  7. syzygy
    May 27, 2007
    4
    By its denouement, it was shrill. Friedkin turned tone deaf two-thirds of the way in, and I'm growing here for compliments. The leads are admirable with decent material, but the tiring focus on Judd and Shannon's descent into self-destruction is anemic.
  8. Jan 16, 2012
    6
    The plot is interesting but its rather confusing as well and will probably require a second watch or even a third to really understand it. The acting is amazing though and the cast is severely underrated imo. Michael Shannon plays his part perfectly. Its well worth the watch imo.
  9. Apr 6, 2012
    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 hadThis 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
  10. May 9, 2016
    4
    An unsettling and truly hypnotic film on occasion, Bug is far too willing to descend into madness with its characters and prefers graphic violence over subtleties and atmosphere. For a psychological thriller to work, it has to have a truly chilling atmosphere that really messes with your mind. Bug does mess with you a good bit as it reaches the end, but far too often, it feels more comedicAn unsettling and truly hypnotic film on occasion, Bug is far too willing to descend into madness with its characters and prefers graphic violence over subtleties and atmosphere. For a psychological thriller to work, it has to have a truly chilling atmosphere that really messes with your mind. Bug does mess with you a good bit as it reaches the end, but far too often, it feels more comedic than thrilling as you have to laugh at the fact somebody thought this would be scary. That said, Michael Shannon and Ashley Judd are phenomenal here, but the film's hypnotic and wholly claustrophobic setting wears out its welcome eventually and becomes more of a grating experience than a truly horrifying one. While it has its occasional high notes, Bug takes a lot of shots and misses on most of them, though Friedkin knows how to craft good horror and does so here on occasion, just not with regularity. Overall, Bug may nick, but never bites. Expand
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.