Bug - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Bug Reviews

Page 1 of 529
½ July 27, 2017
Bug relies on the work of Judd and Shannon to carry the film, which they do for the most part. Unfortunately the two leads did go over the top (Shannon specifically). However, This creepy little drama has an interesting message about loss and paranoia, and for that, it was worth a watch
May 28, 2017
I think I might just wait for it to come out on DVD..
May 7, 2017
It's Ashley Judd right? That's one of the reasons i picked this up from the pile..And i haven't regret it..A very original script. I enjoyed it till the end..!
March 25, 2017
The lingering paranoia, witty writing, tight direction, and excellent performances make Bug an engrossing experience from beginning to end.
March 18, 2017
Compelling. Michael Shannon is particularly excellent.
½ February 21, 2017
this movie sucked bad we still don't know who was calling the phone. how do u make a movie and leave it with unanswered questions this is the worst movie I seen in my life.
Super Reviewer
½ February 19, 2017
A low budget psychological horror film about the folie a deux of a lonely woman and a schizophreniac in a remote hotel. They believe there is a conspiracy to hatch bugs as bioweapon using their bodies, but is this a delusion?

The acting was pretty convincing but the plot is way too predictable.
February 18, 2017
I wish I had liked this more -- I saw glimmers of potential.
January 25, 2017
I've read good things about it.
½ January 23, 2017
Judd & Shannon played their parts very well -- i didn't super love the movie, actually, but they were very convincing. shows how obsession/paranoia/delusion can affect you -- scary stuff.
½ January 22, 2017
Ashley Judd is living in the middle of no where to hid from her ex husband. She ends up meeting Michael Shannon through a friend and he spends the night over. However,he starts to explain how he has bugs inside him that are a result of medical experiments by the government. It hints that everything might not what it appears to be when the motel is being torn apart, but it is ok. It never really explores that too much though. It just felt too simple, the acting isn't anything special, the story has been done a million times and done better. So you're left with a pretty lame, straight-to-video affair, which is what this is.
½ January 15, 2017
The name's Pizza, Pizza Harris.
November 27, 2016
Pretty fun little horror/drama. Darkly comedic, too? Haha... surprisingly good.
October 20, 2016
Horrifying and claustrophobic with stellar performances by Michael Shannon and Ashley Judd. It is restricted by being chiefly a play set to film, but a very good one at that. Friedkin holds no punches, and there were moments I had to look away from the screen because the action was so off-putting. But the actors/characters matched the drama and I believed them the whole time.
September 11, 2016
A psychological horror / thriller with a low-budget cast who all put in very impressive performances. If you have a phobia of insects then this is a film to scare the life out of you. Otherwise, it's not a scary film but it is somewhat disturbing.
August 9, 2016
This movie is total govt propaganda. Everything that the character Peter tells Agnes is the actual truth, yet it's wrapped around a supposed "delusional schizophrenic" to make it seem like whoever says these things is just plain crazy. Take from it what you will, but that's what I saw.
July 30, 2016
If you ask me, William Friedkin is a criminally overlooked director and even when his name comes up, it's often related to "The Exorcist" and that's a shame because, while he had his share of flops, overall, he "aged" better than the likes of John Carpenter and even Wes Craven.
Actually, come to think of it - and I know I might be inviting scorn from some horror fans - "The Exorcist" is far from showcasing this director's skill. Yes, it's a well made film, but I found it nowhere near as scary or as effective as it is claimed to be.
It's not as well crafted as "Carrie", nor as frightening as "The Serpent and the rainbow", nor is it as disturbing and unpleasant as "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".
And while "Bug" is not a horror film, it does a far better job in showcasing his directorial skills. The camerawork is great and the story, while far from being original, is properly rendered(even if it offers a rather lousy ending), the performances are solid and, most important, the resulting film is not just another silicone product on the market.
Within the past twenty years or so, there have been dozens of films tackling on "conspiracist" grounds.
But few of them chose to dissect their mechanisms instead of wallowing in their juicy narratives. And "Bug" does just that. It takes your casual conspiracy theory(in this case, one involving bugs) and dissects it. Only it doesn't do it in the academical way(fortunately. Otherwise, it would have really been a tedious experience). There is no strong rational side here, cause there is no need for that: it would have gotten in the way without offering much help.
Instead we watch Peter play out his conspiratorial fantasy, we watch that unfold, we see how it works and how, pretty much like a parasite, moves on to another vessel. Cause this is what happens in the end.
Conspiracies often take basic inconvenient truths and exacerbate them to the point where they catch apocalyptic proportions. And they do this by using narratives, because people are suckers for narratives. This is how they get to so many. Every good conspiracy theory, no matter how crazy and illogical is, in the end, offers a juicy narrative. It's a psychological con-job. And this is where "Bug" shines, in how accurate its depiction is. And for this alone, the sloppy ending is forgivable.

My two cents: 4 out of 5.
June 8, 2016
This may come from the director of "The Exorcist," so people classify it as a horror film, but don't expect a boogeyman to jump out and go "boo!" or a machete wielding maniac to hack up a few horny teenagers. No, this horror is the absolute worst kind of horror that any human being, in or outside the cinema, can experience: psychological. The mind can imagine horrors worse than any monster or movie maniac. The basic plot is this: an abused waitress living in a hole in the wall motel in Oklahoma opens her door to a nice guy drifter. What starts out as a meet-cute between a traumatized woman (her son went missing years ago and her abusive ex is out on parole) and a sensitive man soon descends into a chaotic madness that has them (and us) questioning the very fabric of reality. It's such a fantastically terrifying journey that you won't believe how it all ends. I normally don't care for Ashley Judd, but she plays her character, a damaged soul who hides her pain and loneliness behind a mixture of drugs, booze, and sarcasm, to absolute perfection. Michael Shannon is so intense every second he's on screen, you can't take your eyes off him. Suave jazz singer and Broadway star Harry Connick Jr successfully transforms himself into a low down, white trash, woman beating sumbitch. The minimalist direction of Friedkin really amplifies the mounting tension and unbearable agony of the story. So, as long as you're not going into this horror movie expecting a gory slasher flick or any of the usual business, you will be pleasantly surprised and left quite scared.
May 9, 2016
William Friedkin proves that he can still make a great film even in as he gets older, with this claustrophobic drama about a alcoholic/drug-addicted lonely woman that lost her son and is fearing the return of convict ex-husband, who befriends a quiet drifter...but their friendship takes bizarre turns when it turns out the drifter is possibly a paranoid and delusional veteran. It is a fine little film that mostly takes place in one small location, and really rides on the fantastic performances of Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon. They are both tremendous as he becomes increasingly erratic and she falls deeper and deeper into his delusions.
½ March 18, 2016
Ashley Judd can play any role. But I still am not sure why I watched this movie...
Page 1 of 529