Extremely violent with a rather lacklustre plot

By Green Hippo
Written February 24, 2007
I was "lucky" enough to see this film in Cannes (France) this evening. It came out in France this weekend. I had quite high expectations since I like Ashley Judd and I thought from the synopsis that it would be a good late night film. However, I found it be very slow, with shallow characters and needlessly bloodthirsty (especially the tooth scene). Ashley Judd did some superb acting but whilst I felt I understood her character at the start of the film, she made some confusing decisions in the middle and I could not empathise. Overall, I am sad to say that I would not recommend it.
27 out of 35 found this helpful. Did you?

Unbelievable Acting

By BRockNYLA
Written May 09, 2007
I saw the play in New York a couple of years ago and the film as well. It may not be for everyone, but the acting is superb. Just brilliant. Michael Shannon, who originated the role on the stage, delivers one of the most impressive performances I have ever seen and who knew Ashley Judd could go to such places!?!?!? Go see it. You will be amazed.
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Did you?

Go if you appreciate a well-acted stage play

By Taurean1949
Written May 27, 2007
Most folks won’t like this film, but I did. It helped that I knew going in that it is a film adaptation of a stage play with very few actors and a set limited almost entirely to a fleabag motel room. Given that, the focus is on the performance of the two lead actors, Judd and Shannon, as they develop their characters. This is why good film actors occasionally act in stage plays; they want to hone their craft. Both Judd and Shannon succeeded in doing that; they were superb! Harry Connick, Jr. was also very good in his supporting role as the ex-husband. But, if you are not a person who would appreciate a well-acted stage play without any frills or special effects, you also will not like this movie. That doesn’t make it a bad movie; it simply makes it one that’s not your cup of tea. That’s fine; no movie is liked by all people. For me and at least a few other reviewers, the money for a ticket to this movie was well spent.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Did you?

what waste of money

By cricks
Written May 25, 2007
i don't think it was worth the money. i expected so much more and things didn't start getting interesting until further into the movie....i did appreicate the fact that people really do have this paranoia. it gave me the chance to see it from their eyes.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Did you?

Incredible acting - wrong target market

By manoflamuncie
Written May 28, 2007
BUG is a brilliant psychological thriller that has been unfortunately marketed as a bloody horror movie. There is some blood and there are plenty of uncomfortable moments, but BUG is so much deeper than a horror movie that most dissatisfied audience members I encountered simply weren't prepared for a movie of this caliber. The performances by Judd, Shannon, and Connick Jr. were exhilarating and claustrophobic. Even in a large cinema, this movie plays on a small, intimate scale that is thrilling for the audience. The characters rope you into their journey, and their pain becomes yours. The laughs within are dark and seem completely intentional (also misunderstood by some audience members). By the end, it should be clear that BUG is a story about two misfits with a profound need to connect - and through their rising paranoia, they make that human connection. As long as you don't go expecting a horror blockbuster, BUG will sting you with its honesty and its humanity.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Did you?