Bug Review
“Artful yet draggy”
Certain movies really get lost in the shuffle. What with the concluding chapters of popular bank movies such as Spider-Man, Pirates of the Carribean and Shrek (the review on deck ladies and gents), little films can get lost. This isn’t to say that Bug is a “little” film per say, but I would say most movies are little in comparison to those three aforementioned box office titans. Bug after all has a star in Ashley Judd and a pretty known director in William Friedkin, he of Exorcist fame. Suffice it to say, that I had caught glimpses of the trailer for this movie and really hadn’t seen or heard much about it. I was VERY open-minded to the product.
First impression was going to be another Saw/Hostel knock-off, which it wasn’t. Then I thought it was going to delve into Hills Have Eyes territory, which it didn’t. I was intrigued. It was a pretty original concept. The horror of the movie didn’t come with person on person violence as in murderers hacking their victims. This horror was purely psychological. On that level, Bug is definetely a fine film. The concept and plot were definetely on. The preformances were eerie and frenetic by both Judd and her co-hosts. The art direction was really cool and the overall look and feel of the movie totally fit.
What the movie truely lacked was really any point of excitement. This movie isn’t for everyone. It won’t WOW audiences with anything particularly new, such as a movie like Saw did. It’s merely a solid film that really kind of drags and didn’t really hold my attention. While the premise was cool and the acting was on, the film lacked any real excitement. It’s definetely a mind bender that challenges the audience, but doesn’t particularly entertain. This is one of those on the fence movies where it certainly challenged me as a viewer, but didn’t really pique my interest.
Maybe I’m getting soft, or maybe I’m a pop culture D-Bag, but I didn’t really like Bug. Beyond the small parts that did impress me and the overall product that made me think, it didn’t serve as entertainment as well. I tend to give good grades to the movies that entertain me, and not necessarily challenge me. I’d feel like a complete jerk to really downgrade this movie for it’s potential “artistic merit”, because I think there is some. I guess when I assign a certain criteria for grading movies, I always think of whether or not I’d see it again. With the reviews for popcorn flicks I usually decorate this withering rag of internet tripe with, I find myself able to watch them again. Bug I would not. That being said, I’ll stick to my guns and only give this a 5 out of 10 Bones, for being artistic, but not necessarily strong in entertaining.
RATING: