Bugs

Okay, is this movie bad. yes. BUT WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT PEOPLE!!! C'mon! And for a bad movie it's not that a bad movie. I've seen movies with bigger budgets that are worse!

The writing is formulaic, but fast paced. And like someone commented, no distracting love plots, scenes or whatever. Simply straight to the point action.

The SFX aren't that bad. lemme put it this way: it's a low budget movie. Don't go expecting ILM, WETA CGI or Stan Winston/Rob Bottin/Chris Walas SFX. But still - it's decent enough to do the trick.

The acting is mediocre at best, but again...its low budget! It's no Oscar material, but they do a decent job!

So where does that leave us:

BUGS is a movie that does what movies in it's class/genre should do. No more, no less. Don't go expecting more. At least it's not less, like "octopus" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0221905/) or shark attack 25 ;-)

If you like silly monster flicks, it will entertain you for about 80 minutes. Grab your popcorn and set you mind to zero. Don't think, watch, enjoy ;-)

Two, maybe three years ago, I surely would have bashed this movie entirely and probably wouldn't have been able to mention one minor positive note about it. "Bugs" back then would have been just another imbecilic creature-feature produced by the infamous Sci-Fi channel and exclusively aimed at undemanding audiences over-enthusiast to see big monsters and loads of blood. But the (sad) truth now is that I've seen so many horrible and even downright embarrassing Sci-Fi (these days re- baptized as SyFy) lately that "Bugs" all of a sudden doesn't come across so bad anymore. Compared to crap like "Troglodyte", "Sharktopus" and whatever else, this a more than endurable movie. Like pretty much every other movie revolving on over-sized animals ever made, "Bugs" is a rip- off of Steven Spielberg's "Jaws". The giant shark has obviously been replaced with giant insects and the sunny beaches that must absolutely remain open during high tourist season have been replaced with a newly finished subway of which the opening ride with prominent guests absolutely has to take place. The rest of the scenario is fairly obvious, predictable and includes the possible stereotypical characters and clichéd situations you can think of. Still, the action sequences are quite entertaining, with above average special effects (director Joe Conti is primarily an F/X guy) and good old-fashioned cheesy dialogs. The explanation on where the bugs come from is rather grotesque and laughable, but hey, at least the movie bothers to provide an explanation. I've seen more than enough dumb creature features where the monsters' origins are never even clarified. There's some decent gore and bloodshed to enjoy, especially during the train's opening ceremony massacre, and it was nice to see sexy redhead Angie Everhart again. I will most certainly forget that I've seen "Bugs" in a few weeks from now, but at least I wasn't bored or annoyed while it lasted. That's already an accomplishment these days.

There is nothing remotely original about " Bugs" but while its ingredients are familiar ones they are served with economy and speed which makes it a passable time -filler . When a new underground railtrack is built through the heart of a mountain there is a consequence undreamed off by the builders -the tunnellling awakens a horde of prehistoric giant insects akin to the scorpion .They are hungry -and no wonder for they have slept for millions of years .They attack a train and make a meal of the passengers The authorities send in a SWAT team and an expert entomologist ( who just happens to be a strikingly beautiful woman ) along with a FBI agent and a company expert to drive the rescue train . The team is attacked and its numbers depleted ,and it is left to the bug lady ,the agent and a few others to battle to safety while striving to kill the creatures and deal with the head of the rail project who is intent on covering up the whole business even if it means killing the survivors of the rescue party . The acting might politely be described as functional and the writing is basic but some adequate special effects and a brisk pace compensate and there is fun to be had spotting the references to other better known pictures as for example Alien ,Mimic and Jaws

Not bad at all

I saw Bugs on Sky last night, soon got the hang of what was going after joining part way into the film.

Its no blockbuster film thats for such, its your run of the mill sc-fi horror with the cast this time being picked off by armour plated bugs with of course lots of blood thrown in.

The cast tries it best with the poor script but then with it being your run of the mill you cant do much to make it great.

There is a nod towards a another classic "bug" film Aliens special edition which made my smile. I give this film a 4 while its not bad its not great either

Most of SCI-FI channels movies are throwaway affairs, but Bugs is a large step above. Sure, the acting and writing are marginal, but who watches horror films for that??? All you want to know is: are there good special effects? (yes) is there a good amount of gore? (yes) and is there a good amount of action? (yes) The plot never gets bogged down with stupid character development or love stories and jumps into the action quickly, rarely stopping, and is frankly as satisfying as big budget, small minded feature films like Mimic, especially since you're not paying for it. A solid Saturday afternoon diversion. Much better than SCI-FI's similar films about giant killer snakes/spiders/cats/frogs/marmots.