Bugs

As far as cheesy made for television genre movies with digital effects go, "Bugs" offers a decent enough diversion. It stars Antonio Sabato, Jr. as an FBI agent named Pollack who is on the trail of a serial killer. The trail leads him to a totally unrelated circumstance, that of enormous, bloodthirsty insects terrorizing a subway tunnel that is under construction. He teams with a sexy insect expert, Dr. Emily Foster (Angie Everhart) to save the day.

'Bugs' has a pretty routine script, with routine and annoying characters for the most part. There is a pathologically greedy tycoon (Karl Pruner) who doesn't want ANYTHING to spoil his plans. This character is set up as being so reprehensible (and over the top) that you keep waiting for him to get his comeuppance. There's also a team of commandos, turned into chopped meat by the rampaging critters.

Anybody watching will automatically peg this as a typical "Aliens" wannabe, hampered by the constraints of TV level budgeting, uneven CGI (but fairly well designed bugs), dumb dialogue, and some lame performances. Sabato is an extremely stoic hero, the kind of guy who only ever seems to have one expression on his face. Everhart is quite easy to watch, playing the kind of tough, capable heroine who has brains to match her hotness. Veteran Canadian character actor R.H. Thomson makes the most of his role as the hotshot who designed and built these tunnels. Horror buffs will enjoy seeing the lovely Lynne Griffin ("Black Christmas" '74, "Curtains") in a cameo as the Deputy Medical Examiner.

Mildly thrilling at best, with a fortunately decent pace and short running time (if you watch it on DVD) that keeps it from being too painful.

Five out of 10.

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.

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 ;-)

Its not Great, its obviously made fast but it is a hoot. You can sit back and laugh at not only the bad script and (lack of) performances but also revel in a film which does not have a single original idea. Every line every concept is stolen from Mimic,Aliens,Them,lake placid and even resident evil gets a look in. I also want to nominate it this film for being one of the few i have seen with only 1 exterior shot in the whole film. also the belief it could be a bear with insect mandibles makes it almost worth watching alone.

See it on a party night drunk

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