Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jul 13, 2025 6:20 pm



Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Bug 

What grade would you give this film?
A 33%  33%  [ 4 ]
B 33%  33%  [ 4 ]
C 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
D 8%  8%  [ 1 ]
F 25%  25%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 12

 Bug 
Author Message
Extraordinary

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:41 pm
Posts: 25109
Location: San Mateo, CA
Post Bug
Bug

Image

Quote:
Bug is a 2006 American horror/thriller directed by William Friedkin, and starring Ashley Judd, Harry Connick, Jr. and Michael Shannon.

The film is based on the play of the same name written by Tracy Letts.

_________________
Recent watched movies:

American Hustle - B+
Inside Llewyn Davis - B
Before Midnight - A
12 Years a Slave - A-
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - A-

My thoughts on box office


Thu May 24, 2007 2:35 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post 
This one is way out there.

But, damned if it ain't pretty freakin' cool -- I mean seriously! Where else are ya gonna see a movie that so clearly envisions relationship as madness? Where?!?!?

It is love as intimately shared insanity.

It is love as mutually assured destruction.

It is Bug!

...what else could it be?

5 out of 5.




(One things for sure, it was sendin' the Friday night date crowd scurryin' for the exits like roaches with the lights switched on... no doubt they're not quite ready for this vision of love...)


Sat May 26, 2007 12:26 am
Profile
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 35248
Location: Minnesota
Post 
Sounds great!


Sat May 26, 2007 1:55 am
Profile
Cream of the Crop
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 2913
Location: Portugal
Post 
eheh, I'm so excited about this one! Love-hate reactions, that C- grade at Yahoo which is completely different from its IMDB rating so far... yeah, I'm going to love this... :happy:


Sat May 26, 2007 4:01 am
Profile WWW
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 35248
Location: Minnesota
Post 
It's obviously one mainstream audiences will hate, but art-house moviegoers will love. For the most part the critics really liked it, and that's more reliable than the WOM of a lot of the idiots who are going to see it. The people going to see it are likely expecting it to be a killer bug movie and will be disappointed that the bugs aren't real.


Sat May 26, 2007 9:42 am
Profile
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post 
Mike wrote:
It's obviously one mainstream audiences will hate, but art-house moviegoers will love. For the most part the critics really liked it, and that's more reliable than the WOM of a lot of the idiots who are going to see it. The people going to see it are likely expecting it to be a killer bug movie and will be disappointed that the bugs aren't real.

Who says the bugs aren't real?!?

:nutso:


Sat May 26, 2007 1:10 pm
Profile
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 35248
Location: Minnesota
Post 
I doubt they are. It would be lame if they are :tongue:.


Sun May 27, 2007 2:20 am
Profile
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post 
Mike wrote:
I doubt they are. It would be lame if they are :tongue:.

It would be even lamer if the director didn't leave it open to the viewer's interpretation...


Sun May 27, 2007 7:48 am
Profile
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:53 pm
Posts: 8627
Location: Syracuse, NY
Post 
The bugs in it definitely aren't real. The director didn't leave it up to interpretation.

Image

Disappointing, though a very entertaining dark comedy. It started out great, what really brought it down was the second act. Nothing happened and it was extremely boring. The last half hour was great though, it was absolutely hysterical! I felt bad for the audience because I was the only one getting the funny moments and I looked like a moron because there were times I couldn't control my laughter. This will have absolutely horrid WOM though. I can't quite recommend it. Oh and Ashley Judd was fantastic in this, especially the last half hour.

8/10 (B+)

_________________
Top 10 Films of 2016

1. La La Land
2. Other People
3. Nocturnal Animals
4. Swiss Army Man
5. Manchester by the Sea
6. The Edge of Seventeen
7. Sing Street
8. Indignation
9. The Lobster
10. Hell or High Water


Sun May 27, 2007 12:12 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post 
movies35 wrote:
The bugs in it definitely aren't real. The director didn't leave it up to interpretation.

Sorry to hear you missed out on the subtlety, but happy to hear you picked up on the comedy...


Sun May 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Profile
Teenage Dream

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
Post 
Yeah, so that happened...

This is one of the strangest wide release, studio backed films I've ever seen. And I liked it. A lot.

I'd say its less about paranoia than it is a love story about two severely damaged people who get into a relationship, and as what often happens when two damaged people get into a relationship, a symbiotic self-destructive kinship is formed. They feed off of and reinforce each others guilt, depression, and indeed in Peter's case paranoia (the bug in this case), shutting out the rest of the world and ultimately mutually destroying the "core" of themselves that the Peter character talks about early in the film (symbolized here by the climactic dousing and torching).

This is just one way to interpret the many pieces of this particular puzzle, though. It can be read as a deeply disturbing commentary on this country's appalling treatment of war vets suffering from post traumatic stress. It can be read as an examination of how a domestic, homegrown terrorist might be (the type of which we are currently ignoring) formed. In fact, these are probably all legitimate and correct ways of viewing the movie.

This is a dank, nasty little movie that has a big brain log jammed with ideas, and Friedkin directs it with the bravado of a 25 year old, straight out of art school nihilist. Its truly unique, and a decidedly fresh detour from the homogenized summer movie season.


Sun May 27, 2007 8:58 pm
Profile
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 35248
Location: Minnesota
Post 
bradley witherberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
I doubt they are. It would be lame if they are :tongue:.

It would be even lamer if the director didn't leave it open to the viewer's interpretation...


I'm sorry, but it's sooooo not left open to the viewer's interpretation.


BUG - 8/10 (B+)

Wow! This is one of the trippiest, most out-there films I have ever seen. And I loved it. For awhile I found it interesting but wasn't sure how I felt, but as the film went on and it got darker and more insane, not to mention more hilarious (yes, this is definitely a dark comedy, even if it does have horror elements), the more I loved it. The last half hour is easily the best and had me grinning in absolute glee at how much I was loving every minute of the finale. The performances are fantastic too. I really couldn't recommend this movie to anyone though. My friend and I that saw it loved it, but the other person we went with hated it (though they are the epitome of mainstream), and I'm sure the audience we were with (which consisted of six other people) thought it was one of the worst movies they'd ever seen. I can't imagine most people not hating it. Even if critics for the most part dug it, I can only picture around 5% of the population liking or even "getting" this movie. It's so insanely bizarre and not what you'd expect from the advertising. We were the only people in the theater laughing, and it was kind of funny how it was obviously going over everyone else's heads. They took it way too seriously. This would play so much better in small art houses. I'm glad I got to see it in theaters, but in a way I'm also glad it didn't make too much money since then I'd just have to hear more people bashing it. Though working at a video store I know I'll hear several people trashing it once it hits DVD. I know I won't recommend it to people. In fact, I'll likely say, "I loved it, but you would hate it." It sounds kind of insulting, but it's most likely true. I just can't explain how different this movie is. It's certainly ballsy and Lionsgate was ballsy to acquire it and give it a wide release. It's surprising it got one. It certain to be one of the most daring and original films of the year, and will be sure to stay with me for awhile. Hopefully someday though it will end up being a cult classic, but with so few people liking it I'm not sure it will happen. There will certainly be people out there who appreciate it though, even if they are few and far between.

By the way, there are so many different ways to interpret this movie. Like it can be seen as a commentary on how lonely people tend to latch on to the first person who shows an interest in them and are delusional enough to think it's love (since love is blind and people can't see clearly when in a relationship, not when it concerns them anyway), and if that person is unstable they can drag someone who was formerly sane down with them. It can also be seen as a commentary on terrorism, homeland security, and the use of the news and its color-coded alerts to create a false mass hysteria. There are others as well, and I think there's more than one right answer. It's a good discussion movie for people who like to discuss and decipher the movies they see.


Mon May 28, 2007 3:57 am
Profile
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post 
Mike wrote:
bradley witherberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
I doubt they are. It would be lame if they are :tongue:.

It would be even lamer if the director didn't leave it open to the viewer's interpretation...


I'm sorry, but it's sooooo not left open to the viewer's interpretation.

...I think there's more than one right answer. It's a good discussion movie for people who like to discuss and decipher the movies they see.


I bet you'd be a load of fun to "discuss and decipher" this movie with...

;)


Mon May 28, 2007 6:20 am
Profile
Cream of the Crop
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 2913
Location: Portugal
Post 
I'm so dying to see this and it comes out here in two months, argh...


Mon May 28, 2007 6:46 am
Profile WWW
Star Trek XI
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:16 am
Posts: 314
Location: Portugal
Post 
android wrote:
I'm so dying to see this and it comes out here in two months, argh...



:biggrin: :biggrin: :lol: :lol: :hahaha: :hahaha:


That`s nothing.
I waited a YEAR!! for Silent Hill. :mad:


That`s why i say.........THE DESCENT ( 2005 )


Mon May 28, 2007 9:56 am
Profile WWW
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 35248
Location: Minnesota
Post 
bradley witherberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
bradley witherberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
I doubt they are. It would be lame if they are :tongue:.

It would be even lamer if the director didn't leave it open to the viewer's interpretation...


I'm sorry, but it's sooooo not left open to the viewer's interpretation.

...I think there's more than one right answer. It's a good discussion movie for people who like to discuss and decipher the movies they see.


I bet you'd be a load of fun to "discuss and decipher" this movie with...

;)


Well it's just obvious that there aren't really any bugs :tongue:.


Mon May 28, 2007 1:33 pm
Profile
Where will you be?

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am
Posts: 11675
Post 
Mike wrote:
bradley witherberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
bradley witherberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
I doubt they are. It would be lame if they are :tongue:.

It would be even lamer if the director didn't leave it open to the viewer's interpretation...


I'm sorry, but it's sooooo not left open to the viewer's interpretation.

...I think there's more than one right answer. It's a good discussion movie for people who like to discuss and decipher the movies they see.


I bet you'd be a load of fun to "discuss and decipher" this movie with...

;)


Well it's just obvious that there aren't really any bugs :tongue:.


Who says the "aphids" were the bugs?

I really dug it, but it's definitely not for everyone.


Tue May 29, 2007 4:42 am
Profile
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:53 pm
Posts: 8627
Location: Syracuse, NY
Post 
I don't understand at all how it's left up to the viewer to figure out if there were real bugs or not. I thought it was quite obvious that there weren't as nobody but Ashley Judd and the other guy could see them. If you can actually come up with a good explination how the director leaves it up to the viewer, it would most definitely be appreciated..

_________________
Top 10 Films of 2016

1. La La Land
2. Other People
3. Nocturnal Animals
4. Swiss Army Man
5. Manchester by the Sea
6. The Edge of Seventeen
7. Sing Street
8. Indignation
9. The Lobster
10. Hell or High Water


Tue May 29, 2007 12:26 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Where will you be?

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am
Posts: 11675
Post 
movies35 wrote:
I don't understand at all how it's left up to the viewer to figure out if there were real bugs or not. I thought it was quite obvious that there weren't as nobody but Ashley Judd and the other guy could see them. If you can actually come up with a good explination how the director leaves it up to the viewer, it would most definitely be appreciated..


If you've seen the film and can't figure out how it would be ambiguous, I don't think either of us will get through to the other.


Wed May 30, 2007 5:48 am
Profile
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post 
Mike wrote:
I'm sorry, but it's sooooo not left open to the viewer's interpretation.

MovieDude wrote:
movies35 wrote:
I don't understand at all how it's left up to the viewer to figure out if there were real bugs or not. I thought it was quite obvious that there weren't as nobody but Ashley Judd and the other guy could see them. If you can actually come up with a good explination how the director leaves it up to the viewer, it would most definitely be appreciated..


If you've seen the film and can't figure out how it would be ambiguous, I don't think either of us will get through to the other.

Next up -- Mike and movies35 inform everyone of the one correct interpretation of the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey...

;)


Wed May 30, 2007 8:10 am
Profile
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:53 pm
Posts: 8627
Location: Syracuse, NY
Post 
Well, it doesn't really matter. I enjoyed the movie enough. I didn't love it but it was still quite good. ;) Bradley, just be happy I loved Waitress as much as you. :P

_________________
Top 10 Films of 2016

1. La La Land
2. Other People
3. Nocturnal Animals
4. Swiss Army Man
5. Manchester by the Sea
6. The Edge of Seventeen
7. Sing Street
8. Indignation
9. The Lobster
10. Hell or High Water


Wed May 30, 2007 10:05 am
Profile YIM WWW
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 35248
Location: Minnesota
Post 
Well, if somebody actually thinks there really were bugs, then they're crazy ;).


Wed May 30, 2007 1:10 pm
Profile
Kypade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 7908
Post 
Of course the Bugs were real.


Wed May 30, 2007 4:32 pm
Profile
On autopilot for the summer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm
Posts: 21893
Location: Walking around somewhere
Post 
Umm, this movie is terrible. I saw it after hearing all the great things on here. I love Dark Comedies, but where was the humor. The first half of the film was just Ashely Judd and the other guy giving awkward looks to each other, and the other half was just a lame atttempt at trying to gross and wierd out the audience. Which it did, I'll give it that. Though it blatantly ripped off 12 monkeys, with its silly tooth scene.

And PS: it was all in their mind. It's pretty obvious, every time Ashley Judd would realize it, Pete would give him some absurd explanation, which wasn't even funny. Just laughable. Sorry to say but he was not in the military, the Dr. knew about Lloyd because Gauss told him to say that, which was probably the only way for her to leave, and the bugs were certainly not real. Did anyone even see the last scene of the movie? With everything going apeshit inside and nothing outside. I was actually into it somewhat for the first half hour, but it just fucking blew after that. I love Dark comedies, horror films, and out-there independant films. And yes its original and I got to see that Ashely Judd despite looking old still had a gorgeous body, I was just sitting there with the old guy 10 rows behind me thinking, WTF is this garbage. It wasn't too weird for me, and its not like the humor missed me, I saw the humor, but it wasn't funny, and their is no depth in this movie after the first 30 minutes. Bleh

F You read it here, the first F I ever gave a film on KJ. I was about to leave and give Shrek 3 another try. Thank God I saw this for free.

_________________
Image

Chippy wrote:
As always, fuck Thegun.


Chippy wrote:
I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!


Thu May 31, 2007 5:44 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 1051
Post 
Man what a trippy movie! My fav of 07 so far. I liked how it went from a quiet movie about two lonely people finding someone and quickly snowballed into total insanity. Ashley Judd is phenomenal in it...and I love when a movie can pretty much stay in one location the entire time with the same few characters and hold my interest. The performances are great all-around, and I lurved the script and how natural the dialogue and interactions were. There were little touches throughout that kept the realism intact. I didn't find any part of it boring, I thought it was paced really well (slow-burning type of film) and enjoyed the whole thing. There are some standout scenes (Agnes screaming out her rationale, RC confronting Peter) but I don't think the last half was miles better than the rest, I think it was all pretty much even. And I love consistency.

I'm with those who thought they left the existence of the bugs ambiguous...I thought they were going the route of it clearly all being in their mind but then the doctor guy at the end starting saying all the business about her missing son, and etc. so then I was confused.

I don't really see it as a dark comedy so much. There were humorous parts to it, yes but I wasn't dying of laughter towards the end or anything. I'm not sure if it really fits into a specific genre of film...it has dramatic, romantic, horror, thriller, aspects but doesn't really fall into any of the categories. Which in this case I think is a good thing.


Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:12 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.