Insectos

I really don't know what to make of Bug, William Friedkin's bizarre tale of either delusional paranoia OR a sinister government plot to control the masses through the use of genetically engineered parasitic insects: it's certainly one of the strangest and most perplexing films I've seen in recent years, Friedkin messing with his viewers' heads so that they become as unsure about what is reality as the central characters. It was certainly a far cry from what I would call 'enjoyable', particularly when viewed as a study of mental illness ('harrowing' would be a better description), and the film's pacing is tortuously slow at times. 'Interesting' is a better descriptor...

Solid performances aside, where Bug scores most points in my eyes is in never resolving its many questions, leaving the viewer to pore over what has happened, dissect the evidence, and come to their own conclusion about what they have just witnessed. Although it seems probable that Peter and Agnes were seriously messed in the head and imagining the whole infestation, one cannot say this with absolute certainty; besides, sometimes its more fun to simply believe the less likely explanation.

Bug is William Friedkin's offering and now the aged director may have lessened his output flow, but there's no denying that he still chooses interesting projects: Bug is as further from the mainstream as one can get. There's no doubt that Bug is intense. It's a fairly nightmarish experience, complete with a scene of self-administered dental care that squeamish viewers will not be able to endure. Yet, for all that the movie is harrowing, it's not entirely successful. After a well-constructed first act, the story becomes a little tiresome and repetitive and the characters, who are will defined to begin with, stray ever closer to the edge of overwrought one-dimensionality. There's something to be said for a movie that is this far from the mainstream; it is not uninteresting. Calling Bug a "horror" film may be misleading. Although the movie includes some of the trapping's genre fans would expect, it's more of a psychological drama.

I really enjoyed this movie. Judd was great in representing the suffering of her mental stresses. Shannon also delivers great support and drive, in their madness.

As the movie goes the insanity just keeps climbing and so do the performances.

I think if you disconnect from the movie and develop an 'as if ' attitude you will hate it, however if you buy in, you will connect with the paranoia and have a pretty entertaining if not an itchy time!

Get them off, GET THEM OFF!!!

Haha good fun film

I've never been a Friedkin fan and I can live without an "Exorcist" DVD.

"Bug" depicts another kind of possession ,and it shows paranoia as few other movies did (Polanski did it in "the tenant " in 1976).The performances are great ;Ashley Judd plays a part few of her peers would dare: she is matched every step of the way by Michael Shannon .Both,towards the end,reach the extreme limit and their shouting voices are hardly intelligible.From the very start,Judd seems jaded,tired of the world,with no reason to live .

Even when you feel safe,you know there's an impending menace ;today we live in a world where nobody can say "it won't happen to me" .The Army experiments (a subject which was already broached in the brilliant "Jacob's ladder" ) are only an alibi ,and anyway,are they real?We see danger where there isn't any and we swallow a pill to soothe our fears .One blip (here a tiny bug) is enough to bring everything grinding to the halt... or to trigger madness ,a madness which will know no bounds .

Both Ashley judd and Michael Shannon are amazing in their roles as two codependent delusional addicts.

Well worth a watch as they spiral ever deeper.

And stay tuned for the mid and after credit scene.