User reviews

A subway tunnel under construction, unearths metre-long scorpion-like bugs who awake from their centuries old hibernation with a voracious appetite for human flesh. After a police officer is all but consumed (save for the graphically depicted dismembered torso), FBI agent and eminent entomologist lead a SWAT team into the tunnel to contain and destroy the bugs, with disastrous results.

Economically paced with rapid momentum and frequent thrills, this made for TV action-thriller features a high-fatality rate, gory special effects and a couple of reasonable characterisations in the supporting ranks. Antonio Sabato, Jnr and Angie Everhart while initially looking overly alarmed, manage to tone it down as the film progresses. R.H. Thomson's performance as an easy-going engineer trying to right the wrongs of his megalomaniacal boss, seems (for a while) to only be capable of doom-saying and introducing myriad obstacles to the mission. But, as the story nears its climax, Thomson redeems his somewhat shady involvement, and closes the film with an unselfish act of heroism.

Constrained by the obvious made-for-TV budget, the insect special effects are sometimes hokum, but the visual effects department spares no body part in depicting gory mutilations, with enough claret spilled to run a blood bank for an eternity. Some credit must go to director Joseph Conti, who, as the credits display, seemed to have a hand in most of the executive roles. His tight, frenetically paced direction maintains a lively and energetic pace that ensures "Bugs" never labours like most of the subway cars do in the film.

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.

it's terrible And it completely redefines my "bad movie" standard.

The plot is almost nonexistent, and all of it is bright clear within the first two minutes of the movie. Acting is so poor (i.e. people running from a bloody crime-scene with the same facial mood I'd have sipping a coffee early in the morning) that totally avoid you being involved in what's going on. No thrilling, no suspense, nothing; just a long, flat, almost ridiculous try to keep going 'til the end!

A must see if you want to think of every other movie you've watched "hey, they were not so bad"; otherwise Jessica Fletcher is even a better solution...

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

This movie doesn't just disappoint, it irritates you with poor acting, moronic story, poor special effects and situations such as shooting a creature and not hurting it, yet hit it with a stick and you can hurt it enough to chase it off...

If it wasn't so poorly made, it could be a comedy. In fact, some of the actors even have smiles while talking about their "dire situations" or ways to possibly save their lives.

Finally, trying to add a "touching moment" to this type of movie isn't advisable... and, if done anyhow, make it at least a little bit realistic, please!!!

There's enough corn in this movie to make enough ethanol to fuel the world.

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 ;-)

When I first read up on Bugs (about 20 minutes before it started) I thought I was in for a snooze fest of a B-Rated sci-fi movie. Man was I wrong. I think Bugs is one of the better movies put out by Sci-Fi channel. Too bad it's not available on DVD or VHS. It had light suspense, an air of mystery and decent acting, a lot better then in some other movies I've seen. While not all the characters were believable, I think the actors did a decent job with what little they had to work with.

The movie was left open (perhaps intentionally) for a sequel. Perhaps Sci-Fi will make one that is as good as the this one.

My biggest gripe about this movie was that we really didn't get to see any of the bugs up close and personal without there being an action scene. Also, the whole "the colony will die without the queen" is rather retarded as bees and ants can live without their queen since one of the females usually takes over that role in the event the queen dies.

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.

The SciFi channel is turning these movies out too fast, resulting in really bad movies which don't even fall into the fun 'B' Movie catagory. This one is merely a rip-off of Mimic...and not nearly as good. No story, bad use of cast, terrible, dark effects. Next up by the ads is BOA...a giant snake which lives beneath the ice under a frozen penal colony. It looks like more of the same. Of course, we all know how snakes love cold weather.

Of course, if you saw that dreadfully histrionic earthquake disaster of an NBC movie last month, you know exactly what I mean! It's become my new standard for rating truly bad, unbelievably cheesy movies. The SciFi Channel's "Bugs" ranks right up there - or should we say it is merely rank?

With movies like this, it is almost as if the plot (such as it is) exists only for the sole purpose of tying together bombastic action sequences. In the case of "Bugs" the "action" wasn't enough to justify the convoluted story line. How many times did they recycle that same clip of the critters racketing down the rails towards the train?

How is it in movies like this that the scientist always has some expertise that takes substantial time, if not decades, to acquire, but looks younger than most women in Oil of Olay ads? How is that credible? Naturally, the purpose of such diversions isn't so much credibility, but good, clean entertainment for a few hours...oh, and exposure to the ads of the sponsors.

"Bugs" was utterly predictable, right down to the miserable end of Reynolds - when he picked up the pistol at the end of the movie, you just knew what was coming next. We had a ball picking out inconsistencies, predicting who was gonna get it next and laughing over the ridiculously cheesy effects.

I'll give it a solid Stilton on the CelluloiDiva Cheese-Meter and recommend for a night when you want to hold a "MST-it-yourself" party at home.

I believe one day film historians will look back on this as the era in which Hollywood forgot how to make an entertaining low budget creature feature, for which the blame will be laid squarely on the shoulders of The Channel Formerly Known as Sci-Fi.

And the prime exhibit will be this piece of dreck. Literally no stone is left unturned in its relentless quest to claim the dishonor of being the most inept, boring "Aliens" rip-off ever to come scuttling down the pike. You'd think the concept of monster bugs running amok in a half-completed subway project could provide all sorts of opportunities for claustrophobic chills and thrills -- but you'd be wrong, so very, very wrong.

Even by TCFKaSF standards, this is dull stuff. And for all you sick puppies who could care less about inconsequentials like direction, cinematography, dialog, acting or plot, so long as there's lots of gore -- well, there's not that much, and it's not that well done, either.

Let's put it this way: This film is so bad, even my local used DVD store wouldn't take it.

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.

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

My grandfather walked into the room just as the bugs were massacring the train. He said `Oh my god what are you watching?' My grandfather is not someone who would normally watch the sci fi channel. He became so engrossed with what was happening he decided to stay and watch it with me. He couldn't believe that they would show stuff that intense on the sci fi channel. I think he was shocked; anyway we watched it together and had a great time.