Bugs

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.

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.

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.

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.