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

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

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.

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 ;-)