Bugs (2003)

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Such a frustrating disappointment

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

Mostly bad acting, mostly bad CGI effects, and a trite plot that's been done to death combine to make a movie that was almost unbearable for me even as background noise while I worked on the computer.Construction of a new subway line breaches the lair of a hive of previously unknown species, i.e. giant - you guessed it - bugs. If you've seen any of the awful to great movies that employ this plot device, then you have little reason to give this movie a glance other than the different actors and a few gore effects that are done reasonably well. Some scenes will leave you scratching your head, though.At one point people in a train car are ripped apart by sometimes invisible creatures who's partial absence must be due to not having enough budget to finish all the CGI shots. In another scene, someone makes an heroic stance only to be killed by a falling section of chain-link fence.2/10 for better-than-average gore effects but not much else.

Don't dismiss this one out of hand. Sure, it's not top drawer in the giant-insect-threat-to-humanity genre. But let's not be unfair, considering the slot it's aiming for. I don't think you should judge a film of this type as if it could make it as a first-run film in movie theaters. This is a TV Sci-Fi channel entertainment. I thought the effects were pretty darn good, and the first 15 to 20 minutes set up the movie with surprising style. When the subway car that had all the rich dignitaries rolls into the station after suffering a major attack--that's a great scene with real visual flair. Folks, what do we really want in one of these? A lot of giant insects, a troop of rough and ready combat types that all get picked off over time without doing really, really stupid things, the tiresome polluter-real estate tycoon-arrogant scientist getting his just deserts at the end, and a couple brave and true folk surviving. Give this one a chance!

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.