Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Anonymous Andy (Minus_The_Beer) Killer roaches encroach on a sleepy, god-fearing rural California town in the aptly titled "Bug." From producer William Castle, "Bug" is everything you think it is, nothing more, nothing less. When a quake makes the Earth shake, bugs come from under rugs, lurch towards church and build fires under car tires. It's up to a local entomologist (Bradford Dillman) to sweat over the threat. As he discovers, they can neither breed nor spread seed, but the constant threat of fire proves to be dire.OK, I'll stop."Bug" is very much akin to the giant bug genre that swept the nation in the '50s, right down to its easy and breezy concept. These little firestarters wreak havoc across town while its residents struggle to get a handle on things. Dillman is game, as always, while his supporting cast includes Joanna Miles and Patricia McCormack, both of whom do a good job alternating between being creeped out and shrieking at the top of their lungs. While the pace doesn't exactly catch fire, it never feels dull of plodding, leading up to a thoroughly ridiculous yet inspired finale. The roach effects are adequate and will probably go a long way to get under the skin of anyone who fears the creepy crawlers, even today. It's very much the sort of movie you watch on a lazy Saturday afternoon when you just want to shut off your brain. "Bug" deserves its place alongside other semi-forgotten b-fare like "Frogs" and "The Swarm." Fun facts: Director Jeannot Szwarc would go on to direct the slightly more competent "Jaws 2," while keen viewers might notice portions of the set were recycled from "The Brady Bunch."

Chase_Witherspoon Loosely based on the novel "The Hephaestus Plague" about a strain of self igniting cockroach that is unleashed on a rural town following an earthquake. Local professor (Bradford Dillman) must learn more about the bugs in an attempt to stop the path of destruction, but finds himself aiding their evolution into unassailable marauders.Interestingly handled thriller, produced by horror royalty in William Castle focuses on the mental disintegration of the lead character, following the death of his spouse. His obsessive determination to destroy the bugs leads him to the brink of insanity, while the bugs conversely enhance their intelligence through the reinforcement gained in his experiments. Where most of the cast (Gilliland, Vint, Jackson, Miles) fade out after the first half, Fudge and McCormack come into focus in the second half, as they attempt to coax Dillman out of his self imposed isolation.The concept that mankind is the subject of the experiment and ultimately the more vulnerable of the two species, is canvassed abundantly in the second half of the film and while engaging, slows the pace considerably. Overall, I found "Bug" an entertaining tale that improved with each subsequent viewing and an ideal swansong for horror maestro Castle.

MartinHafer I watched this movie for two main reasons--it was the last film written by the amazing showman, William Castle AND because the movie sounded completely awful! As I like to see bad films on occasion (they're great for a laugh), I decided to give this one a try.After an earthquake in a god-accursed town in the desert, hoards of insanely silly fire-cockroaches invade the town. These amazing creatures can shoot flames out of their butts and start fires---burning down cars, houses and a soon-to-be-insane professor's wife's head! This goof-ball scientist (Bradford Dillman--who I assume was trying to commit career suicide with this film) at first mourns his wife's death--then becomes obsessed with the creatures and eventually fills his house with the things. Then, out of the blue, the movie has an ending that just boggles the mind....it's THAT dumb (I loved the new super-bug with its glowing eyes and wires supporting it)! I guess, like in the case of "Willard", the new-found friends eventually turn on you.The film is chock full of goofy moments. Not only do you see one woman's head catch fire (and I loved how the male stuntman looked nothing like her physically), but another woman writhe about with a giant Hissing Cockroach on her eyelid! There are so many terrible moments like this that it is worth seeing just for these goofy portions if you are in need of a laugh. Sadly, however, these goofy moments are few and far between--with a lot of full moments in between. The ending, especially, was just too long in coming and seemed way overdue.By the way, look for Patty McCormack as 'Sylvia'. This cute actress is the same one who as a child starred in "The Bad Seed"--a mega-cool film about an evil kid that you just have to see! As for "Bug", however, it's probably not a film you should rush to watch.

sddavis63 If memory serves, there were a number of these "insect" type movies made in the 70's - an attempt at returning, perhaps, to the 50's "creature feature" concept. I like a lot of the 50's stuff. It was usually fun in a campy sort of way, with decent (if outrageous) plots and generally OK acting. I don't remember having watched a lot of the 70's stuff, so decided to give this one a try when I ran across it. I'll stick with the 50's.Where the earlier movies were what I described above (campy fun) this was anything but. The idea seemed to have promise as the genre goes - with some sort of fire-breathing beetles or cockroaches being released from the bowels of the earth after an earthquake to wreak havoc - but in fact it just didn't work. Unlike those earlier movies from the 50's, this one wasn't fun. The acting was sub-par, the characters were poorly developed and the story didn't flow at all. In the end, it seemed not so much a "creature-feature" as it was a psychological study of obsession - Dr. Parmiter (played by Bradford Dillman) having become obsessed with these creatures to the point at which everyone and everything around him is destroyed by them - as he himself ultimately is. It could also be seen as a warning against playing God - it was, after all, Parmiter who actually bred a new, hybrid creature. The strangest part of this is that it left me wondering whether any of the story about the bugs was actually true. Parmiter was writing a book, apparently. I wondered if the bugs were a sort of imaginary plot device to trace his obsessiveness about the book - a depiction of a sort of writer's block gone totally crazy. That makes every bit as much sense (to me) as bugs that are able to spell out words on walls!I would give a wee bit of credit to director Jeannot Szwarc for the opening minute or so. Everything began in complete and utter silence (and while there was no action on the screen, the silence - no opening musical score; nothing - did create an eerie and suspenseful feel.) The very opening scenes were also a bit ironic - a "fire-breathing" preacher speaking about the moral destruction of America, with fire-breathing bugs soon to follow to give physical form to his prophecy. Still - the bugs should have burned this! It's not good.