Review of Bug (1975) by Doctor S — 15 Apr 2009

In a word: intense. Finally finally FINALLY Ashley Judd is in a good movie again! And in a seriously unglamorous role, which she latches on to after a wobbly start and then goes for broke. As does her co-star Michael Shannon, most actors would have difficulty with these highly demanding parts.

Most people know William Friedkin as director of "The Exorcist." For me, "Bug" is much better. There is a commonality to the method of horror in both films, it is essential that the audience believes what the characters in the movie believe, otherwise all tension is lost. "The Excorsist" hinges on a belief in the possibility of demonic possession, otherwise you're stuck looking at a kid with a green face and the worst case of preteen acne ever seen for an hour. "Bug" relies on a more earthbound, and on the surface less farfetched, premise: infestation of tiny parasitic insects.

****SEMI-SPOILER ALERT****.

The genius of Friedkin's approach here lies in the unknown. We never actually see the bugs ourselves, which might have disappointed a lot of horror fans. But this technique adds an entirely new and scary dimension: are the bugs real, or are they manifest from advancing paranoia? The movie is like one long stomach vice, starting slowly with a very deliberate character buildup, which is a critical element: once we get to know these people, then we tend to believe - or want to believe - what they see as real.

****END OF SPOILER****.

One more note, Harry Connick Jr. is seriously unnerving from the instant he appears onscreen, making this a great trio of performances. I don't understand why this is ranked so low here - "Captivity" has a higher Flixster rating, for godssake! Let me urge that if you like your horror to be more mental than messy, let "Bug" scurry across your brain and avoid extermination for days.