Bug (2006)
HolyshitIcan'tgetbackthat101minutesofmylife.
Who thinks this movie is scary and WHY???
Because the dude pulled his molar out with a pair of pliers?
Fuck, I saw that in Cast Away and as disturbing as it was then, at least it wasn't as pointless and bloody as it was depicted here.
You know the only entertaining part? Seeing Harry Connick Jr. play a beefed up, ex-wife beating con, all the while remembering his sweet, sweet melodies on the 'When Harry Met Sally' soundtrack.
What happened Harry??? WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED???
No really. I don't know how ANYone could like this movie.
It's not smart just because it shows how a delusional psychopath can turn a lonely, vulnerable person into the same thing.
It's not smart for depicting paranoia to the Nth degree by providing us with a twenty minute, non-sensical rant at the end that just about made ME blow MY brains out. (Don't worry, they don't actually do that in the movie, though I wished oh so badly that they would).
Ebert, what in the fuck happened to you, dude? Actually, I KNOW what happened, but that is no excuse to recommed lame ass shit like this.
So now that I'm done, if you liked this movie, or even thought it was remotely passable, please provide your reasoning in the comments and by tomorrow I should be able to take them into consideration rationally.
Until then, I'm going to go to sleep and try to forget about the last hour and forty one minutes.
Who thinks this movie is scary and WHY???
Because the dude pulled his molar out with a pair of pliers?
Fuck, I saw that in Cast Away and as disturbing as it was then, at least it wasn't as pointless and bloody as it was depicted here.
You know the only entertaining part? Seeing Harry Connick Jr. play a beefed up, ex-wife beating con, all the while remembering his sweet, sweet melodies on the 'When Harry Met Sally' soundtrack.
What happened Harry??? WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED???
No really. I don't know how ANYone could like this movie.
It's not smart just because it shows how a delusional psychopath can turn a lonely, vulnerable person into the same thing.
It's not smart for depicting paranoia to the Nth degree by providing us with a twenty minute, non-sensical rant at the end that just about made ME blow MY brains out. (Don't worry, they don't actually do that in the movie, though I wished oh so badly that they would).
Ebert, what in the fuck happened to you, dude? Actually, I KNOW what happened, but that is no excuse to recommed lame ass shit like this.
So now that I'm done, if you liked this movie, or even thought it was remotely passable, please provide your reasoning in the comments and by tomorrow I should be able to take them into consideration rationally.
Until then, I'm going to go to sleep and try to forget about the last hour and forty one minutes.
posted by Caffeine Free @ 10:41 PM
12 Comments:
At 11:23 AM,
Jon said…
Sounds perfect. However this used to be the kind of movie I liked because it was "edgy" and dark, like Raging Bull or Wild Bunch. I realize now that surrounding myself with and exalting depressing movies did not put me in a good headspace. Hope isn't all bad.
At 9:48 AM,
Pete said…
what happened to ebert?
At 12:14 PM,
Jon said…
I believe CF is referencing his recent medical problems. I have been noticing ol' Rog giving basically everything he finds interesting in any way 3.5-4 stars in the past year or so.
At 6:48 PM,
Caffeine Free said…
Exactly. The guy looks for something good in every fucking movie he sees. What kind of critic does that???
At 11:25 PM,
Pete said…
i c. he's seeing the world through rose colored glasses.
At 1:38 AM,
ian said…
Is that the compensation the docs gave him instead of a functioning voice?
I kid I kid.
Too soon?
At 2:15 AM,
Jienan said…
i would disagree with your review in that i think 'bug' is less intentionally scary than a interesting character study. Personally, I've found the promotion of it misleading as they're desperately trying to market it as a 'Saw V' when it's more a psychological 'Exorcist'.
I thought it was neat how William Friedkin used some (spoilers coming ,btw) of the same suspense building techniques from the Exorcist in 'Bug' but without the external antagonist factor.
Then again, it probably helped that I knew it was a play first so I knew that character was its central focus.
I would say, watch it again as a portrayal of psychological disintegration and see what you think of it then.
But, if you go into a movie thinking it's going to be 'Fantastic Four' and you get Ang Lee's 'Hulk', well, you're going to be disappointed regardless of whatever you try and do.
Also, I would really disagree with the Ebert comments. He eviscerated 'Trade' and gave no leeway to 'Heartbreak Kid' and didn't even really praise 'Lust Caution'. Also, he butchered the new Dane Cook movie as well... thankfully...
Keep in mind also that he can't watch as many movies as he used to so he's been targeting more of the bigger and better releases...
I would actually say his reviews are becoming more subjective and qualified. Less of the objective critic but more 'hey, if you're into trashy sci-fi like i am, you'll like this movie but if not, well don't bother'... which I appreciate...
I intensely loathe Olympian reviews (I don't just review Indian films but I'm also an expert in 1970's Samoan cinema and Dutch pornography! I can review ANYTHING!) where I'm supposed to presume the critic has all the knowledge regarding the reviewed art stuffed into their brain rather than you know, they got it from a press release...
And what's so bad about reviewing mostly what you like? I find negative reviews usually to be masturbatory fests of 'i'm not just being negative, i'm showcasing my knowledge and superiority'
what's the point? if it's not reviewed it means you don't like it so you can just assume the outcome. Do I really have to read 500 words of why exactly you didn't like?
At 9:44 PM,
Pete said…
if you only review films you will like, you don't leave much room for a pleasant surprise.
At 10:43 PM,
Jon said…
yeah i feel like the neg reviews are required to establish cred. on the one hand there's the adage about not saying anything if you can't say anything nice, but on the other hand if all you say are nice things people will call your objectivity into question or not respect your opinion as much.
maybe ebert's all hated out after his two books full of movies-sucking reviews.
At 4:09 AM,
Jienan said…
i think it depends greatly on how you write a negative review... if it's really an attempt to provide a context for the reader to understand the film better, then i think it serves a decent purpose. my point was more that if your negative review is to make the reader understand YOU better, then we got a problem.
and pete, i think you may have misunderstood me in that i don't just watch movies i like... a burden of mine is the work (and yes, it IS work) I put into watching ANYTHING... i would say the ratio of movies i've loathed vs movies i've enjoyed is actually about 80/20... i just don't need to lather the world up in more of my negativity.
where's the pleasant surprise of writing a negative review? surprise in how hilarious i can be when i'm hating?
At 9:21 PM,
Caffeine Free said…
I didn't expect Bug to be scary. I knew full well it was supposed to be a take on a psychological breakdown.
I think it probably works better as a play, where character studies are allowed to fully bloom without all of the Hollywood-ness of movies.
In the end, a review is simply one person's take on a movie. Good or bad, it's an opinion that is shared and can be taken however the person who's reading it is going to take it.
Personally, I enjoy writing negative reviews more because it seems more fun to agree with people when something totally sucks (in that it's funnier) then it is to agree that something is superfuckingawesome.
Jie, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I don't disagree that more often than not, the purpose of ME writing a bad review is more out of humor and less out of true critiquing.
If this blog is for serious reviews, or only for movies I enjoy, than I can respect that.
At 3:21 AM,
Jienan said…
Oh, I didn't even remotely mean that this blog isn't for serious reviews... I was talking about the Ebert issue.
I enjoy my fellow misanthropes!
Post a Comment
<< Home