Bugs (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Bugs on a train

[Chase_Witherspoon · 5/10 · 29 April 2011]

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.

Surprisingly decent...

[Coventry · 4/10 · 23 January 2012]

Two, maybe three years ago, I surely would have bashed this movie entirely and probably wouldn't have been able to mention one minor positive note about it. "Bugs" back then would have been just another imbecilic creature-feature produced by the infamous Sci-Fi channel and exclusively aimed at undemanding audiences over-enthusiast to see big monsters and loads of blood. But the (sad) truth now is that I've seen so many horrible and even downright embarrassing Sci-Fi (these days re- baptized as SyFy) lately that "Bugs" all of a sudden doesn't come across so bad anymore. Compared to crap like "Troglodyte", "Sharktopus" and whatever else, this a more than endurable movie. Like pretty much every other movie revolving on over-sized animals ever made, "Bugs" is a rip- off of Steven Spielberg's "Jaws". The giant shark has obviously been replaced with giant insects and the sunny beaches that must absolutely remain open during high tourist season have been replaced with a newly finished subway of which the opening ride with prominent guests absolutely has to take place. The rest of the scenario is fairly obvious, predictable and includes the possible stereotypical characters and clichéd situations you can think of. Still, the action sequences are quite entertaining, with above average special effects (director Joe Conti is primarily an F/X guy) and good old-fashioned cheesy dialogs. The explanation on where the bugs come from is rather grotesque and laughable, but hey, at least the movie bothers to provide an explanation. I've seen more than enough dumb creature features where the monsters' origins are never even clarified. There's some decent gore and bloodshed to enjoy, especially during the train's opening ceremony massacre, and it was nice to see sexy redhead Angie Everhart again. I will most certainly forget that I've seen "Bugs" in a few weeks from now, but at least I wasn't bored or annoyed while it lasted. That's already an accomplishment these days.

They fly, impale and kill.

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 12 November 2005]

Brisk paced with debatable quality CGI. Story line is nowhere close to being novel. While an underground railway track is being built, a horde of prehistoric scorpion-like insects are rattled from a million year slumber. A SWAT team is joined by FBI and a lovely entomologist(Angie Everhart)struggle to stay alive while trying to eradicate the flying big, black bugs. There are a few tense moments, but mostly ho-hum and albeit predictable. Not exactly the worse movie from the Sci-Fi Channel. Others in the cast: Duane Murray, Karl Pruner, Stephanie Moore and Elias Zarou.

NOTE: I'm not in agreement with the survivors logic that the swarm can not live without its queen. I think another female usually takes on that duty.

Bugs is an Alien franchise wannabe - so bad its almost comical; in a teeth-pulling satirical way

[siit · 1/10 · 17 February 2006]

Seriously folks, if this movie was touted and marketed as a tongue in cheek satire of the 'Alien' franchise and they amended the movie so ever slightly - it would be hilarious. However, the producers; God love 'em, tried in vain for a serious horror sci-fi and failed in monumental proportions.

Where do we start?? Nasty supposedly dormant 65 million year old bugs come to life in a subway. A terrible explanation of why the construction crew did not get attacked ... well leave that alone and utterly suspend disbelief... and not for the first time!!

It is so obvious that the this movie was influenced extremely heavy by the 'Alien' franchise, and throw in a bit of 'Mimic' for good measure.. so the similarities??

(1) Aliens had the colonial Marines, Bugs have the S.W.A.T. (2) The S.W.A.T. mirror the Marines counterparts as well- Hudson, Hicks, Vasquez, Drake et al (3) Virtual copy of dialogue, death scenes - but VERY poorly done. (4) Alien; drones and Queen... yep same for Bugs. (5) Same corporate bad guy putting spanner in works... meets same demise!! (6) Ripley wannabee in the shape of C.D.C lady. (7) Poor attempt at copying the cinematography from 'Alien3' for Bugs sight. (8) Bug sounds, death knells, disintegration shots VERY similar to 'Aliens' (9) 'Can't afford to let even one of those...'

and... the pièce de résistance .. and I wish I was joking

(10) 'Aliens'; Ripley takes on the Queen with that way cool Loader... 'Bugs'; Takes on the Queen with, I kid you not, a fork lift!!

Seriously, 'IF' for some extraordinarily torturous reason you wish to actively seek this movie out to view it, approach it as a violent satirical comedy/parody of 'Alien'. Even though I could safely disclose the ending of Bugs due to 'Contains Spoilers'... I can't. Let's just say that the writers/producers/director have no idea what constitutes a proved and successful ending to a horror movie.

You have been warned... *grins*

Oh my god...

[aflacco · 1/10 · 3 October 2004]

it's terrible And it completely redefines my "bad movie" standard.

The plot is almost nonexistent, and all of it is bright clear within the first two minutes of the movie. Acting is so poor (i.e. people running from a bloody crime-scene with the same facial mood I'd have sipping a coffee early in the morning) that totally avoid you being involved in what's going on. No thrilling, no suspense, nothing; just a long, flat, almost ridiculous try to keep going 'til the end!

A must see if you want to think of every other movie you've watched "hey, they were not so bad"; otherwise Jessica Fletcher is even a better solution...

Derivative but fun creature movie

[lorenellroy · 23 September 2004]

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

One of THE worst

[pcurrey69 · 1/10 · 19 June 2006]

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.

Not THAT bad

[quantumcat · 5/10 · 1 July 2008]

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 ;-)

My Review

[joemamaohio · 1/10 · 3 November 2008]

While creating a newer, faster subway system in New York, the developer accidentally awakens a centuries old evil - really, really big bugs. Now its up to a FBI agent and a doctor to bring an end to the carnage and terror that these prehistoric bugs present.

The box cover said this was a Sci-Fi original movie, so I knew not to expect anything special going into it. Still, I was amazed at how poorly everything was done. They brought in the worst B-actors imaginable (Antonio Sabato Jr., Angie Everhart), threw in the lamest dialogue imaginable, and added a bunch of poorly constructed CGI bugs. Even for the Sci-Fi channel, this is a very lame outing.

Better than most of the crap on sci-fi

[x_imdb-155 · 5/10 · 2 August 2005]

Most of SCI-FI channels movies are throwaway affairs, but Bugs is a large step above. Sure, the acting and writing are marginal, but who watches horror films for that??? All you want to know is: are there good special effects? (yes) is there a good amount of gore? (yes) and is there a good amount of action? (yes) The plot never gets bogged down with stupid character development or love stories and jumps into the action quickly, rarely stopping, and is frankly as satisfying as big budget, small minded feature films like Mimic, especially since you're not paying for it. A solid Saturday afternoon diversion. Much better than SCI-FI's similar films about giant killer snakes/spiders/cats/frogs/marmots.

Almost Worthless

[Black_Dahlia · 2/10 · 23 April 2005]

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.

Good Bug Movie

[jnagyjr · 8/10 · 29 May 2004]

When I first read up on Bugs (about 20 minutes before it started) I thought I was in for a snooze fest of a B-Rated sci-fi movie. Man was I wrong. I think Bugs is one of the better movies put out by Sci-Fi channel. Too bad it's not available on DVD or VHS. It had light suspense, an air of mystery and decent acting, a lot better then in some other movies I've seen. While not all the characters were believable, I think the actors did a decent job with what little they had to work with.

The movie was left open (perhaps intentionally) for a sequel. Perhaps Sci-Fi will make one that is as good as the this one.

My biggest gripe about this movie was that we really didn't get to see any of the bugs up close and personal without there being an action scene. Also, the whole "the colony will die without the queen" is rather retarded as bees and ants can live without their queen since one of the females usually takes over that role in the event the queen dies.

Better than most

[bruceleroy · 7/10 · 6 March 2004]

Most of SCI-FI channels movies are throwaway affairs, but Bugs is a large step above. Sure, the acting and writing are marginal, but who watches horror films for that??? All you want to know is: are there good special effects? (yes) is there a good amount of gore? (yes) and is there a good amount of action? (yes) The plot never gets bogged down with stupid character development or love stories and jumps into the action quickly, rarely stopping, and is frankly as satisfying as big budget, small minded feature films like Mimic, especially since you're not paying for it. A solid Saturday afternoon diversion. Much better than SCI-FI's similar films about giant killer snakes/spiders/cats/frogs/marmots.

No Votes! No Stars!

[lottatitles · 1/10 · 6 September 2003]

The SciFi channel is turning these movies out too fast, resulting in really bad movies which don't even fall into the fun 'B' Movie catagory. This one is merely a rip-off of Mimic...and not nearly as good. No story, bad use of cast, terrible, dark effects. Next up by the ads is BOA...a giant snake which lives beneath the ice under a frozen penal colony. It looks like more of the same. Of course, we all know how snakes love cold weather.

I give this movie a "10.5"

[CelluloiDiva · 1 June 2004]

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.

Obesse insects goes wild in a tunnel.

[adddm-astonever · 1/10 · 1 October 2012]

SPOILER ALERTS!

This movie made the reason for me going online and register an account at IMDb.com. The movie is an insult to what it could have been. It is stated in earlier dialogs of other reviewers that it was a bad attempt on trying to create a somewhat different story comparing to the Alien franchise.

Plot: Requires more actually originality, more story, not simply jump into the main problem without really introducing us to its characters. You know the ones that are suppose to "action" the story forward. They state a cliché problem, "there is something alien in the dark and the question is will we be able to stop it?" Enough said!

Characters: Are just briefly described with stereotypes. Really, nothing more.

Special Effects: Apart from the blood literally standing out as an fountain out of the victims, looking like ketchup, it is watchable (like an 90s epilogue to an animated game trailer).

bad Diologue

[g00187276-1 · 5/10 · 21 August 2007]

While the film is as good as can be expected for one of "those" sci-fi channel flicks, the dialog seemed really bad. as the team is getting ready to take off, the leader tells the blond girl to stay behind, presumably to be safe. we are never told why, are they a secret couple? is she sick? pregnant? not that it matters, as she dies later on. as far as the other one, the hot red haired scientist. she states that the creatures are 65 million years old (yea, thats a popular number to sprout when dealing with monsters) and in the same sentence, states that they came from the Carbiniferous period, but that's over three hundred million years ago! Anyway, don't expect much and it'll be an okay film, especially when the cop goes all Rambo!

Does This Bug You? - or - Just Another Bug Hunt

[henri sauvage · 1/10 · 20 April 2011]

I believe one day film historians will look back on this as the era in which Hollywood forgot how to make an entertaining low budget creature feature, for which the blame will be laid squarely on the shoulders of The Channel Formerly Known as Sci-Fi.

And the prime exhibit will be this piece of dreck. Literally no stone is left unturned in its relentless quest to claim the dishonor of being the most inept, boring "Aliens" rip-off ever to come scuttling down the pike. You'd think the concept of monster bugs running amok in a half-completed subway project could provide all sorts of opportunities for claustrophobic chills and thrills -- but you'd be wrong, so very, very wrong.

Even by TCFKaSF standards, this is dull stuff. And for all you sick puppies who could care less about inconsequentials like direction, cinematography, dialog, acting or plot, so long as there's lots of gore -- well, there's not that much, and it's not that well done, either.

Let's put it this way: This film is so bad, even my local used DVD store wouldn't take it.

A fair example of its type.

[Hey_Sweden · 5/10 · 16 July 2017]

As far as cheesy made for television genre movies with digital effects go, "Bugs" offers a decent enough diversion. It stars Antonio Sabato, Jr. as an FBI agent named Pollack who is on the trail of a serial killer. The trail leads him to a totally unrelated circumstance, that of enormous, bloodthirsty insects terrorizing a subway tunnel that is under construction. He teams with a sexy insect expert, Dr. Emily Foster (Angie Everhart) to save the day.

'Bugs' has a pretty routine script, with routine and annoying characters for the most part. There is a pathologically greedy tycoon (Karl Pruner) who doesn't want ANYTHING to spoil his plans. This character is set up as being so reprehensible (and over the top) that you keep waiting for him to get his comeuppance. There's also a team of commandos, turned into chopped meat by the rampaging critters.

Anybody watching will automatically peg this as a typical "Aliens" wannabe, hampered by the constraints of TV level budgeting, uneven CGI (but fairly well designed bugs), dumb dialogue, and some lame performances. Sabato is an extremely stoic hero, the kind of guy who only ever seems to have one expression on his face. Everhart is quite easy to watch, playing the kind of tough, capable heroine who has brains to match her hotness. Veteran Canadian character actor R.H. Thomson makes the most of his role as the hotshot who designed and built these tunnels. Horror buffs will enjoy seeing the lovely Lynne Griffin ("Black Christmas" '74, "Curtains") in a cameo as the Deputy Medical Examiner.

Mildly thrilling at best, with a fortunately decent pace and short running time (if you watch it on DVD) that keeps it from being too painful.

Five out of 10.

Your avg Sc-fi Horror (not all that bad)

[Brian_Boulnois · 4/10 · 11 April 2004]

I saw Bugs on Sky last night, soon got the hang of what was going after joining part way into the film.

Its no blockbuster film thats for such, its your run of the mill sc-fi horror with the cast this time being picked off by armour plated bugs with of course lots of blood thrown in.

The cast tries it best with the poor script but then with it being your run of the mill you cant do much to make it great.

There is a nod towards a another classic "bug" film Aliens special edition which made my smile. I give this film a 4 while its not bad its not great either

Wonderful low-budget creature-feature with prehistoric scorpion protagonists!

[mikefoxx666 · 8/10 · 5 February 2006]

I've read quite a few of the other reviews for this movie and find their criticism rather harsh. If you are fan of Creature-feature flicks (and I would think that to be reading reviews of this movie, you must at least have had some initial interest) you would not be at all disappointed with this offering.

The CGI is in my opinion very well rendered (it's not Mimic, but then we're talking very different budgets), the plot is as you would expect for this type of movie (you MUST begin with low-expectations in a creature feature B-movie - that's a given!!), plus there's enough blood 'n' guts to keep the gore-hounds among us happy.

The prehistoric scorpions look great and move well and the mutated dragon-fly/scorpion-crossbreed queen is as delicious as she is vicious!! For it's type, where I would give Eight-Legged Freaks a 9 out of 10 (one point deducted for the stupid noises the spiders made) and Mimic a 10, I'd give this movie an 8 as it truly deserves it.

"Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist." Decent 'creatuire feature', one of the better examples in fact.

[poolandrews · 7/10 · 21 January 2006]

Bugs starts with a cop (Xuan Fraser) chasing a suspect into subway tunnel construction site, once inside the cop is killed by something nasty lurking in the shadows... FBI agent Matt Pollack (Antonio Sabato Jr.) is called in when the cops limbless torso is discovered & is thought to be the work of a serial killer whom Pollack is after. Pollack disagrees but stays on the case when he finds some strange slime on the body, it is sent to entomologist Emily Foster (Angie Everhart) who confirms the substance is insect enzyme & she has never seen anything like it before. Meanwhile the half completed subway tunnel is hosting a VIP party on a train when the guests are attacked & slaughtered by large scorpion type insects that have been awoke from they're centuries long hibernation by the construction. Word of the massacre gets to Pollack & Foster who call in a special marine unit lead by officer Benton (Duane Murray) to prevent whatever's lurking down there from making it out...

This Canadian production was directed by Joseph Conti & I personally thought Bugs was a throughly entertaining & harmless way to pass 80 odd minutes (it states on the IMDb that with commercials it runs 120! Talk about ruining the pacing & flow of a film! But not the version I saw thankfully...). The script by Robinson Young, Patrick Doody & Chris Valenziano is at heart a pretty clichéd creature feature but I think one of the better ones that I have seen. Bugs has a conveyor belt script, the monster threat that become intelligent when the story needs them to be, the isolated location, the race against time, the hero, the scientist, the marines with big guns, the corrupt corporate official & the disposable creature food. Having said that the clichés aren't as annoying as usual, it moves along at a really nice pace has surprising amounts of gore, decent CGI & puppet creature effects, a neat underground subway location & has a good feel to it. One thing I did notice is how much it rips-off or pay homage, whichever way you want to look at it I suppose, to the film Aliens (1986) which in itself isn't a bad thing because every sci-fi horror lover knows how great Aliens is. I mean the marines sent into the creatures nest & their extermination relayed back via a video link & radio, the retreat from the nest to the safety of a getaway vehicle with the creatures in hot pursuit, the forming of barricades, the character's, one problem cropping up after another one being caused by an explosion, lots of dark tunnels & corridors, the strong female & male heroes, the fight with the queen at the end & just the overall feel of Bugs resembles Aliens very closely.

Director Conti does an OK job & it is certainly better than it's made for TV status would have suggested, it isn't the best film ever but I think Bugs is far from the worst. The creatures themselves look like a cross between a scorpion & spider & are pretty cool, Conti wisely keeps them in the shadows & flickering lights to maintain their creepiness & try to hide any deficiencies in the CGI which I thought was actually rather good. There are pleasing amounts of gore, the cop at the beginning is impaled & his limbless torso is found & medically examined, there are severed arms, sliced throats & Conti doesn't forget about the red stuff either as every attack seems to feature fountains of blood spraying everywhere which is by no means a bad thing.

Technically the Bugs is very good considering the TV budget limitations, it's somewhat bland & forgettable but it's well made & doesn't embarrass itself in any department. I must mention the computer systems in Bugs as they actually look plausible & realistic for a change. The acting was OK.

Bugs was a pleasant surprise, maybe I've seen so many bad 'creature feature' type films that a film like Bugs seems like a masterpiece. Hell, it's definitely better than Python (2000). I think Bugs is well worth a watch especially if you like these monster films.

Bugs was a pretty good ride.

[dave-1199 · 10/10 · 10 September 2003]

My grandfather walked into the room just as the bugs were massacring the train. He said `Oh my god what are you watching?' My grandfather is not someone who would normally watch the sci fi channel. He became so engrossed with what was happening he decided to stay and watch it with me. He couldn't believe that they would show stuff that intense on the sci fi channel. I think he was shocked; anyway we watched it together and had a great time.

This is a good killer critter flick!

[gtc83 · 7/10 · 28 May 2006]

We start out with a tunnel being built under a mountain, a train is going to run through it, drastically reducing travel time from point A to point B. The tunnel is half done, and a group of dignitaries rides the first train out to the midpoint, as the company honchos hit them up for more money. But they're attacked by some sort of unseen critters, ripped to shreds! It's actually quite nicely done.

Next, cut to the folks who are going to investigate this mysterious slaughter. They contact the guy who's in charge of engineering the tunnel, and unlike the folks in just about every other crappy B-movie, he's actually an intelligent, helpful person who just wants to get this thing figured out so they can finish the tunnel. So these folks, along with a group of military guys and gals, get in an armored train and go into the tunnels, where they find giant bugs.

What makes this so much better than the average B-movie is that the characters are quite well done: fairly likable, they act in a logical manner and don't spend the whole time fighting with each other. What a startling break with cliché! The atmosphere in the tunnel is also done really well, you get a sense of claustrophobia as they're all trapped with the bugs, walking down hallways with lots of dark corners, etc. They set up an electric fence to keep the bugs at bay, and it's actually fairly believable as the bugs keep testing the fence and the military folks tensely stand by with machine guns at the ready.

Towards the end you get the usual big battle with the head bug; the special effects are cheesy but okay. Overall, this is a decidedly above average low budget affair, one of my favorites. Much better than other higher budget affairs like "Relic".

No! Wait! This one has some style!

[rbunnell · 8/10 · 8 March 2005]

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!