Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Konterr Brilliant and touching

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

drystyx It's hard to say just what this "Satan Bug" flask carries. It's described as a virus at times, and at other times a bacteria, since the bad guy has developed a vaccine for it.That wouldn't matter so much, if it wasn't for the constant changing of its properties, although it's hard to tell exactly what they are, since too many lines are given to George Maharis, whose ability to speak clearly is about nil. One drop of the deadly "Satan Bug", at first, will wipe out the Earth in a few weeks, then it only wipes out an area near Florida, then a flask can only kill two out of three men in a small abandoned house.This, of course, lets us know that either the writers are goofy, or the character who claims it will wipe out the world at the beginning is a liar. So much for "suspense" in who the bad guy is.Still, too much changes, and characters speak too fast to know what is going on. Mostly Maharis.The other actors in this all star cast pretty much save the movie, though. From top to bottom, we get most of the mainstays of the great films and TV series. Sutton, of "Gomer Pyle", Asner of his series and "Mary Tyler Moore", Oakland of "Psycho", Anderson of "Ride the High Country", Andrews of many big films, and the big star, Richard Basehart.Seeing all of these big names, along with others, makes this a minor all star cast that at least makes it fun. The supporting actors are good, and do salvage the film to some extent. On the whole, there are as many assets as detriments. The big scene involves the flask thrown into a room of three men, and how it affects them.

Neil Doyle The biggest drawback of THE Satan BUG is the slow pace at which director John Sturges has chosen to tell this tale of laboratory espionage and a mad scientist. Fortunately for viewers, the pace quickens in the latter portion of the story and overall the results are pretty satisfying.RICHARD BASEHART is the mad scientist and GEORGE MAHARIS is the man chosen by the government to track him down. The story gets off to a slow start with an extended laboratory sequence with a remote desert setting as security is violated. It takes forty-five minutes before we learn that a vial containing "the satin bug" has been stolen and will be unleashed upon mankind unless an insane plea is granted. Additionally, we learn that Maharis suspects it's an inside job that permitted the virus to be in the hands of a mad millionaire out to destroy Los Angeles.With this sort of plot line, this ought to be a taut exercise in suspense. It's not. Most of the blame goes to a script heavy with exposition for the first hour before the threats become clear. Once the plan to capture the scientist and his cohorts on the run is set into motion, the picture picks up pace and acquires some tension.A tired looking RICHARD BASEHART is less than impressive as a man impersonating Dr. Hoffman who engineers the plan. DANA ANDREWS, although distinguished looking with gray hair as the father of ANNE FRANCIS, is wasted in a minor role.Summing up: The payoff at the finale isn't big enough to atone for a dull first hour. Result is a mixed bag of an espionage thriller.

lotus07 SYNOPSIS: Insane genius seeks to destroy all life on the planet by developing the ultimate biological weapon....what could possibly go wrong?CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER: Fear. Fear that the overworked and stressed-out brainiacs in Station #3 will loose it, go postal and create the ultimate lethal chemical agent. If exposed to the air, the population of the planet has 2 weeks to live. This is all about men playing God, and what happens when technology overtakes our collective wisdom. This is still going on in society, with stem-cell research, genetic engineers, the human genome project and steroids, but the possible results are much more frightening and terrifying here.PROS AND CONS: This film started out on the slow side and at first appeared somewhat low budget. The sets and dialog seemed sparse and almost empty. As the film went on, it became apparent that this was intentional in order to give an overall feeling of alienation and loneliness. The entire cast of the film is minimal. Anne Francis is the ONLY woman you even see on screen for the whole picture. The stark and empty desert landscapes of Arizona and Southern California almost gave a sense of a world abandoned. There aren't a lot of plot twists in this film, but there is a lot of 'motivational' dialog. Questions regarding man's right to exist and the folly of runaway science. The scenes of death by bacterial toxins in the film are riveting and emotional. There is no blood or gore, just a momentary realization that they are about to die, and then they collapse and are gone.There aren't a lot of cons in this film, because you have to take it for what it is. Stark, minimalist film making on a terrifying subject. It does appear odd that with the fate of the world at stake, all the forces that the US government requires are about 12 men in trench coats that pick up a pastel colored rotary phone to bark orders and have things done. This makes you wonder how ever accomplished anything before cell phones and the internet. We like to see more detail and drama these days, but like I said, this is minimalist film making on a large scale.

moonspinner55 Several flasks containing a deadly toxin, prepared by the U.S. government for germ warfare, are stolen from a government lab in the California desert by a traitor and his henchmen; an investigator on the case locates the group and is taken hostage. Mechanical thriller stretches out its exposition to a yawn-inducing length; by the time director John Sturges gets around to the big action sequences, most of the tension has already faded away. The cast is made up of familiar TV faces (and Dana Andrews as a General), and cinematographer Robert Surtees does some handsome work with the picturesque locations, but the movie just doesn't move (and is probably too glossy and professional for its own good). Based on Alistair MacLean's book, the premise had great disaster-flick potential, however the cheap thrill-genre implications are not exploited by Sturges, who is disappointingly workman-like. By the third act, the many stand-offs between the good guys and the villains are finally pared down, and the picture does have an exciting finale. The dialogue is heavy-handed throughout (which can backfire and lapse into camp for restless audiences), and the actors are used as story-pawns, stripping them of any personality. ** from ****