Wordiezett So much average

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Ian Brown A near miss that should have been a landmark 1960s suspense thriller. It had a personable star in George Maharis, a heavyweight antagonist in Richard Basehart, a highly proficient action director (John Sturges) at the helm, a quirkily unnerving Jerry Goldsmith score and a chilling premise - a stolen flask of a super-bacteria that threatens global extinction. Throw in sleek 60s technology and photogenic desert locations and what could go wrong?Unfortunately the exposition. We're never given any firm idea of Basehart's motivation, and his accomplices (including a younger Edward Asner) just seem like B-movie heavies. Dana Andrews hasn't enough to do as Maharis' brooding superior, while romantic interest Anne Francis' part is virtually superfluous. It badly needs some more interesting secondary characters. And, bafflingly, there's not actually that much action or pace either, though Sturges does build up the tension masterfully at the climax.Enough remains to just about hold the attention. But it should have been better...

Scott LeBrun Here's an interesting and intelligent film that is worthy of discovery or rediscovery. It stars George Maharis as Lee Barrett, a security agent. He's hired for a baffling case of theft: valuable flasks containing a doomsday virus, otherwise known as The Satan Bug of the title, are stolen from a germ warfare compound. Barrett and others reason that not only did the crime probably involve a few people, but it also must have required inside help. Eventually, Barrett must do battle with the mad genius behind everything. They cause death and destruction in Florida, and threaten to do so again in Los Angeles.Alistair MacLeans' novel was adapted for the screen by James Clavell and Edward Anhalt, and produced & directed by John Sturges. It might not be to every taste because Sturges dares to go for a careful, measured pace. There's also a lot of exposition to digest. But patient viewers will be rewarded with a scenario that does eventually kick into a higher gear. Robert Surtees' cinematography in Panavision is absolutely gorgeous; dig those colours inside the lab. And Jerry Goldsmith contributes a typically effective score. The story keeps the viewers engrossed, and comes up with a neat twist that they might not see coming.The cast is full of familiar faces and rock solid right down the line. Maharis is an unflappable and stoic hero. Anne Francis has the only substantial female role, but she's an absolute joy to watch. Richard Basehart, Dana Andrews, John Larkin, Richard Bull, Frank Sutton, Edward Asner, Simon Oakland, John Anderson, Hari Rhodes, Henry Beckman, Harry Lauter, and the too briefly seen James Hong co-star, with uncredited roles for James "Scotty" Doohan and Harold Gould."The Satan Bug" easily predates movies like "Outbreak" by a wide margin, and deftly entertains its audience for the better part of two hours.Eight out of 10.

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.

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 ****