Bone Sickness (2004 Video) User Reviews

Gory But Dull Zombie SOV Gore-Fest...

[EVOL666 · 3/10 · 1 September 2006]

This is my second run-in with a Brian Paulin film - I have yet to be impressed. The first film I watched was DEAD GIRL ON FILM, a snuff-themed snooze-fest with one or two decent scenes. BONE SICKNESS is slightly better, as the gore is amped-up and there's some decent nudity - but visually, it still looks like a cam-corder crap-fest, not to mention the fact that director Brian Paulin should NEVER be let in front of the camera...

Some guy is dying from a degenerative bone disease, Paulin is his pal that works at a morgue and keeps him supplied with corpse-marrow and other strange concoctions to keep him alive, but it doesn't work right and zombies start appearing everywhere. The rest is a blur of Andreas Schnaas-style gory retardation that doesn't really deserve much mention...

I had been waiting for this film for quite a while, and honestly - I wish I'd never heard of it. The only thing of ANY note on display are the few decent gore scenes that don't look totally fake. Acting? Atrocious. Paulin looks like a poor man's Philip Seymour Hoffman, but with none of the talent and a horrible hair-do. He's not the only one - NO ONE in this film has a lick of acting talent. Some of the gore FX are OK...but the film is so utterly amateurish as a whole, that only fans of uber-micro-budget cinema will enjoy this mess. Sorry kids, I'm a gore fan as much as (or more) than the next guy - but there has to be a bit more than that in a film to make it worthwhile. I got really nothing else to say about this, except it pretty much blows. I've seen worse - but BONE SICKNESS is a tired film in a tired genre - and honestly - it took me four viewings just to make it through this - so I'm just tired...I just pray that FETUS is better than this crap...3/10

For fans of ultra low budget splatter!

[The-Green-Fuz · 5/10 · 8 April 2010]

I'll keep this review generally informal, just to get across what one would likely want to know about this film before viewing it.

First off, this film is an absolute piece of garbage by the conventional standards of mainstream cinema. It is poorly acted, poorly scripted, poorly lit (ex. green dollar store light bulbs), the story is quite weak, etc. I also warn you, this film is ultra low budget, and it LOOKS low budget. Yes, this is one of the ones that you can tell was shot on a cheap digital camera. It has that video feel and atmosphere, so don't expect even B movie quality video, as this one's Z grade all the way.

With all that said, this film is very enjoyable for the right audience. It is an absolute gem for horror fans that can look past, or even enjoy a film that has that low budget charm. If you want to watch a film that puts gore before everything else, this is a great choice. We get many gore gags throughout the first chunk of the film, and then towards the end, we get a massive (MASSIVE!) payoff of cheap but very well done splatter. The zombies are of the slow, clunky, Fulci variety, and the gore is slimy, dirty, gooey, bright, splattery, etc. It gets really gross.

To wrap this up, this is a film for low budget splatter fans who have already experienced the likes of all the classic gore films. This one is for those who want to dig a little deeper and explore cheap, low budget splatter by the lesser known and established film makers. It's for people who highly regard the classic gore (not that it's all about the gore) of a Romero, Jackson, Raimi, Argento, Fulci, etc, but can also have a lot of fun with the likes of Olaf Ittenbach type splatter flicks.

Mind passing the femur?

[TheHrunting · 4/10 · 27 May 2011]

This starts out normally with a twenty-something woman in New England taking care of her husband who has some kind of debilitating bone ailment with no known medical basis. Through failed trial and error the wife gets desperate enough to seek out her husband's mullet sportin' friend who brews up his own concoction from body parts of the recently laid to rest in the nearby graveyard that he works at.

"Bone Sickness" gives its obvious cues and nods to Fulci's "City of the Living Dead" and "House by the Cemetery." This is the kind of account that only "makes sense" to those neck deep in the horror genre...and with a history of mental disorders to boot. If the audience really attempted to sit down and think about if point A matches up with point B, or if their anatomy teachers were lying to them, madness will probably take over. Can creepy crawlin' bugs really nest inside peoples' faces underneath easily ripped off skin and also come vomiting out of mouths, who knows? It can make for interesting visuals, but as more and more time goes by, the events taking place seem to get more and more diluted and a little more adventurous than the filmmakers can scurry to handle.

"Bone Sickness" is an excuse for carnage and catered towards surrealism. The atmosphere drips, slimes, smells and ultimately disgusts like any old school horror movie enthusiast would crave--myself included. This is about excess and exaggeration, though the pacing is something that needed tweaking as the flow--even with all its head slicings, neck gashes, gut munching and nudity going on--doesn't steadily captivate one's attention span or put one right there in the mix. Though it's still more effective than, say, "Das Komabrutale Duell."

The sound effects range from Italian horror style to stock haunted house. The special make-up effects can be effective, plenty and downright juicy; though due to budget limitations you might see the occasional recognizable food item as well as more "frozen" victims than you can count that just stand or lay there ready to be taken alive through premeditated gore traps. This is unconventional cinema on the low-budget end--shot on video, poor lighting, camera humming--though this isn't, for instance, like "Tetsuo," "Premutos," "Schramm," "Naked Blood," "House on Tombstone Hill" or "Bad Taste" where the production values were pitiful, but the out-there stories were translated with more refined and captivating creativity that could lock you in without looking back or questioning why this or that was done or if you should hit fast-forward to speed it up.

Bone Sickenss "Needs a Story"

[pontiac316 · 2/10 · 20 August 2006]

This movie had no point what so ever and did not make any sense at all. I personally bought this movie off ebay with the expectations of seeing a great zombie movie, Boy was i shocked. I guess you must give the guys credit with the low budget they had to work with but that gives for no reason for a dumb story, The special effects were OK but the zombies were all rotten with perfectly normal hands.. "why didn't the hands rot" If the movie made sense it would probably be OK but man my 4 year old could write a better story.. For you gore fans I'm sure you will enjoy and thats about all there is to enjoy about this movie,,I'm not by any means being degrading towards the writer and or director of this film I'm just speaking my piece of mind, I'm sure with the way this movie is advertised,there will be a lot of unhappy buyers expecting a movie with a great storyline, Personally i give this movie a 10 for gore and i give it a 2 for story...

holy mother of crap movies....

[FubarSFBD · 1/10 · 20 October 2006]

this is the lamest thing i've ever seen..i suppose the comments on it such as "what a great old school zombie movie" and other junks are written by people involved in the production.i cannot imagine that someone who considers himself as a reasonable person can give a higher vote than 1.actually i do not think the movie deserves even 1,it's mostly like -10. there's no plot,there's no acting,there's no even one decent character conversation,the zombies are awful,the filming is the worst part.the camera man is putting his heart into the attempt to film almost everything else except the actors. yes,there are fountains of blood and piles of guts,which look totally fake.there's only one decent scene in which the sick husband spits worms.nothing else. ...it's just a crap,shot in someone's backyard,and i've wasted more than 90 minutes of my life to watch it.don't make the same mistakes...

Stop. Right. Now.

[Insanity1865 · 1/10 · 12 April 2007]

Whoa. Stop. Don't rent this. Don't buy this. Don't watch this!

What do you think you're going to get? 1. Good gore? No. Sure there is lots and lots of bloody violence, but for the most part it's just prop dummies being ripped apart while copious amounts of watery blood squirt in all directions. The kills are all awful, just basically a character falling over and then a close up of a body part being ripped open. Even the one or two deaths that are a bit creative are totally ruined by a $5 budget. 2. Clever writing? No. Don't even try to figure this plot out. By the end you won't be sure if it's black magic, zombies, or demons. Little if anything makes any sense from one scene to the next-- there is simply no point to listing all the plot holes and inconsistencies. The entire story is one big "WTF?". The ending is no exception. Shave off the entire last half hour and the movie actually makes more sense. 3. Hot sex? No. The girls have a distinct 'hired for their willingness to show skin' feel to them. There are some boobs and even some full-frontal shots, but certainly no sex and hardly anything you might call 'sexy'. For those ladies out there, let's just say the guys all looked like closet child molesters. 4. Some good laughs? No. Perhaps the worst part of the movie is its serious tone. No jokes, no tongue-in-cheek moments that let you know the people involved weren't taking themselves too seriously. Quite the opposite: the movie is extremely heavy-handed and dreary.

So what IS good about this movie? Not too much. I would say it's got one or two 'gross out' moments that are memorable, and maybe one or two 'gotcha' type scares. These small shining moments are completely drowned in a sea of boring dialog, pointless events, and nonsensical actions. I can't stress enough that nothing makes any sense.

I can't think of any reason I'd ever want to watch this again, nor can I imagine a scenario where I would recommend i

Just a bad film

[NLavigne · 1/10 · 24 August 2006]

This film looks bad, sounds bad, acted bad, edited horribly and even has the worst gore i have ever seen. The blood was like kool Aid. I have no idea how this movie was ever sold. Brian Paulin can't write, direct, edit, act or even light a scene.

You can always hear static and the sound of the cameras motor.

Stay away from this film. It is no better than some 12 year old's youtube movie.

He can't edit a film the movie has no L-Cut and terrible scene changes.

Don't think this is some unfair review by some jerk. I love b-movies i am a fangoria fan (JasonVoorhees665) this movie was just plane bad.

What were these other people watching????

[phildogger · 16 March 2005]

This movie is a pile of Dung, and most of these comments are probably from cast members and family members. AVOID AVOID AVOID, unless you like overweight naked women, and terrible dialogue delivered in a horrific New England accent. Editing and Pacing? What are those?? Crapola, avoid like VD. Would it kill these people to actually hire more than 14 friends and family? I have seen way better low budget horror. Blair Witch comes to mind, spent 40K, it grossed over 140 million! the FX here were ridiculous and fake looking, unless you like splashed Kool-Aid on everything, then you would be in luck here. Next time, get some local actors, not the girl who you got lucky with. And with the exception of the redhead, every girl in this movie should really keep their clothes on!!!

Bad bad bad....

[djnobeat · 1/10 · 21 June 2005]

I love horror movies and in general: Zombieflicks. Then one beautiful day I read about this film here on IMDb and it had a score of 5,3 points on the rate-o-meter. Well...I rent or buy movies after looking at this rate-o-meter because 95% of the time,I agree with it... Not this time!!!! This film is so bad that it's only.....bad. OK!There's much gore and some nudity here,but the gore is so bad made that even my brother,who's 10,can make it better. We get a lot of references to evil dead,dawn of the dead etc.etc.,but hey; Sam Raimi and Romero knew what they were doing and I think they had a lot of fun making their movies. These people didn't! Bad acting,bad editing,bad fx; in general: It's all bad. Even the nudity is bad! This movie makes "Day of the dead" look like a Oscarwinning film. 0 out of 10. Go and see "Shaun of the dead" instead!!!

New School Gore: The Runner-up

[Tromafreak · 6/10 · 21 August 2009]

Well then, here it is, the goriest film in American history. A full-blast, pitch-black, living-dead, gore-fest, which, unlike most modern exploitation, will leave gorehounds completely satisfied. Yeah, it was shot on video, I know, it looks weird. Personally, I'm cool with it, but this s.o.v. badass will force nay sayers to overlook the obvious flaws like that as well as the $30 budget. Earth-shattering gore is one thing, but was the worm-vomiting really necessary? Oh yeah, it really, really was!!

Alex has a rare bone disease, and pretty much, has no chance of living, he is looked after by his hot wife, Kristen, who is slowly losing hope. Eventually, Kristen seeks the help of Alex's friend, Thomas (the director), to help find a cure. Thomas's cure, you ask? Why, bones of course, yeah, bones of the dead will now be fed to the sickly Alex. You see, Thomas works in a morgue, so stuff like that is simple for good ol' Tom. Whatever you need, as long as dead bodies are involved. What's funny is that this bone-marrow medication is actually starting to work, yay for Alex!! What's not so funny is that the dead do not appreciate people stealing their bones, and they're just about ready to rise up and kill everybody in a really gory manner, apparently because they're all sore at Thomas. Actually that's pretty funny too.

We certainly have a doozy on our hands here, don't we? The truth is, if any gore film has ever even remotely given Peter Jackson's Dead Alive a run for its money, well gang, here it is. Not only that, but Bone Sickness, aside from the gore, can actually be kind of interesting, and I know, why listen to me when there's already so many other negative reviews for this? All I can say is that those people are liars, and that they're all probably jealous because none of them could ever shoot something this awesome on video, or I don't know, they probably just don't dig stuff that was shot on video. But really, Bone Sickness is at least as good as Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence, or at least a Todd Sheets film. If gory, living-dead epics with a hopeless vibe is your cup of tea, Burial Ground is also a must see. For something else from Brian Paulin, the maniac who directed this atrocity, check out Fetus. Well done Mr. Paulin, you have created one repulsive work of art that will, sooner or later, become legendary. Keep up the good work. 9/10

Gore & Nudity: Yah! The rest? Boo!

[Michael_Reed · 2/10 · 18 June 2008]

I've recently read a review of this picture that said: "The acting in this low-budget, independent zombie film is actually surprisingly good. All of the actors and actresses (who get completely naked!) actually give great performances and it is obvious that they really worked hard to make sure they delivered the best performance possible. Not only was there great acting..." I had to laugh. Look, I'm all for giving kudos where kudos are due...but the acting in this picture was not good...it wasn't even decent. Here is a problem with indie movies...people actually think this caliber of acting is good. Acting is just as important as lighting or sound...if its bad, the movie suffers. And it does...suffer.

Like I said, I'll give kudos where they are deserved: the gore and makeup effects in Bone Sickness are incredibly good, given the micro-budget it was shot with. Makeup artists should take note of Paulin's detail and execution. Excellent job in this category.

Another area this movie excels is in the nudity. I don't know how Paulin managed to get multiple cute girls completely naked...but he did, and I don't think they were strippers. Gore and nudity sells horror films...and the nudity in this film is a great bonus. Too bad the lead girl has to lay down to show her boobs...they are huge, and should have been shown with her standing up, not on her back. I suppose they must sag, and this was the most flattering of positions...but still, they are too big to not see standing up. The red head in the film had an especially nice figure, and she got fully nude...excellent! It's ashame that other than the nudity, gore effects, and makeup...the movie slouches to a 1 star picture. The camera they shot it on wasn't very good (certainly not HD), and the DP and lighting designer (if they had one) didn't know how to optimize picture quality. There were also far too many slow motion effects, which looked horrible and digitized--if it looks bad, don't do it, unless you absolutely have to. Paulin uses slow-mo nearly a dozen times...and they all look like crap.

The sound was passable, but still suffered from your typical no-budget film issues: blips, background noise jumping up and down, inaudible dialog...I don't imagine they used a boom once (I could be wrong).

Paulin...take my advice. Go to Hollywood and be a makeup artist--you'll do quite well for yourself. Don't direct pictures. Yes, they may sell because your gore and nudity are awesome...but the movies, storyline, acting, lighting and sound need a lot of work. It's really sad that you not only cast yourself as one of the leads, but it's even sadder that you're the most natural actor in the cast (which isn't saying much).

Sorry about the bad review. I think you need to drop directing, and focus on what you're good at: gore and makeup.

Ignore the Jaded Zombie Fans..Gore Fans Only

[yaktheripper · 8/10 · 26 July 2012]

A lot of bashing on this movie. I get it. It is a snooze fest for the first half of the flick. The acting is pretty generic, to be polite..but polite I must be since the ending is so gory, so brutal, so shocking in it's arrival that it is a thing of unexpected beauty for gore-hounds. I tried watching director Brian Paulin's "Fetus"..couldn't get into it..never finished it. This though? Wow man, how any zombie or gore fan could dump on a movie like this when we're given such a remarkably unexpected ending is beyond me. The zombie arrival is an absolute blast of violence and brutality I haven't seen in some time, perhaps ever. These zombies rampage through humanity with the force of evil itself riding shotgun. The screen is soaked in blood and organs. I even liked the reason for the zombies...credit for originality as the origin of these maniacal human hating undead swarms is brave and sinister. However...be warned, you do have to tolerate the dreadful, slow slow burn of a beginning. It drags. The dumping on the girlfriend is pathetic as well. Darya Zabinski is a full figured busty actress and her body is far from obese. Very curvy and attractive...it was refreshing to see a woman I found sexy with her clothes off in a movie for once. Zombie and gore fans worldwide respect and appreciate this movie...give it a shot.

Enjoyable Zero-Budget Bloodbath

[PassTheSeason · 6/10 · 29 September 2009]

Alex McNetti is sick. Like, really, really, REALLY sick, like throwing up and crapping worms and maggots simultaneously sick. Lucky for Alex, he has a very caring, big-titted wife with a mortician friend who has the perfect antidote–ground up bones. If that wasn't enough to mess up the various characters' lives, a hotshot inspector is up and about investigating a few strange murders at the local cemetery, while a possibly related outbreak of the living dead has come out of nowhere.

Director Brian Paulin makes cheap movies, and when I say cheap, I mean CHEAP. The lighting is hardly there and sometimes feels like a shabby Argento rip-off, the the camera-work is almost nonexistent and seems to rely mainly on tripods, and the acting is pretty stiff overall. However, if there's one thing Paulin delivers on, it's the gore. And really, do we expect anything less? The blood and torn flesh is on full display, with some especially well-made zombie action at the end of Paulin's biggest movie yet, Bone Sickness.

Sub-standard production values aside (as always), the concept behind the film is admirably simplistic, and the very few twists work well enough the carry its slim frame. I suppose if I were to review this film and it had more money behind it though, I would have to say that Paulin could use some work in the conveyance department. The story moves along at a slow and sometimes confusing pace, and seems to rest firmly on the knowledge that there will be gore every five minutes. This is no surprise considering the no-budget zombie flick sub-genre, but it is something that could be vastly approved on nonetheless.

The acting, as stated, is often wooden but carries through where it counts. Rich George is fine as usual, here playing the sickly Alex. His wife, played by Darya Zabinski (who actually appears to be getting better jobs than I would have guessed) is somewhat restrained when she shouldn't be, but still offers a solid performance for a Morbid Vision Films production. Paulin himself of course pops up as the mortician, who is given extra creepy stalker tones thanks to that long-ass hair (sorry Brian, just let it go!), and does the job he gave himself well. That's really it as far as compliments go on the acting front. Everyone else is either terribly wooden or not acting at all, though Kevin Barbare as Inspector Seacrest almost pulls through. Alas, he is pulled under.

Now, the effects work. I don't believe I've ever seen a movie where such a thing fluctuates quite like this (I believe the last case was the big budget Virus). In one corner we have a girl being sawn in half and bodies exploding, and then on the other we have bare healthy skin on long-rotten zombies and what appears to be half a rack of cooked pork ribs taken out of a rather well made fake corpse. The fact that this film took two years to make simply emphasizes such bewildering errors in judgment, as it seems the one thing that Paulin would do is pay extra close attention to his gore FX. Don't think I am bashing the film quite yet, though; it is a good film overall, it is simply distracting when certain mistakes are made. Overall, Paulin does a good job and provides a few rarely seen stunts in such a no-budget film, such as the flipping of a car and the aforementioned exploding body.

Another element in the film's favor is Paulin's love of grossing out his audience. Rich George vomiting and shitting worms, only to attempt to devour them afterward really hits a soft spot, and the use of other creepy crawlies throughout adds a sense of ethereal horror that really is quite nice.

Overall, Bone Sickness is a nice try that could have been better, but also could have been a lot worse. You get tits and you get gore, and watching this movie, that's probably all you want. Also, watch out for the twist at the end explaining the zombies, as it's so silly you won't want to miss it.

-- SufferForYourArt.com

Really, really bad, amateur hour with lots of poor looking gore.

[poolandrews · 2/10 · 29 December 2007]

Bone Sickness starts as Kristen (Darya Zabinski) gives her sick husband Alex (Rich George) a potion concocted by their friend Thomas (Brian Paulin) to try & keep him alive, with no insurance & nothing the doctor's can do Alex is on the verge of death from some disease which decays bones. Unfortunately Thomas has been using bones from bodies he has dug up from graveyards & as such they are infected with parasites (look I didn't write this crap, OK?) which turns Alex's insides into maggots & worms which he starts to puke up & sh*t out when he goes to the toilet. Then for no reason whatsoever all the bodies in the graveyard come back to life as flesh eating zombies & start to kill & eat everyone...

Bone Sickness is pretty much a homemade film shot on a camcorder principally by Rich George & Brian Paulin, virtually every credit during the end goes to one or both of them from staring in it to editing it, filming it, building the sets, doing the special effects & just about everything else including the stunt driving! You know sometimes we take things for granted, little things like films which make sense & are well made so when a film as truly dire & amateurish as Bone Sickness comes along it makes you appreciate universally hated & panned films like Catwoman (2004) just that little bit more. First off lets talk about the story in Bone Sickness or rather the complete lack of it, things seemingly happen at random, virtually nothing is explained let alone makes any sense, the plot twists are terrible (when the guy gets an axe in his head at the start Alex was sick in bed so it couldn't have been him), there's no sense of time or location & as for the final ten minutes in the graveyard when those devil looking type creatures appear the film completely loses the viewer & becomes one of the biggest messes in film history. Bone Sickness is a disaster, it's a amateur homemade horror film that is really, really bad in every way although the fact that the final thirty or forty minutes is wall to wall gore prevents the dreaded 1 star out of 10, it's just a shame the gore effects are so poor.

From a film-making point of view Bone Sickness is a mess & as bad as any film you will ever see, enthusiasm for the genre just isn't enough. I mean I could make a horror film on my camcorder using my friends & family, does that automatically mean it should get released on DVD & mean people actually want to watch it? No, I didn't think so. The lighting is horrible, the photography is strictly point & shoot with no close-ups or establishing shots which gives it a really horrible choppy feel, the editing is poor & he never knows when to cut away & the special effects are terrible with the worst looking fake blood I've ever seen, it's more like red water. To give some credit where it's due there are plenty of gore, from ripped off arms, intestine eating, autopsy scenes, stomachs being ripped open, branches stuck in peoples necks, throat biting, face melting, babies ripped from pregnant women, head smashing, decapitations, bodies cut in half, rotten zombies, lots of red water sorry I mean blood splashed about everywhere, people blown up with grenades, people shot, heads ripped in half both vertically & horizontally & all sorts of bodily mutilation but it all just looks so poor & a lot of the same effects are repeated more than once. There's a disgusting moment when Alex spews up a load of worms, real worms so the poor guy actually had to hold them in his mouth to shoot the scene. He also eats them back up again, two scenes which are hard to watch if your squeamish but when you think about it nothing more extreme than what the Jackass & Dirty Sanchez boys do. The film looks awful as well with poor photography shot on a camcorder & probably edited on a home PC movie making software package.

The IMDb lists the budget for Bone Sickness as a mere $3,000 which if true is an incredibly small amount to make a 90 odd minute film on, no matter how bad it is. The makers certainly get my congratulations for sticking with it & making a film on that sort of money but it's still absolutely awful in every respect. There's a constant buzz on the soundtrack which is noticeably out of sync at times & the whole film is just so amateurish it becomes a real chore to sit through. The acting is awful & among the worst ever committed to film, seriously these people are obviously just friends & family of George & Paulin.

Bone Sickness is one of the poorest, most badly made films I've ever seen & that's no exaggeration. The story is none existent & makes no sense & it's incredibly hard to sit through, one worm puking scene is the only gross thing here since all the other effects are so poor. The sort of film which literally leaves you speechless.

bored to death ...

[r4stra · 30 December 2004]

1988 all over again. The quality of this movie is awful compared to what can be done with video cameras these days. VHS quality seems topnotch compared to this picture. The story ? What story ? The so-called "Bone Sickness" is not described in detail neither is the person who's supposed to have it.... This movie can best be avoided at all costs. The acting is horrible, the effects are even worse. Brian Paulin probably is still a student at some academy, for sure not the film academy ... What more can be said about this stinker ? Best nothing ... Long hair dudes with a pony, 'nuff said ? Plastic bags to portray organs ? Guys with ripped coats playing zombies ? Porn actress trying to act with her clothes on ? This movie sucks and those who made it know it but try to achieve a high score by commenting on their own sh.t ...

story sickness

[trashgang · 3/10 · 6 April 2009]

Again, one of those low budget gore movies. The movie clocks in more than 90 minutes and that's way too long. The reason is simple, there isn't any storyline in it. The zombies appear without any reason. And the gore scene's with the zombies are too long. Sure, the effects are really good and the zombies are looking great except for their hands. The acting isn't that good at all, especially when the SWAT team arrives, it's a bit ridiculous to see. This movie was also pushed for the frontal nudity, well there is indeed a bit of that in the flick. It could have been much better if they worked out the script and shortened the movie, that's the reason that I gave it a 3 out of ten.

IT SUCKED BIG TIME!!! DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE..

[nightbreed-06188 · 1/10 · 26 December 2017]

THIS MOVIE WAS NOT WHAT I EXPECTED.. I RENTED THE MOVIE AND ALL I REMEMBER IS SEEING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN...IT WAS SUCH A BAD MOVIE EVEN THE BLOOD LOOKED FAKE. IM SHOCKED IT EVEN MADE IT ON THE SHELF. NOT FOR LONG I TOLD THE MANAGER ABOUT HOW BAD THE MOVIE SUCKED AND HE WATCHED IT . HE EVEN SAID IT SUCKED SO BAD HE PULLED IT OFF THE SHELF. AND I GOT A 3 FREE MOVIES OUT OF THE DEAL. .YOU CAN WATCH IT ON YOU TUBE...

Worst movie ever made? Yes, worst movie ever made.

[bsmjuggalo · 1/10 · 14 May 2008]

WHAT?! I CAN'T GIVE NEGATIVE STARS?!

I made the mistake of picking up Bone Sickness, well it's not so much a mistake as it was an awful, deep regret that I will have to live with for the rest of my life. I picked up a used copy (big surprise that someone returned it) and read the back of the case, saying it was in the vein of Lucio Fulci classics and it was wrong, dead wrong. Bone Sickness is the biggest waste of time, the biggest waste of film and certainly THE WORST horror movie ever made. I would rather watch ANY Ed Wood movie on repeat ALL DAY LONG, then sit through this horrible pile EVER again. I immediately returned this crap back to the video store I purchased it from, and I know now that I should have destroyed it, so no one else would have to suffer through it.

All The zombies looked the same, and no make up, just cheap masks. They were covered in cheap, Halloween spider webs that you can buy at Wal*Mart, the suits the corpses were wearing looked brand new, just cut up a bit to appear old. They used the same props for the same gags over and over again. The acting was beyond sub-par, it was as if they just looked at the script once, slaughtered the line, then moved on to the next worthless scene. The sound sucked, everything was either overkill or hardly audible, annoying soundtrack too. The picture was horrible, as if it was filmed on a camera someone stole from a High School in the early 90s'. I can only tell that the positive reviews given for this movie are either from people who have never seen a decent horror movie in their pitiful lives or someone who was directly involved with this steaming pile of moronic dribble. "Hey, let's randomly add scorpions for no reason" COOL! "Hey, let's make the dude crap out worms" HEY, DOUBLE COOL! Sorry, I meant CRAP.

The script for this movie was probably a page in length (and that's me being generous) because the people behind this movie were obviously dumb. REAL dumb. So if you value spending your time wisely, skip this crap. If you are a moron who doesn't mind watching worthless movies for the second rate gore and ugly chicks running around nude, Then knock yourself out moron.

Have Fast-Forward Ready

[magic-ball · 3/10 · 7 October 2007]

This movie isn't horrifying because it instills a sense of lingering dread. It's not horrifying because it grabs you with its fast dizzying pace and action. It's just bad. The acting is what you can expect from a self-published D-grade zombie movie. The script honestly seemed to be improvised. Not even the eponymous bone sickness is given a name. The movie even starts with some pretty obvious (and very bad) stock sound effects. What thin inconsequential boring veneer of plot there is smothered in a deluge of zombie gore that very honestly gets very boring very fast. It drags on and on and it never ends and there's a brief respite and it keeps on dragging along until it wears at any desire - Wait! Some exposition! Then it just goes back to where it was, and it's horrifying that anyone thought the gore sequences should make so much of the movie. Apply my summary's advice to them.

One of the movie's actresses bears her breasts in it and they aren't necessarily bad looking. The "plot" half of the movie is bearable, if completely aimless. There is one scene that has a legitimate shred of a scrap of genuine suspense in it (spoiler: it's a dream sequence). Also, there's a stunt involving a car. For those shallow reasons, it's getting a three out of ten.

High on gross-out. Low on everything else.

[vertigo_14 · 2/10 · 29 November 2007]

Bone Sickness is an obvious no-brainer from the start. With a title like that, it's likely anyone gearing up to watch the movie has certain expectations about what follows. The seasoned horror viewer might. Or rather, it should be an obvious indication, had it been a better written movie to explain the details of the sickness that has inflicted one young man (and the home-made cure appears to be a mix of ground bone marrow and ground meat of corpses) in a low-budget zombie movie that has the feel of friends who shot somewhere in a small town where permits weren't necessary.

But the gory details and probably are likely to earn this movie mention, despite their being something of an afterthought of intensity (as did the gratuitous nudity), at least according to the director in the Uncle Creepy interview that is included on the DVD. For anyone who doesn't find this a selling point, at most Bone Sickness should be watched in the company of less-than-sober friends purely for riffing entertainment.

A fun and splatteriffic low-budget zombie-fest.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 24 February 2007]

Is your idea of movie heaven an hour-and-a-half of relentless gore? Do you love low-budget independent horror? Is a decent plot unnecessary, so long as there are plenty of nekkid chicks on display? If you answered 'yes' to all of the above questions, then Brian Paulin's Bone Sickness is an absolute must-see; drenched in gore, light on a coherent narrative, and with plenty of tits 'n' ass, this zombie splatter film is an impressive indie-flick made by a bunch of obviously very enthusiastic horror fans.

The plot, for what it's worth, goes something like this: Alex (Rich George) suffers from a degenerative bone disease and is slowly dying. Unable to afford conventional medical treatment, his pretty wife (the impressively buxom Darya Zabinski) turns to her friend, Thomas (Brian Paulin), a morgue attendant, for help. He suggests feeding Alex a special medicine made from the bones of the dead but this just turns poor Alex into a flesh craving lunatic. It also upsets the local inhabitants of the nearby cemetery, who crawl from their graves to wreak terrible revenge upon the living. Throw in a couple of gnarly green-toothed goblins who oversee the zombie attack (yeah, I know it doesn't make sense!) and that's about the sum of it.

Of course, all of this is just an excuse to throw in as much graphic gore and gratuitous female nudity onto the screen as possible, and in this Paulin and his team succeed brilliantly. The bloody FX are very effective with some truly yucky moments including limb-tearing, neck chewing, disembowelling, face-removal and lots of arterial spray (Rich George deserves a special mention for going above and beyond the call of duty in a scene where he spews live maggots and worms from his mouth!). On the T&A front, Zabinski (a little chunky perhaps, but still attractive) gets her norks out, and a few of her pluckier co-stars go one further and take off the lot!

Paulin's direction is assured, with some ambitious and creative camera-work on display, although the overuse of colourful lighting did start to annoy after a while (he must have got a job lot of green and red light-bulbs cheap from somewhere). The standard of performance he coaxes from his cast ranges from poor to perfunctory, but, to be honest, I wasn't expecting Oscar winners.

Towards the end of the film, what little plot there is disintegrates into an enjoyably silly mess of wonderfully gruesome zombie attacks. Considering the obvious budgetary constraints and limited cast and crew, Bone Sickness is impressive stuff and is recommended to those who like their movies 'juicy'.

Bad Movie Gives Audience Bone Sickness

[theindibluebird · 1/10 · 15 January 2011]

I'm so sorry to say that I found this film just terrible. The make-up and costumes appear to have been purchased in late October from a discount store and the acting was not convincing in the slightest. The storyline made no sense to me and I was so bored that I had trouble sticking with it to the end.

The film also contains a lot of very-naked-nudity! This aspect didn't really bother me so much but it seemed so out of place, just thrown in as an easy way to grab your attention but with no connection to the story.

However, I have given this film 1 star because the team who made this film must love zombies as I do and I want to give them points for trying. In the very least, I hope they had a bit of fun putting this together.

holy gore!-- "bone sickness" is an inspired piece of indie horror

[S_Craig_Zahler · 8/10 · 28 October 2011]

"bone sickness" is an unbelievably resourceful shot on video splatter movie. about half of its running time dedicated to gory happenings, though several of the atmospheric chiller scenes work quite well (especially the pool sequence).

thankfully, this movie is NOT at all ironic in its approach, but an earnest indie horror movie--- one that is a total 100% pleasure to watch. it just glows with a bright love of the genre (creepy and fun splatter). if you accept its flaws (eg. all of the adults/married people look about 21 years old, the sound, some weak performances and occasional 180 rule flubs)--- it is a very charming and engrossing 7 out of 10.

and it has EXCELLENT music.

as with much of this stuff, the writer director is a special effects guy, first and foremost, like timo rose & olaf ittenbach over in Germany. "bone sickness" compares in a lot of ways to "darkness (the vampire version)," which is similarly gory and inspired, though "darkness" is not nearly as good and has little in the way of atmosphere.

creepy, resourceful and inventive, "bone sickness" is a celebration of horror and indie film fire. if you can accept (or embrace) its DIY flaws, it smolders and shambles like fulci in a manhole with perhaps some hints of bizarro literature as well (carlton mellick III).

BRAVO.

Very gory zombie flick.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 15 March 2005]

"Bone Sickness" by Brian Paulin is an ultra gruesome and extremely gory independent zombie flick.The film is loaded with tons of gore and violence.Bodies are torn out,eaten,shot,impaled,beheaded,chewed up,set on fire,rotting corpses are filled with maggots and worms and the gore flows freely.Alex is terminally ill with a degenerative bone disease for which there is no cure.Even if there was,his wife wouldn't be able to afford the treatment anyways.With the help of Alex's friend Thomas,they seek an alternative medical treatment.Soon they are thrown into a nightmare of flesh-eating zombies.Anyway,the film is well-made and acted and the makeup effects are impressive.Of course "Bone Sickness" is not as memorable as "The Beyond" or "City of the Living Dead",but it's still among the best American indie zombie flicks ever made.Oh,and this gruesome bloodbath is dedicated to Thomas 'Quorthon' Forsberg of Bathory fame,so my full respect goes to its director Brian Paulin.

Oh Boy....

[reoostland · 1/10 · 17 April 2017]

I really don't know what to say about this movie. And certainly nothing positive. I consider myself as a "hardcore" horror fan, and i have seen many horror movies, from good to bad, and since today to very bad.

I'm a fan of Lucio Fulci, Dareo Argento, Ruggero Deadato to name a few of the "cult" horror masters. And as a Horror fan you know they made all some bad movies, but... they where still watchable.

This movie however, is really so bad.. i couldn't watch till the end. I tried, i tried to watch till the end, but i failed. There's no plot, the acting is really bad, the sound is also bad.

The special effects are OK, i must honestly say. And plenty of gore. But it's just not a movie for me..

Because i'm a nice guy and in a good mood, i give this movie a big 1.