Bone Sickness

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.

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!!!

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...

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.

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!!!