Bone Sickness

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.

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...

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!!!

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 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...