User reviews

There is an interesting idea here. It is a sort of weird mix of John Carpenter's The Thing, H.P. Lovecraft with sand thrown in. Lots of sand. For anyone who has seen The Thing and read Lovecraft sand surely doesn't spoil things. It actually makes for an interesting setting that is not too often used in horror. In fact, it is not really used much in any type of movie.

Perhaps it's the fact that such a featureless landscape is hard to imagine as anything other than dull and certainly not frightening. The typical desert doesn't have many, if any at all, caves or any other crevices and burrows where something awful can hide. So just where does a demon, that can strip someone's skin clean off their bones hide? Well, you'll just have to watch to find the answer, but unfortunately it is that answer that'll provide you with a let down. Like I said, the idea is good, but the manner in which it is shown commits one of the cardinal sins of the horror genre and that's showing too much too quickly. Virtually every horror movie that does so automatically just slips a few notches. It doesn't become frightening. Startling at best, but that's just not enough. Also, as another letdown is the lack of atmosphere. The cinematography hardly does justice to the setting and it relies too much on the mediocre special effects to cause chills. Predictably, those chills aren't nearly as chilling as they could have been. Also, the film seems to strive a little too far in giving a scientific explanation for the horror. That doesn't affect the film as bad as the other things, but it does take away a good deal of the mystery.

The manner in which is presented that is real down, but the initial idea remains a very good one. Meaning horror fans will want to tune in, if just for that. --- 5/10

Rated R for horror images and profanity. Ages 13+

The Bone Snatcher is about a group miners who go on a search for a missing crew of miners in the Namib Desert. When the find them, they are nothing more than bones stripped clean and they could not have been dead for more than six hours. The story keeps you interested as to what exactly caused this. The characters are well enough, and the acting is pretty good.

About an hour and ten minutes in when you find out what is causing the bones to be stripped clean, you sigh "oh, that is really stupid." The movie is ruined by bad writing and a non-exciting ending. Up until that point, the movie was pretty good, and it is a shame that it took such a bad turn. So I cannot recommend this movie. I gave it a 4/10.

Mining company employees who venture into the Namib desert to find some lost colleagues find a monster instead in this South African horror film directed by Jason Wulfsohn. While certainly not a classic by any means, I think this film stands heads and shoulders above most of the straight-to-video horror dreck I have recently seen. Technically, the film-making is certainly competent in all categories, even if some of the conflicts between the characters seems forced. Still, the film benefits most from its location: the Namib Desert, whose dry vastness adds a sense of isolation and peril to the proceedings. The bone-snatching monster is also visually interesting. This film is well worth a look. I look forward to seeing Mr. Wulfsohn's next film.

This horror movie starts out promisingly enough and there is a moment where I thought to myself "this is going to be really good". However, it gets rather boring rather quick at the end. The acting is fairly good, as is the location and the story starts out rather well too. The problem, not enough kills on screen and an ending where you have the monster basically turning tail and running. I wanted to see more, especially after a very good sleeping bag scene where I thought the movie was picking up and going to be a winner. Unfortunately after that the movie showed the monster very little and the back of the DVD lied as it told me that the desert beneath the people literally came alive and was capable of devouring their flesh...now that would have been some movie, a nearly inescapable situation. Granted that would have made viewers uncomfortable and it might of ramped up the tension, but that is what horror movies are supposed to do! Instead we have very few shots of the creature or creatures as it were and when we do see it, it is mainly on the defensive. Still it wasn't all bad, it just needed more horror less hunting and more chomping.

I found this to be a lackluster movie that is pretty boring. There's barely any story in this movie other than the characters discovering a swarm of ant-like insects eating people in the desert. It feels like it is dragging itself way too long with the characters either waiting or going to current locations throughout. The movie lacks any suspense because things happen way too quickly, and there's little action from the insects. Also, it doesn't bother giving any development in the movie like the characters discovering more information about the insects or them becoming more deadly. The movie has an anticlimactic ending to it, and I hate how the movie ends.

Dr. Zack Straker (Scott Bairstow) is a laboratory scientist sent to a work in the field, more precisely in a diamond mining company in the Namid Desert, in Africa. His first assignment is to participate of a rescue mission of three missing prospectors, who are lost in the desert. The rescue team finds the bones separated from the completely destroyed bodies of the prospectors. The African Titus (Andre Weidman) explains that the slaughter was carried out by the Sandmother, a sort of evil being that was part of the African belief. His colleagues do not pay much attention on his faith. Meanwhile, their truck has an electrical problem and they have to spend the night in the desert, when they face the horrible monster that snatches the bones of its victims. Zach and the other survivors conclude that sometimes pray isn't enough, and decide to fight against the destructive creature. "The Bone Snatcher" is another variation of the storyline of "Alien". However, this story takes place in great locations in the desert and the special effects are reasonably good, and this horror movie is above the average of this genre. There are the usual clichés, but it is not a bad movie. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Caçador de Ossos" ("Bones Hunter")

The plot seemed to follow the science fiction standard of a group of people on a mission that encounters something that wants to eat them. The group consists of a scientist, a pretty girl, a "native" person with native knowledge or the extranormal, a macho dolt, a capable and intersting middle age woman, and a non-descript guy who is the first to go. So far this follows movies like "The Angry Red Plantet" and "Alien". The monster or the opposing life form (hey, I can be P.C. and inclusive) is original and interesting. The acting is basic and the direction uninspired. The plot has some moments of stupidity that interrupt the suspension of disbelief because no one would do what they did given the character's circumstances; e.g. abandon the broken down truck with all their supplies in the midst of a big desert after the search plane spots them. I am assuming the actors are all South African (excepting the American scientist)or they are better actors than I imagined. They have the accents down pretty good and fooled me. I was particularly impressed with Adrienne Pierce who plays "Magda" - a nice looking, somewhat older than Brittany Spears, strong willed woman who drives the big Mercedes four wheel drive truck that serves as the "space ship" used to wander around the desert. She is kind of a sunburned "Ripley" character.

I enjoyed the film and recomend it to those who enjoy this genre. I would like to see more of Adrienne Pierce.

In the heart of the Namib desert, a group of miners and scientists discover a bizarre life form living beneath the sand—a life form that needs human bones to stay alive. "The Bone Snatcher" is an African horror film that debuted on the sci-fi channel as one of their "original movies", despite having quite a decent budget ($6,000,000) and being extremely well-made, two things you rarely see from a sci-fi channel flick. The film is visually stunning. The camera work and cinematography are truly on par, or even BETTER than most films Hollywood produces. The actors are all unknowns but give perfectly fine performances, especially Warrick Grier. The monster is both conceptually and visually very, very cool. The creature effects are extremely good in this flick, far better than what you see in most made-for-TV horror films. I loved the score too; the music is fantastic! Lots of African drums and bongos mixed with a slightly electronic track for good effect. I wish there was a CD…

"The Bone Snatcher" is a finely-crafted, beautifully shot, well-acted monster movie. It's not scary as some have said but it's certainly leaps and bounds better than most direct-to-video horror movies, and trust me, I've seen a LOT of those in my time… Definitely worth checking out.

7.5/10.

I think the "Bone Snatcher" should go after anyone associated with this movie. Watching this will seem like the longest 90 minutes or so of your entire life. The plot is boring and stupid. There were no scenes that were horrifying, even remotely. If you manage to endure this fine piece of cinema art all the way to the end, you're either going to be highly disappointed or die laughing hysterically. I bought this movie based on some other reviews I'd read. I wish I had my money back. What a skunker. If you're looking for a horror movie that will hold your interest, watch "U Turn". It may be based on a kooky plot, but it's full of those creepy scenes that keep you jumping from beginning to end.

When I saw the poster at the theater, I thought that it is a "new line" of a horror story without a famous cast worth giving a try. But, after I went in, I wanted to leave after 20 minutes. There was a lot of non-sense and logical flaws. To me, it is a movie that is not worth putting in theaters. It is not even worth seeing.

I expected very little going into this movie but came away feeling satisfied that I'd finally seen somebody do something different and new with the horror genre. If you're bored of slasher movies, torture porn, carbon copy creature features and the whole 'college kids spend the weekend in a cabin in the woods' rubbish that passes for a plot hook these days, The Bone Snatcher will give you a very pleasant surprise.

The acting isn't Oscar quality but it's really not half bad at all. The South African desert rats displayed a subtle Mad Max-ian quality, their rough and rugged nature neatly underlying a disconcerting sense of chaos and brutality that never quite rears its head but often threatens to do so. Other reviewers may see this as a wasted opportunity but I see it as crucial in juxtaposing the 'fish out of water' element of the main protagonist - the nice guy with whom we, the viewer, must relate if we're to give a damn what happens - compared with the environment, people and situations with which he is entirely unfamiliar. And that's before all the horror kicks in! This is, ultimately, a monster movie and there are a million of those. But Bone Snatcher takes an intelligent line, shuns the status quo and offers up something we can really get our teeth into. You'll be simultaneously convinced and disturbed, which is a great feeling for a true horror fan. As Doctor Zack Straker (the hugely watchable Scott Bairstow) asserts when faced with Karl's (Warrick Grear's) lack of reason: "there's method in this system". And though Straker never really engages scientific method, the line does throw a few hints the way of the viewer. And if brain cells are engaged (which, shock of shocks, they can be in this movie) the twist in the tale can be predicted.

Plot and monster aside, you'll also want to watch for the delicious Rachel Shelley, a British actress known more here in the UK for her modelling roles in advertisements than her filmography. But don't let that put you off. She's a decent actress and brings some aesthetic interest to this movie.

Negatives are obvious and should fall squarely on the shoulders of the director. The potentially incredible set location is squandered. Not once does the desert turn its murderous, bone-parching attention on our group of heroes. They always have plenty of supplies, lots of water, ample support from nearby bases. Where the film lacks severely is in its utter failure to mix the merciless horror of being stranded in the middle of a wasteland with no food, no water and no hope of rescue with the presence of a determined enemy.

But what there isn't is hard to miss if you're not concentrating too hard and what there is more than makes up for the missing aspects. Somewhere, in a parallel universe, somebody is enjoying the movie I know this could have been, but for us it is what it is. An enjoyable, entertaining and surprisingly clever creature feature that takes the genre and gives it a good hard shake.

What looks like an Australian movie starring non-stars keeps you in suspense to find out what the bone snatcher really is. The desert locale helps to bring that other-worldly scene missing in so many of today's horror movies. Fairly well done cinematography; acting could have been better, and the script. Still, I think it's worth watching. (Unfortunately I saw it on the SCIFI channel so it was cut to shreds.) The "creature" may seem too fantastic to some, but its actually a play on the creatures in Michael Crichton's book PREY (nano-monsters!). I've wasted time on far worse!

This horror tale takes place in the Namib Desert of Africa. A Canadian systems analyst, Zach Straker(Scott Bairstow)is sent on an assignment for a diamond mining company. Although he hates field work, he finds himself in a truck with a rescue unit in the open desert fighting sand flies and whipping, blowing sand. Four diamond prospectors are found...well whats left of their scattered bones are discovered. During a long cold desert night a shape-shifting monster makes its appearance. Zach and his colleagues are terrified when their truck is stranded and members of the unit are dying horribly one by one. There is no character development; let alone dialogue to speak of. The desert set in its own way is beautiful and without giving anything away... the creature is as old as the desert sands. Also in the cast are: Rachel Shelley, Warrick Grier and Patrick Shai.

If you're looking for the usual stuff that comes out of Hollywood then you won't want to watch this filck. But if you would like to see something different, something more about ideas and character and style then this is perhaps a film that you should try to see. It actually says something about Africa and the people there and how they relate to their lands and their myths - and also the actors are very strong but again not in the usual Hollywood kind of way. They act very real and subtly and even if the writing is a little weak they do very well anyway. If you want wall to wall explosions and blood then you will be disapointed but if you are like us in Switzerland and you want something more intelligent that is still horror then try this film. It's a little too short and feels like the editor cut out too much but still l like it and recommend it to you.

I rented this on DVD expecting the usual B-movie standard flat characters and cheap FX so I was surprised at the quality. Sure it's not a life altering movie but it is well made, with competent acting all around, and surprisingly good monster effects. While many people have commented on the scenery, I thought the music soundtrack was excellent - all the more surprising since I gather from the credits that all the music was written specially for the film. It's always easy to criticize a monster movie, and sure enough, the ending is weak, but if you're not willing to suspend disbelief, stick to family dramas.

I gave this movie 2 instead of 1 just just because I am a polite person. This movie made me loose 90 minutes of my life in which I could have done something useful for the human kind or just me.

The dialog is poor, the actors never look scared! Even if it's supposed to be a horror movie. For example the scene in which Kurt collects the bones of his former colleague. He should be frightened, but he looks quite normal. The chick of the movie is such a cliché. The one thing I liked about her is the dress she wore in the final scene.And, by the way, the end was extremely predictable with the cocoon blinking pinkly in the box. As a matter of fact, I was thinking more of an ant walking around on the back seat of the car. But it still didn't surprise me.

I think it's easy to give this movie a little more praise than it deserves. But, if this movie had come out in the 1950s, it would have been a smash hit. Since I'm not really from that generation, I can't fully appreciate them, and I couldn't fully appreciate this one either.

The characters don't really know what foot to stand on, and I don't know who to blame, the actors or the script. Even in the face of devastating tragedy, people's personalities don't flipflop as much as the characters did in this movie. The only good moments of the movie come too late and too short to appreciate them. Thought I must admit, the special effects are pretty good for a movie of this type & budget.

Without ruining anything, let's just say that the climax to the movie is shorter than and as exciting as, well, this review. And the actual "winding down" ending of the movie - which in typical films lasts but a few minutes - is longer than the actual climax of the film.

I hope you have a good imagination - you'll need it to give this movie the extra humph it needs to deserve your attention.