Bone Daddy (1998) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
21 Reviews
Sort by:
Does Rutger Hauer need a better agent or what?
KB-211 March 1999
Don't get me wrong, 'Bone Daddy' is decent, in a TV-movie kind of way. I've liked Rutger Hauer since Blade Runner, and even though he just keeps churning out the b-movies, I just keep renting them (tomorrow night, I watch Redline!) But man, Rutger is looking OLD in this movie -- he's sporting an old-guy moustache and some extra pounds, and he doesn't DO anything -- he argues, and drives around, and breaks into a jog maybe once before the climax of the film. Add a lumpen, dislikable supporting cast (including a dour Barbara Williams as his inhospitable partner-in-crimesolving) and after a while, not only do you not CARE who the killer is, but you wish s/he'd start knocking off a few more people!

The gross-out factor in this movie is quite high, in a couple of scenes that arrive just when you're about to turn it off in exasperation. The 'Bone Daddy' killer's shtik is to remove the bones from the victims, while they're still alive, and (in this case at least) mail them to our hero, a former forensic pathologist who made the mistake of writing a book about 'Bone Daddy.' It really is kinda creepy, if you think about it. It's much more suspenseful if one of your dumb friends doesn't start singing 'de knee bone's connected to de leg bone, de leg bone's connected to de hip bone...' during the gory scenes, incidentally.

This one just screams 'mid-week rental.' Pick it up cheap, it's not that bad. Or maybe I should organize a boycott of this and all Hauer rentals until he finds an agent that gets him some better scripts to read...
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Above average crime thriller!
Warning: Spoilers
This formulaic, but occasionally diverting, thriller starring Rutger Hauer revolves around a serial killer who removes bones from his victims while they are still alive. He stops his killings and disappears. Years later Rutger Hauer's character, who headed the investigation against the killer, has since written a fictional novel in which the killer is actually caught. This sparks off more murders. Is it the killer returned or a copycat? That is what Rutger must find out.

There is nothing really new but it is all professionally done for a B-Movie. The main twist is a surprise but is one of those twists that seem unfair to the audience. We have a secondary character, who is featured in the film for merely a few minutes, who turns out to be the killer. These thrillers work best when you get a character which you get information about, who has some impact on the plot, so that you can draw up your own conclusions as to whether he or she did it or not. In a who done it such as this you need to be given clues not have the killer pulled from literally nowhere, its unfair on the audience and gives them little chance of guessing who the killer is. What this does do well though is lead you up blind alleys where you suspect different people but they are not the culprits. The filmmakers do this well rather than some thrillers that will have a character acting very shiftily indeed to really ham up the possibility they may have done it.

Anyway, this is by no means very good but is certainly worth a rental. The acting is good and despite a rather lackadaisical ending it is never boring. 5.5/10
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A weird medical examiner takes revenge
Lord Bré1 August 1998
Bone Daddy was a serial killer who sent the bones of his victims= to their relatives. After a break of seven years, he returns because of a book written about him by a former pathologist. He takes revenge for that fiction and shows that he can kill extreme slowly...
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
not your typical direct-to -video garbage
somf3 January 1999
This was a very fine movie in the serial killer genre, and certainly my favorite direct-to-video of 1998. Rutger Hauer has his best roles in years. It is suspenseful and very entertaining . Not too gory either. During the same week I rented a godawful film titled "Trail of a Serial Killer"-Please avoid. Before you start wondering too much about the reviewers taste in film, I did rent "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" last week.In other words, I see just about everything. This could have been a decent theatrical release.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Makes Silence of the Lambs look like a kiddies film.
Vivekmaru453 June 2010
Suspenseful psychological thriller about a serial killer who claims to be a true character out of a fictionalized book about a twisted serial killer known as Bone Daddy, written by a retired medical examiner William H. Palmer. The book was based upon unsolved murders that William H. Palmer was working on.

Is the serial killer the true Bone Daddy or is he just getting his inspiration from the book by Palmer? Watch the film to find out.

Watch out, this film is not for the faint of heart as it portrays some of the most gruesome scenes ever witnessed before in a film of this genre.

The film stars notably Rutger Hauer (as William H. Palmer),Mimi Kuzyk (as Kim) and Blu Mankuma (as Trent).

The film is directed by Mario Azzopardi.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Boner of a flick
xredgarnetx11 February 2006
BONE DADDY came after SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and SEVEN and before THE BONE COLLECTOR, but manages to echo all of those films. This STV is clearly a Rutger Hauer vehicle, with a mustachioed Hauer playing a retired Chicago ME whose best-selling book about a particularly brutal serial killer apparently has stirred the killer to return from the ashes and start all over again. Slow-moving a lot of the time, BONE DADDY at least delivers the goods when it comes to gore. So much so that I would advise those squeamish about morgue scenes and mutilated bodies and sharp instruments like scalpels to steer clear. The killer's identity is not hard to guess, and in fact parallels the identity of the killer in THE BONE COLLECTOR. For those who have seen the latter, you'll understand my meaning. In the end, BONE DADDY is not recommended. The title is far more clever than the flick, which teeters on the deadly dull side most of the time.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bored to the bone!
CharltonBoy13 January 2000
If you are looking for an edge of the seat , Chilling horror movie you would do well to steer well clear of Bone Daddy. Bone Daddy is a totally boring movie , with a weak plot and Awful acting, especially the Star Rutger Hauer. It's hard to tell if he is a bad actor or he is just not interested in the film. I think it is the former. I promise after half an hour you will be looking at your watch hoping this rubbish will finish soon. 4 out of 10.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dutchman w/ a Trenchcoat
PVOM25 May 1999
As the latest direct-to-video Rutger Hauer vehicle, most people will overlook this taut thriller and go for the flick that made it to theatres with a younger star they've heard of. This is an awful shame, because this is Hauer's most solid picture in a while. And it's been a long time coming. Hauer always delivers the goods, even when the rest of the film can't. Finally this film's plot and performances compliment Hauer's inimitable presence. He's second to none when it comes to portraying maverick, middle aged, burnt out/morally impaired, TRENCHCOAT wearing anti-heroes. And he's in fine form here as he triggers a psychopath with his book about a psychopath (the title character). The plot twists just keep coming, things never let up, unlike most DTV fodder.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Good Little Thriller
sjcjrice5 March 2001
This movie is actually a pretty good little thriller. Rutger Hauer plays a former medical examiner who has now become a best selling mystery writer. When he writes a fictional account of an unsolved case, the murderer starts killing again, this time targeting people close the the writer.

Unlike so many action films, this movie focuses on the characters more than the violence. Hauer's character, William Palmer, is an arrogant egotistic man who is estranged from his adult son. His attempts to connect with his angry offspring and his grandchildren are quite interesting (and eventually become central to the plot). In addition, Barbara Williams is quite good as the detective assigned to investigate the latest crimes. I had never seen her before, but I was impressed with her performance.

The movie is set in Chicago. Since I live in a Chicago suburb and work in the Loop, a couple of things in the movie amused me. First, although there is some stock footage of the city, it could be obvious to anyone who lives here that none of the scenes were filmed in Chicago or the surrounding area. That impression was confirmed by the thanks to the Toronto Film Commission at the end of the credits. Second, the movie makes it seem that the Cook County Medical Examiner is a major public figure. To be honest, I doubt that 90% of the people in Chicago could tell you who the M.E. is. In addition, I don't think your average M.E gets paid enough to buy a huge mansion on the lakefront.

Those are minor quibbles, however. Really, the movie is pretty good.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
horror/ thriller?
leno15 June 2003
Even though this is not a bad movie it is a bit disappointing. I thought this was a horror/ thriller but I couldn't find any horror (maybe the body parts) And the suspense I hoped for wasn't there so actually it was nothing. Just like Hauer's acting, but why even put in an effort if you haven't got a decent script in five (or more) years..
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hard to Watch
libor_ulovec20 January 2003
This non chilling quasi-horror with a plot weak as bones attacked by severe osteoporosis would not be worth more than 3 stars out of 10 :-( I wouldn't have watched it but it was shown on TV after midnight so I was expecting something better....
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not bad, but not great either
Keltic-22 February 2000
I didn't realise at the time I rented it that _Bone Daddy_ had no theatre release. It's certainly a cut above a lot of the direct-to-video dross, both in appearance and content, but overall it's only average. The premise is good, but it doesn't quite come off, which is something of a pity. However, there are some truly creepy and gruesome scenes that seem to come when you need them most; as others have noted, don't watch it if you're at all squeamish, particularly if you have a phobia for scalpels and other sharp instruments.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This movie has inexplicable draw for me.
ahaney9 July 1999
For some reason I can't explain, I keep thinking about this movie. Every time I see it while flipping channels, I have to stop and watch it. If I see it on the shelf in the video store, I have to stop and read the back of the box (even though I've read it before). I don't understand why I can't get this movie out of my head. All the elements of this film are quite ordinary. The acting, story, and direction are decent but unremarkable. Yet the total effect is something unique. It evokes a strange sensation. I don't know what it could be, but there is something about this film that makes you feel involved in a very personal way. Maybe it's the gruesome M.O. of the killer. Or maybe it's the sexy yet foreboding presence of Barbara Williams. Or maybe it's the rich and haunting imagery of Chicago's more gothic areas. It's hard to say. But something makes me think this elusive quality I'm talking about is an accident. I don't think the filmmakers did it intentionally. I could be wrong about that, but if so, why haven't the people involved in this movie achieved greater notoriety?
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
very interesting
scoobydoo2000ms24 July 2000
"Bone Daddy" is an interesting movie to say the least. I enjoyed this movie very much because it stars one of my new-found favorite actors in Rutger Hauer. Known for action movies, Hauer is quite different in his portrayal of a former medical examiner on the trail of a serial killer.

This is not your average serial killer movies, which is only one of a number of things that attracted me to this movie. Another thing that attracted me to "Bone Daddy" was the fact that the cast didn't seem to miss a beat in their performances. Everything seemed to roll along smoothly. Finally, the fact that the writers carefully plotted to disguise the identity of killer until the last scene (literally) was a stroke of genius. Though some may think it cliche to do this, I thought it worked.

"Bone Daddy" is a complex, nail biting and suspense filled thriller that combines action with drama. Rutger Hauer is at his best as is Barbara Williams. This deserves a look by everyone who is into mysteries and action. I hope you like it as much as I did.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No don't pay!
id24711 February 2000
Maybe worth a look if on a free movie channel, and you can't sleep, otherwise don't make the mistake I made and PAY to see it.

After a reasonable first half hour it just descends into a chase movie with very little thrills or horror and a weak finale. A film about a serial killer, where you only see ONE victim get polished off, is a poor return in my book - the tv series Millennium is much scarier than this.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stick to the adverts, Rutger
Tony Walton24 June 2002
Some time ago Rutger Hauer made a series of TV advertisements for Guinness. These were ten times more entertaining than 'Bone Daddy'. This movie combined a poor and formulaic plot, bad acting, ropey dalogue and unsympathetic characterisation to make a total waste of 90 minutes. By the end of this, I was wishing the killer had polished the lot of them off. Avoid. 3/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
darth7625 June 2001
Some good ideas were existed, but their treatment was not good. Tailor-made for the 'tuff guy' image of Rutger Hauer (who has the talent for better things), routine, with no atmosphere and a very predictable end (I figured out who was the killer from the middle of the movie). I give to this movie a 4.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very poor Seven rip-off
Leofwine_draca12 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This sub-standard thriller copies much of the style and substance of SEVEN in such a dull, unoriginal way that you'll be hard pressed to bother sitting through it after the first hour. Yet another example of the straight-to-video trash which fills out the shelves of Blockbuster these days, this is a lethargic, silly thriller with only a handful of good scenes to make it worthwhile. Despite having some nice chilly locales, BONE DADDY fails to build up any kind of worthwhile atmosphere due to a clichéd plot and disinterested performances from the leads.

Rutger Hauer has been in some good films in the past, so it's sad to see him whiling away his weeks in colourless fodder like this. Hauer's detached performance fits in nicely with the coldly clinical feel to the film, half bought on by the medical action on screen, and half due to the certain feeling that the makers of this film were in it only for the money. Hauer has definitely been ageing of late and it's sad to see him walk around and do little, wasted again in a pointless role. The rest of the cast are awful; especially the talentless female lead who offers up absolutely NO sympathy.

Mystery fans would be wise to avoid this film, as despite having a few whodunit elements, the premise is flawed as the killer turns out to be somebody who has been in the film for one scene only. Feel cheated? You should do. There's an appalling lack of characterisation meaning that the cast blur into one and you're never really sure of who the actors and actresses are meant to be and what relation they bear to the plot. I'm not sure if this was cut for television, but there is virtually no gore rendering the "disturbing" warning at the beginning of the film pointless. We get to see a few bloody cadavers and some meaty bones but that's about it. Another thing, only one person falls victim to the killer in this film. Talk about rationing, this is ridiculous! I liked a couple of the more outlandish moments: Hauer running through a morgue, pulling out all the corpses and checking them to see if the stitches match with the murder victim; plus the fun scenes which have bones being discovered in brightly-coloured parcels. Otherwise, this is a strictly middling affair: not bad enough to make you cry, just enough to make you think "why?" instead. The premise in itself isn't particularly bad, and I'm sure a good film could have been made of it. Pass it over unless you're stuck for something to watch.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A thriller in the tradition of 'Silence of The Lambs'
mystic29 October 1998
This picture keeps you on the edge of your seat from the beginning. It is done in the same style as 'Silence of The Lambs' and the plot develops in a manner that has you guessing about what happens next. I found this movie up among the top films in the serial killer tradition.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Boy, did this one suck!
David R. Secondino12 April 2002
This movie wants to be a serial killer suspense movie, but ends up being a bore. Predictable ending, flat characters, wooden acting. Nice photography of Chicago, but really not a good movie. Don't waste your time or money on this junk. Rating: 3/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews