IMDb > Bones (2001) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Bones More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 9:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]
Index 89 reviews in total 

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Starts Promising... Ends Illogically.

Author: Kraemorr ( from Brisbane, Australia
11 March 2004

This film starts out promising and carries that promise a fair way into the movie, but when everything falls into place we are left with illogical character developments purely so the film-makers can end the movie on time. The fact that Snoop's character is not a villain, but the script unjustly makes him one, is probably the worst thing about the movie. However, this film is still worth the watch for Snoop Dogg's interesting performance and some actually creepy moments.

This film as a whole is not a success, but for fans of B-grade horror (which admittedly I am), this has some value to it.


Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

8/10 on my scale. What a good horror/revenge fick should be

Author: ( from Kimberling City, MO.
13 April 2002

Yeah, like pretty much every other horror movie that hits the theaters, this one took a pretty heavy trashing both, from the critics and from the audiences who didn't understand it. However, I found "Bones" to be a highly enjoyable, entertaining, and (at times) creepy horror flick that I hope, is the birth of a new franchise. It's very refreshing to see a horror flick that can take a standard premise and make it seem fresh again. Also, I enjoyed the killer being a someone who we can sympathize with. Let me break it down a little bit.

Back in 1979, Jimmy Bones was the man of his neighborhood. Just what all he was into is never fully explained, but we do know that he runs a pretty classy little nightclub and loves to dress in full-pimp get-up. Basically, Bones is a good guy. All he wants to do is run his business and take care of his people. However, when he is propositioned to bring in crack, he refuses and is double-crossed then murdered by people he thought he could trust.

Jump twenty years into the future and we get a group of twenty-somethings who have just bought the building where Bones was murdered. Hoping to turn the place into a club, they ignore all warnings of the place's evil and pretty soon, they mess around and wake the dead. Now that Bones is back, he's upset, understandably, and wants revenge on the people who did him wrong.

That's it. Kinda sounds like Nightmare On Elm Street right? Well, it's a lot like it and a lot of others you may have seen. What set this one apart for me was the lead. Casting Snoop Dog as Jimmy Bones was perfect. I've never been a big fan of his acting, but here, he pulls it off great giving us a villain that we can sympathize with, care about, and root for. We know where he's coming from and watching him take his revenge on the dispicable villains was fun fun fun. I also enjoyed the romantic angle brought to the film by the chemistry between Snoop and Pam Grier. I don't think that it would have gone down near as well had there been a different set of actors, but it gave a real soft side to Bones and made me like him that much more.

I really loved the cinematography and having the blood look intentionally fake, was also a nice touch. Unlike some others, I really enjoyed the shifting in tones. The first 2/3 of the picture had a really dark and gothic tone to it while the latter third had a little bit of comic relief thrown in. Yes, it went WAY over the top (the severed heads, that whole "world of the dead" bit) but, for me, that added to the overall joy of the film and made it that much more. It also made it VERY hard to take it serious. It's pretty hard to find a good horror flick these days (and a mainstream one, at that) and I'm sure that I'll be adding this one to my dvd collection pretty soon. Oh, (I don't think I'm giving too much away here) the door is left open for a whole slew of sequels. I can't wait.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A wild,very entertaining horror movie

Author: Hellraiser-1 from Cartagena, Spain
11 March 2002

I was doubtful about this movie when I went to the cinema to watch it last weekend, but after having watched it I reinforce my good opinion about the products made by New Line Cinema. The film is very well done but apart from that, I think it shouldn´t disappoint any fan of horror, it has everything that a good movie of the genre must have, including great amounts of blood, a very good rhythm and effective actors such as Pam Grier(Jackie Brown), the muse of blaxploitation genre from the seventies, a genre which is paid homage in this movie as well as some classics of the genre such as "Hellraiser" or "Reanimator", although the introduction of the comic element paying homage to that movie was for me the weakest element of the whole(it broke the so tenebrous atmosphere).Finally, director Ernst. R.Dickerson who also directed the not so good but entertaining "tales from the Crypt: Evil Knight" assured that this movie had elements from Italian horror cinema, I don´t know but perhaps there is one: The warms.A homage to Lucio Fulci?, I know there is many homages here but it is the same for other movies and the cocktail is far from being so effectively combined as here.I don´t think they are going to make a sequel, but I am looking forward eagerly the next movie from this director and I wish "Resident Evil" was so satisfactory.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:


Author: rah604 from Canada
6 May 2004

With a growing trend of rappers starring in their own movies, Snoop Dogg joins the pack with 'Bones'. Snoop plays Jimmy Bones, a 70s hustler, who is betrayed and murdered by some of his closest associates. Since the time of the murder, Jimmy's corpse is buried in the basement of an abandoned house in Bones' now seedy neighborhood. When a group of empty-headed teenagers buy the abandoned house, they unsurprisingly wake up Jimmy's spirit, resulting in Bones going on a bloody rampage for revenge.

What the heck are we to do with a movie like 'Bones'. Are we supposed to take it seriously as a horror movie. Or laugh at its silliness and Snoop's attempt at becoming a real-life 'Doggfather'. Whatever its intentions are, this movie doesn't have the feel of a horror movie. Rather, it feels more like one of Snoop's pot induced fantasies.

Rating: 5/10 or (2 stars)

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Suspenseful? Maybe not.

Author: cwhoward-1 from United States
13 February 2004

This movie is not the worst of horror movies that I have seen, however it is far from the best also. This movie has some pretty decent special effects, and doesn't have a bad story line. Who better to play a drug pusher in the 70's than Snoop Dogg. Snoop is not the best actor in the world but does show a better job in this movie than previous movies. 7 out of 10 stars. Not great, but not bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

The Perfect Midnight Movie

Author: EdYerkeRobins from Sunland, CA
6 November 2001

Ahh... the midnight horror movie. Cheesy, silly, and not in the slighest bit scary, its sole purpose is to provide a cheap thrill or induce sleep. As anyone who's read any of my other reviews can see, I like cheap thrills just as much as a good movie, and although Bones certainly was cheap, cheesy, silly, and not in the slightest bit scary, I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd thought I would.

The reasoning for this is that Bones is exactly like any other direct-to-video, midnight cable fare, only at theatrical release, midday pay-per-view pricing. The reason I like other cheap films so much is because they are just that - cheap. I'm biased; I expect a lot more from a movie that I shell out $9 for in a theatre than a $2 5-day rental.

In 1979, Jimmy Bones (Snoop Dogg!) is your friendly neighborhood numbers-runner. A crooked cop, a drug dealer, and his business associate try to convince him to bring crack to the hood. Bones is a numbers-runner with morals and a love for his people, and won't allow it. The business meeting ends with his murder.

In 2001, the neighborhood has gone to hell, especially Bones' old mansion, which is currently haunted by a big black dog with blood-red eyes. A group of teen wanna-be DJ's (who also just happen to be the children of Bones' old associate) decide to fix up the mansion and turn it into a happening nightclub. They discover Bones' skeleton buried in the basement, and a stray dog, whom they name Bones (how original!). This dog just happens to be the same killer incarnation of Jimmy Bones' ghost, and every life he takes adds life to the bones in the basement, until Jimmy is resurrected from the dead, and he sure is angry!

This film, equal parts horror, comedy and blaxploitation, begs you not to take it seriously. If you do, like most films of this type, you'll notice the atrocious acting and cheap special effects. If not, however, you'll be intrigued by bleeding pool tables, talking severed heads, and a climax in the "city of the dead", that is actually well done and far surpasses the rest of the film. Unfortunately, it lacks the campy "charm" of any of the above mentioned three genres.

I knew from the trailers and movie posters not to take this movie seriously. Even taking it as nonseriously as I could, I just couldn't enjoy it; it's a lowbrow wolf of a film trying to pass itself off in theatrical sheep's clothing. Honestly, if I had found this on the back shelf of some cheap video store I would've loved it. In a theatre, I just expect more from films.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Awwww - It really isn't that bad!!!

Author: nukulardave from United Kingdom
20 February 2006

I've read the other comment referring to Snoop Doggs'horror film, Bones....When this first came out it was my favourite horror film but I watched it that many times that it lost its' lustre.

The effects are great and plenty of blood and some gore from the outset. The beginning sets the tone for the rest of the film as it's one of those films that you just NEED to get to the bottom of why it is happening and what actually took place to cause it. It all unfolds at a pace enough to keep your interest as a viewer. This film is still a very watchable and enjoyable film in my opinion, even today.

It was nice to see Snoop in something different and anyone that is a Snoop Fan will enjoy this film all the more.....7 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not too bad, not too good...

Author: seal_point_siamese from Sydney, Australia
23 November 2003

I must say this film was a little better than I expected, however, having said that I wasn't expecting much in the first place. Im not giving anything away - the storyline is very straightforward and the blurb on the back of the dvd/video cover is quite sufficient in explaining the plot. <p> If you like your horror movies whether they be A or Z grade (like I do) then this film is worth a peek. The horror scenes are quite decent. There is a surprising amount of genuine suspense (even I jumped a few times)and quite a few laughs - but dont even try and look any further into the film than this! If you are one of those people to whom the quality of a plot must be in league with films such as "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Godfather" - AVOID AT ALL COSTS. This film should only be viewed by those who are fans of the horror genre. <p> This is a messy film when taken seriously, it makes very little sense, the explanation as to how Mr Bones became of the undead is limp to say the least. Pam Grier (Jackie Brown) is wasted in this film - she has no room to show any of her (in my opinion) excellent talent and comes off wishy washy. Snoop Dogg is a terrible actor and I was very glad that his main roles in the film were limited to flashbacks and the climax. Unfortunatley once again the directors and writers had no idea how to finish the film and resorted to the old "spirit of the thought to be defeated demon managed to slip into someone else for no apparent reason" cliche. Also I was HIGHLY dissapointed with the death scene of Bones that caused the whole thing -very weak. For horror fans out of interest only. 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A Nightmare on Bones Street!

Author: (tommy230) from Calgary, Canada
15 August 2002

This was a very good film if you dig any of the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series (preferably Parts 3 or 4). You can see it has that Freddy Krueger vibe running through its veins. Right down to the colorful shadows, neato killings, and anti-hero villain. But it also stands on its own much more than some similiar Nightmare knockoffs (Leprechaun comes to mind, in fact this film plays like a much more effective Leprechaun 4: Lep in the Hood).

Snoop Dogg does very well in the role of Bones, making lines like, "The Gangster of Love don't need no fried chicken" sound very serious and convincing. Pam Grier once again returns to her roots and I for one am not complaining. Maybe I'm slightly partial to this film because it features Katharine Isabelle from one of my favorite horror films "Ginger Snaps". But beyond that I very enjoyed this ride of movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Not quite complete crap, but close enough...

Author: El_Rey_De_Movies from San Rafael, CA
23 March 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

An attempt to make a modern-dress Gothic melodrama that is just not successful. Ernest Dickerson has a good grasp of the iconography of horror films, but he can't put them together well enough to make a good scary movie. He borrows concepts and images liberally from Clive Barker, Dario Argento, and Mario Bava - but all it shows is that he's a good copycat, not that he's a good stylist. From the idea of evil reviving itself by consuming a victim (Barker's "Hellraiser", but cinematic ally dating at least back to Hammer's "Dracula, Prince of Darkness" from 1965), thru the rain of maggots (Argento's magisterial "Suspiria"), to the disembodied hand reaching out of the darkness to torment the dead man's lover (Bava's masterpiece, "Whip and the Body"), there really is nothing here that we haven't seen before and better. The conceit of setting it in a ghetto with an all-black cast promises an interesting variation on your basic "revenge from beyond the grave" scenario, but beyond the music and fashions it's still a pretty clichéd film. One of the problems is that Dickerson just can't seem to leave well enough alone - like the maggot scene. OK, it's raining maggots and it's terrifying, we get it already, is it really necessary to go for the gross-out by showing people EATING them? Or the scene where Maurice is killed - again, the dog-spirit eats Maurice to give form and substance to Bones' cadaver, we get it, it's not necessary to linger on the details of the chow-down. It's never scary - just disgusting. Even his attempts to inject humor are forced and heavy-handed, with the idiotic scenes of Bones carrying the heads of his victims and having them carry on an interminably pointless conversation. And again, he doesn't show it to us once, there's at least three long scenes with the chatty heads so whatever humor there was is pounded into unconsciousness thru repetition. But the most glaring problem with this movie is that we are asked to sympathize with a character who is, at bottom, just as big a bad guy in life as the crack dealers who murder him. Dickerson tries to show us Bones as the protector of his 'hood, but come on - he's exploiting his people just as much with his numbers game, or did it never occur to anyone to ask how Bones got the money for his supah-dupah fly crib when everyone else around him lives in complete poverty? For a MUCH better horror movie that reflects the black urban experience, rent "Tales from the Hood" instead.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 9:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history