The Bone Snatcher (2003) User Reviews

Has potential, but ultimately failed

[slayrrr666 · 4/10 · 20 October 2006]

"The Bone Snatcher" is all that engrossing a creature feature.

**SPOILERS**

Hoping to find a cause for a series of strange disappearances, Dr. Zach Straker, (Scott Bairstow) is sent to South Africa and is placed on an expedition with fellow workers Mikki, (Rachel Shelley) Karl, (Warrick Grier) Titus, (Patrick Shai) and Kurt, (Andre Weideman) to a previous expedition's campsite. Finding only bloody remains and strange pock-marked tracks in the sand, they suspect a crew member went berserk rather than the evidence that points to something else. The group is eventually stranded in the desert and wait out until they can get rescued, and eventually comes under attack from a small army of flesh-eating ants. After having survived a series of attacks from the ants, which they learn could assume human size using discarded bones, they try to find a way to battle the voracious insects.

The Good News: There wasn't a whole lot here that was worthwhile, but it was decent enough. The story is actually pretty clever, and actually has some potential with a cool creature premise and a unique setting. The main idea for the monster is a fairly clever twist, and it allows for a couple of great moments. The two night-time attacks are the main examples, and are pretty clever. The desert does at times look very foreboding and some great atmosphere is derived from it in the beginning. Other than that, though, that's about it.

The Bad News: A couple of decent scenes aside, there isn't a whole lot either. The fact that there's so much time in between attacks in the film is hardly acceptable, as it wastes time by having the characters doing absolutely nothing. All we get is pointless bickering and wandering around the desert, and that's all there is. The first half moves very slowly and doesn't really do much to alter that. It's hard to sit through when the monster isn't on-screen. The monster itself isn't that threatening to begin with, being on-screen for only a couple times throughout the film and that really takes the fear out of it. The incredibly short attack scenes are over so fast that they're over before you have a chance to really see what's going on, and they're all really underwhelming. There's a couple of other little things here and there that weren't that spectacular, and don't really need explaining.

The Final Verdict: A nice concept and an original creature don't mean much of it's not on-screen or attacks so non-eventfully. It had potential, which is sad as it could've been so much better, so give it a shot if you enjoy the Sci-Fi Channel films or enjoy the lower end of the scale of films.

Rated R: Language and Violence.

Great idea, sloppy execution.

[BroadswordCallinDannyBoy · 5/10 · 30 November 2007]

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+

Disappointing

[GothamGal · 4/10 · 16 October 2003]

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.

Benefits from an interesting location

[moviemanic07 · 16 November 2004]

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.

Kind of Fun in a Painful, Jawdropping Way

[jessepenitent · 3/10 · 11 September 2005]

My jaw fell so many times watching this flick, I have bruises. Okay, granted, I really wasn't expecting the quality of, say, The Others or even Thirteen Ghosts (the new one, which was just dreadful and is still head and shoulders above this insanity). Someone else noted the thin characters...I wouldn't call them "thin". "Thin" implies there might be something to them. How about almost non-existent? In no particular order we have: The Girl Who Will Scream; The American Who Will Figure It All Out; The Macho Guy Who Will Just Bull Through Everything Until He Gets Killed: The Wise Black Man Who Will Die Early; The Extra Guy Who Is There To Die First; The Extra Woman Who Is There To Play Tough. That's it. That's your character list and that is what they are and what they remain from beginning to end. If they were "thin" they might, at least, change a little bit from beginning to end. But they don't. Well, okay, the American guy decides he's going to stay with the fieldwork at the end and the Screaming Girl goes back to wherever she came from. That's the change. Other than that, they all act according to their assigned roles and rarely betray any real emotion when they finally meet up with the menace.

Now, the producers get props for an original menace, I will say. I had understood the story was going to be "Tremors" but with ants instead of giant worms. I give the writer credit: these are very cool, very scary ants and what they do with bones is excellent. (The first time the "bone snatcher" appear, I admit I jumped a few feet.)Unfortunately, the very cool concept becomes Alien in the Desert very quickly. We get a lot of commentary on ants that may or may not be true, but we don't get much of the mythology on which the menace is based. And we get every monster movie cliché ever made. People go into places they know they shouldn't and when they have no compelling reason to. Moronic characters try to hinder our heroes and die for it. One character does double duty as "scientist who doesn't want to kill the monster but study it". A Very Cool Gadget is introduced only so the American can tell everyone something about ants that, gee, I hope everyone knows anyway. Then the gadget is broken. Our heroes run out of the one thing that can keep the menace at bay. And then there is that final, annoying moment when we know the menace is still with us--and wonder exactly what and how the hey the hero or heroine came by it. It completely renders everything that went before as useless and false.

Three stars for the cool use of ants and bones. Nothing at all for clichés, clunky dialogue and dim bulb characters.

Another almost good horror movie with to many faults...

[Aaron1375 · 4/10 · 16 July 2006]

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.

A Bone Of A Movie

[jcholguin · 3/10 · 27 October 2003]

The name of this film and the clips that I saw caused me to believe that this film would have excitement and interesting moments. I was disappointed. The desert sands were interesting but this film inched along at a snails pace. It started fine with an underground cave and something coming out but then tried to involve us with the lives of some very unlikeable human beings. As they found dead bodies, or should I say, skeletons with some flesh on them, they began a search for the reason why? At times it became somewhat different as something was following them in the desert. Some type of black ooze or something that would begin to eat the flesh of humans. As the flesh was munched upon, a bag of bones began to creep after the remaining humans. The reason for this black ooze as we find out was pretty bad, ants? Unbelieveable! Then the ending made no sense. I guess the motto of this film will be, when you have an itch and see an ant, quickly kill it before the ant's friends smell your flesh.

"Whatever your drinking or smoking stop it... or share it out." So-so creature feature, average.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 2 January 2006]

The Bone Snatcher starts in the 'Nambi Desert South Africa' where Clive (Sean Higgs), Paul (Langley Kirkwood) & Harvey (Jan Ellis) three diamond prospectors are, well prospecting for diamonds. Unfortunatelty for them they discover something rather nasty lurking under the sand... Jump to 'Vancouver British Columbia' where systems analyst Dr. Zack Straker (Scott Bairstow) is told that he has to go to the Namib Desert to do a bit of field work, analysing systems I guess. Jump back to the Namib Desert & Zack has arrived at 'Eland Mining', he has to pass security before he is driven to the main complex. The three prospectors have been reported missing & the security guys are going to pick them up on the way, attractive female Mikki (Rachel Shelly), Karl (Warrick Grier), Titus (Patrick Shai), Kurt (Andre Weiman) & the driver Magda (Adrienne Pierce) are the rescue team. It's not long before they run into the prospectors abandoned truck & nearby discover the remains of two of them, the bones stripped of all the flesh. Karl decides the third prospector was responsible & they set off in search of him but only find his bones as well, they also discover that there is something nasty out there lurking in the bleak isolation of the Desert...

This English, Canadian & South African co-production was directed by Jason Wulfsohn & is fair to middling entertainment. The script by Malcolm Kohll & Gordon Render is a little slow to get going, after the three prospectors meet their ends at the start no-one else dies for over 40 minutes & is rather clichéd, the attractive female, the computer nerd, the tough macho guy, the religious nut-case there to add a supernatural spin on things &, of course, the disposable character's merely there to die & do very little else. The creature itself is disappointing in the sense that it turns out to be a collection of ants that steal peoples bones so they can use them as a skeleton & walk around, why exactly? Surely just walking across the ground would be just as efficient? Add that to the fact that all they want to do is find a new nest & aren't bothered about killing anyone it all becomes rather lacklustre & dull. I don't particularly understand the need to hunt them down & destroy them either, as I've said they don't purposely set out to kill anyone & they are buried deep in the Namib Desert far from civilisation. Having said that it provides fair entertainment & is far from the worse horror film ever but at the same time far from the best & in keeping with the rest of the film the climax is dull & by-the-numbers.

Director Wulfsohn can't exactly do much with the monotonous Desert locations & it starts to get tedious to look at. Most of it takes place during broad daylight which doesn't help the atmosphere & it lacks any real tension or excitement. Forget about any gore because there isn't any, a few bones & someone has their arm devoured. The creature itself is a mixture of both CGI & traditional puppet effects which are decent enough & look OK.

With a surprisingly healthy $6,000,000 budget The Bone Snatcher comes across as a missed opportunity & where did all the money go exactly? The entire thing is set in the Desert, the creature & CGI effects are used sparingly, there are no action scenes or big set pieces & no big name actors. Six big ones sounds like a lot of money considering what ended up on screen. The acting is annoying & most of the cast talk in thick South African accents which sometimes makes it a bit difficult to understand them.

The Bone Snatcher is an OK way to pass 85 minutes but is far from spectacular, in fact average is the word I'd use. I can't say I hated it but I can't say I liked either, disappointing.

Did not like this movie at all.

[HorrorDisasterGuy-90617 · 3/10 · 15 June 2023]

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.

Sometimes Pray Isn't Enough!

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 21 March 2005]

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 worst WORST movie i've ever seen.

[pincake · 1/10 · 13 April 2004]

I wasted 5 dollars renting this complete piece of crap. Dr. Zack is the most unlovable lead character i have ever seen. The movie was full of EVERY cliche you could ever think of and contained not a single OUNCE of originality. There was the typical sexism portrayed by rugged foreigners, all the guys had those 'too-proud to take advice' attitudes that are as stale as grandma's christmas fruitcake. The concept and deaths were really cool, but they lose all novelty once the monster is revealed. (read the SPOILER at the end) Nothing else is really revealed though, the ending is the biggest cop-out you've ever seen. I predicted everything before it happened, including who would die and how. The dialogue is lacking, and that's an understatement by far. There's mostly just random yelling, thoughtful staring, and chunky sentences. The actors are just GOD AWFUL! I don't want to talk about this movie anymore, it's making me angry. I just wonder if the director even watched it when it was done.

(SPOILER ALERT!!!! SAVE 5 DOLLARS!) the monster is just a bunch of ants that "evolved" so now they need bones so they can move around, (nevermind the fact that this serves no evolutionary advantage whatsoever, and that the ants just killed whoever was available, though the movie acts like they kill out of necessity. This movie made me dumber.) The end consists of the lead idiot killing the mother ant (a big blob thing) which destroys all the other ants. Pretty cliche eh? He almost wusses out at the end because of a sudden emotional attachment to the mother-thing that overcomes him. Give me a break.

Original Monster

[jglapin · 8/10 · 26 October 2003]

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.

Well-made, finely crafted and stylish!

[willywants · 7/10 · 17 September 2005]

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.

Someone spent money putting this file of crap together.

[bhcesl · 3/10 · 29 January 2005]

Ants? Some evolved brain that controls ants? That need a skeleton to get around? Man, that is out there.

I am not saying that movies ought not to try new things, but I think a little thought and common sense might have told the writer and director, and all the actors, that a better idea was needed.

The acting was okay, at best. I would say each actor had a moment, but most of the time it seemed clumsy. The special effects were kind of goofy, and the screenplay was choppy and awkward.

I also take issue with the ending where the 'brain' is in a crate waiting to be moved somewhere. How did it survive a stab wound, nitroglycerin blast, and the weight of a mine collapsing in on it? And how did our main character manage to excavate the thing without his little girlfriend noticing? Where did he get the equipment? Why did the brain try to control some other colony? Aren't there many ants in the desert? I know this comment is sort of badly put together, but I just have to get one last thing off my chest about this movie, and the others like it. Why is it necessary to write a character with common sense, and clear thinking and then make him/her into an idiot at the end by doing something that will obviously endanger him/her and the people he/she is with? Why make that character into a moron in the end? Well, that's what happened in this movie, and I'm very, very ticked off (not really). :) Let that be a lesson to you. Watching the Sci-Fi channel for fun will land you in the stupidest of places.

Who's nightmare was this?

[luvmymj · 1/10 · 9 July 2004]

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.

Mr. Sandman Throw me a BONE!

[Coventry · 3/10 · 2 March 2007]

"The Bone Snatcher" starts out extremely promising, with the introduction of a new and original type of unseen evil as well as with the use of the sublimely isolated filming location of the African desert. Whilst checking pipelines out in the desert, three miners are attacked and killed by a seemingly unworldly creature that devours their flesh and only leaves a pile of half-eaten bones. The expedition crew sent to rescue them discovers that the monster is a superiorly mutated ant-queen, and pretty soon they find themselves trapped in the uncanny desert as well. Director Jason Wulfsohn sustains a respectable level of tension just until the nature of the monster is identified. Immediately after that, the film rapidly turns into an ordinary creature-feature with all the characters dropping out of the survival-race one by one. The second half of "The Bone Snatcher" is unendurably boring; with the inevitable love-story clichés as well as a complete absence of gory murder set pieces. The characters all are insufferable stereotypes that act and say exactly what you predict several minutes in advance. There's the rookie who has to prove himself, the female with brain-capacity apart from her hot looks, the obnoxious experienced guy who redeems himself at the end through self-sacrifice and – last but not least – who could forget the wise black guy who refers to the monster using all kind of voodoo names. Wulfsohn tries too hard to make his monster look like the outer space menaces of "Alien" and "Predator". The ant-creature has infrared-vision and crumbles when shot at, yawn! The movie actually just benefits from its unique setting and the handful of nasty images of decomposed bodies. This could have been a modest gem, but instead it's less than mediocre. Avoid.

possibly worst script ever

[dispet · 1/10 · 22 December 2003]

no really, im not kidding around here folks, and i so cant believe how many people here have given it really really positive reviews! oh wait, its the IMDB comments section, silly me. its interesting to note that at this date, there have not been enough votes to give this film a rating out of ten, yet there are dozens of comments that rave about the film. what does this mean i wonder? anyway, the script IS terrible. character change their personality and motivation and actions every scene, in order to keep the movie running along at something that vaguely resembled a pace. it wasnt even dumb behaviour, that was there too, but the pure idiocy of the script transcended any dumbness the characters displayed. for instance: karl is disobeying an order because there are two dead bodies in the desert and "the killer is out here somewhere" so he forces everyone to travel 40kms in order to find the killer, disobeying orders and p*ssing everyone off. when the hero spots something nasty in the darkness and warns karl, karl tells our hero to stop being an idiot and that there's nothing out there so they are all going home. next scene, he is refusing to let it go and must hunt down whatever it is. it is just a joke. yes, the monster is very impressive, but the crap that the humans say about it just tries to cancel out its interesting aspects, and the predator and alien rip off moments were very tedious. and the ending...the ending!?!?! jesus....the worst film i saw the year, and i saw bug buster!

Looks like a garage-made movie

[redmustang-1 · 1/10 · 22 February 2004]

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.

A Diamond in the Rough

[chaugnurfaugn-269-83012 · 7/10 · 26 January 2012]

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.

Not as bad as all that.

[acm120 · 25 October 2003]

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 movie stinks!

[capsh · 2/10 · 24 May 2004]

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.

Better than most Hollywood horror...

[jacobhoont · 10/10 · 2 May 2004]

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.

Worth renting.

[Mooneys · 7/10 · 22 March 2004]

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.

You'll be scared out of your skull!

[michaelRokeefe · 4/10 · 19 October 2004]

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.

Good effort, didn't pull it off in the end (litterally)

[Tikanjiah · 5/10 · 1 October 2005]

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.