I was reading back through some of my reviews recently and realized that I tend to do a lot of tearing down. But of course, I also have a penchant for the worst of movies, so I guess that would make sense. It can be hard to say good things about a film that is just really bad.As for "The Bonesetter," it's a very amateur work. You are going to see a fair bit of work put into it, but ultimately everything is very poor in quality. The camera work in the opening sequence is very rough, and occasionally so shaky you can't even make out the picture. The acting is wooden (more oak than hickory, if yew follow me..), the characters appear to be attempting to play parts that require younger actors at times, the makeup somewhat silly, and the flow of the story is plugged full of holes.And as always with amateur horror, garage band grind for the music. This time with at least one player who hasn't quite finished getting his guitar tuned up. To be fair, while the music did have a certain "casio" sound to it, some of the themes were fairly nice. I enjoyed some of it this time.I think the villain was a little over planned. His attire may have fit the decade, but he still just seemed a little to circus-ee to me. I think that they would have done better by keeping him off camera and not allowing him to speak. Oftentimes what the audience doesn't get to see is more interesting than what they do get to see.

This "MOVIE" adds nothing to the genre, looks horrible,is bland, slow and boring. It's not scary at all. The acting is terrible. The "effects" and makeup are blah. I give any filmmaker credit for doing the work and getting their stuff out for people to see. I've never made a movie but damn, man this is really no good. Don't waist any time or money on this. I wish my review was more enlightening and in-depth but I don't have much to work with here.I think I got this from a Brentwood collection for like a couple of bucks, and I'm still angry that I spent money on it. I am even struggling to write more about the movie. I am at a loss.

Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.

Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).