Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

wes-connors In murky old Edinburgh, Scotland, during the 19th century, anatomy professor Timothy Dalton (as Thomas Rock) lectures neophyte students by day and experiments on cadavers at night. Alcohol-soaked grave-robbers Jonathan Pryce (as Robert Fallon) and Stephen Rea (as Timothy Broom) provide Mr. Dalton with bodies, but he needs fresher corpses for better experimentation. Dalton's blond assistant doctor Julian Sands (as Murray) inadvertently encourages murder and hooks up with former skinny 1960s model Twiggy (as Jennie Bailey), playing an cockney prostitute. Since warn bodies fetch a higher premium, it's not too difficult to discern how the grave-robbers obtain fresher corpses. Executively produced by Mel Brooks, this film has some advantages – a stylish look due to good costumes, sets and accessories is obvious. But the story, adapted from an old Dylan Thomas screenplay, is dreadfully boring.***** The Doctor and the Devils (10/4/85) Freddie Francis ~ Timothy Dalton, Jonathan Pryce, Twiggy, Julian Sands

The_Void The story of Burke and Hare is one of horror's all time classics and has inspired some great films such as The Flesh and the Fiends and The Body Snatcher, among many others. The story is absolutely rife with intrigue; we have a central murder plot, plus the reasons behind the murder as well as the whole 'morality vs science' issue that runs throughout. The film has a period setting which it carries off very well, and the excellent cast all turn in great performances which helps to ensure that The Doctor and the Devils always feels like a very polished and professional production. The names used in this movie are not the real life names of the people involved - for some reason, Doctor Knox has become Doctor Rock and Burke and Hare are now Broom and Fallon, but anyone that knows the story of Burke and Hare will know what to expect. We focus on two criminals that realise they can make a killing by killing people and selling the fresh bodies to the local Doctor for seven sovereigns a time. It soon becomes clear to the doctor that the bodies aren't being taken from graves, yet he continues to accept them to test on...The Doctor and the Devils is not the best film to be based on this classic story; though I have not seen every film it inspired, I am sure that The Flesh and the Fiends remains the best; though this is certainly an excellent take on it. The film is directed by one of Hammer's best directors, Freddie Francis, and Francis creates the period style excellently; there is nothing about the setting or atmosphere of this film that doesn't make you think that it's all taking place in the Victorian era. The cast is excellent also. The fourth James Bond, Timothy Dalton, takes the central role of the doctor and delivers an excellent performance. He doesn't do the role as well as Peter Cushing did in the 1959 take on this story...but few matches up to Cushing. The duo of Stephen Rea and Jonathan Pryce are the gravediggers/murderers and make up the core of the film excellently. The rest of the cast is padded out by Julian Sands and Twiggy in smaller but important roles. Overall, The Doctor and the Devils is an excellent and sadly overlooked take on the classic story of Burke and Hare and while it may not be easy to come by - this one is certainly worth the effort!

LCShackley In 1980, THE ELEPHANT MAN opened to critical acclaim; a stunning period drama with a little horror mixed in. Mel Brooks was the driving force behind it, but he remained anonymous (except for the use of the company name "Brooksfilms") because he didn't want the movie to suffer from his comedic reputation. (Remember, John Hurt paid him back with the cameo at the end of SPACEBALLS.) My guess is that he was so pumped up by his success that he thought he'd try the same formula again: 19th century period drama, ghoulish story, dark and eerie sets, UK actors. And this time he dared to put his own name on the screen as executive producer. But it's a flop. Why? First of all, compare the directors: David Lynch for ELEPHANT, Freddie Francis for DOCTOR. Look at their credits, enough said. The photography in DOCTOR is murky; ELEPHANT was crisp and visually stunning. John Morris's score for ELEPHANT was spot on and memorable; his work on DOCTOR is undistinguished and almost unnoticeable. And despite the pre-bond Dalton and pre-Picard Stewart, the cast of DOCTORS can't measure up to Gielgud/Hopkins/Hiller/Hurt. The ELEPHANT script was poetic; the DOCTOR script (did Dylan Thomas REALLY write this?) is hackneyed and repetitive. The later movie just didn't have the ingredients for a successful follow-up.It's interesting, if you want a visualization of the famous 1820s case of Burke and Hare, but it goes on way too long and spends too much time following Jonathan Pryce as he giggles his way into madness. If the central character (Dalton) had REALLY been at the focus of the plot, and the script spent more time delving into HIS thoughts, motivations, and relationships, this could have been a good film.

lost-in-limbo Dr Thomas Rock is an unorthodox anatomist who runs Edinburgh's School of Anatomy in the 1800s. Although his associates of the trade see his work as outrageous, as he discards tradition framework of the medical establishment. To encourage such knowledge and to dig a little deeper into his work Rock receives corpses from grave-robbers to make up for the few he only receives. Things take a turn for the worst when the slum of Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom find out there's good money in the job, and go one step further by providing on every occasion a 'fresh' corpse for the unconcerned doctor. I couldn't help but be slightly disappointed by this Mel Brooks produced Gothic take on the true exploits of the infamous grave robbers of the 19th century, Burke and Hare. I believe Val Lewton's "The Body Snatcher (1945)" and "The Flesh and the Fiends (1959)" to be far superior, especially the way they seem to grab you and take you along for the ride. On this effort, I just couldn't get totally involved. The depressingly glum story was shaped off the late Dylan Thomas' rather old screenplay and is very similar to "The Flesh and the Fiends" in plot devices. The cerebrally literate script has plenty layers to work around with and genuinely makes some interesting observations on characters' behavioural habits, social status and the moral high ground of science. With the latter, we've heard it all before, but somewhat it still compels. Although some of sub-plots don't seem to gel and feel rather empty or under written (like the romance between Twiggy and Julian Sands and the affair between Rock's sister and wife). There's a dankly realistic and more an old-fashioned view within its martial and visual craftsmanship. Directed Freddie Francis competently illustrates the picture with great aplomb and creates a solid period setting that resembles something out of Hammer studios. There's a nitty gritty vibe drummed up on the grimy sets by such gruesome perversion and dread. Where it lingers on it successfully. The dynamic factor of directing the actors and story seemed a little lacking, despite a suspenseful climax and hearty conclusion. This can be really attributed to John Morris' score, which really hangs there in such an mournfully haunting fashion. Focal photography was atmospherically well-etched by Gerry Turpin and Norman Warwick. Now what a cast! Timothy Dalton, Jonathan Pryce, Julian Sands, Twiggy, Stephen Rea and Patrick Stewart. A convincing Dalton is excellent as the work heavily sterile and egotistical Dr Rock. The undoubtedly superb Pryce and Rea are truly disquieting as the scummy lowlifes turned cold-blooded killers, Fallon and Broom. There's a wicked morbid sense of humour running through most of their dialogues. A classy Sands, is simply too one-note and a tailor made Twiggy is quite strong in her part as a prostitute. A hot and cold fable that I only wished it could keep me engaged throughout the whole experience, rather than in patches. Well-made and acted, but bleakly weary and flat.