Lawbolisted Powerful

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Scott LeBrun This is a grim, oppressive, stylish take on the Burke and Hare story that has also inspired such films as Robert Wises' "The Body Snatcher". As has been pointed out, this production by Mel Brooks's company Brooksfilms is clearly inspired by Hammer films of the past - right down to the use of renowned cinematographer and sometime director Freddie Francis. The look of this film is incredible, with intense period recreation & depictions of squalor, and limited use of colour. The actors couldn't be better; the roles are well cast all the way down the line. It also poses the kind of moral questions that would naturally arise from such a story: just what should be permissible in the pursuit of knowledge and hopefully betterment of mankind? How far is too far; what should constitute the "moral" thing to do? Francis and his cast & crew do a solid, if not altogether memorable, job of putting it all together.This is based on a 1940s screenplay by the great playwright Dylan Thomas, which was then revised by Ronald Harwood ("The Dresser", "The Pianist"). It stars a distinguished Timothy Dalton as Thomas Rock, a doctor / researcher / instructor frustrated with having to settle for the bodies of hanged men for study purposes. So he's supplied with bodies by grave robbers including despicable lowlifes Robert Fallon (Jonathan Pryce) and Timothy Broom (Stephen Rea), who recognize the profit to be made from such an activity. Now, when it becomes a matter of bodies needing to be as "fresh" as possible, Fallon and Broom turn out to be willing to turn to murder to achieve the right product.The wonderful group of actors also features Julian Sands as Murray, Rocks' young associate who falls in love with world weary prostitute Jennie Bailey (Twiggy), Phyllis Logan as Rocks' wife, Sian Phillips as his sister, Beryl Reid as old Mrs. Flynn, and Patrick Stewart as Professor Macklin. They're all convincing in the kind of environment that Hammer always created so well. Pryce is a standout as the depraved Fallon of whom even Broom becomes wary, convinced that Fallon is enjoying the act of murder much too much. The tale ultimately turns rather conventional, but it's still a tale well told, and Rock is commendably played as a two- dimensional character, no true villain but a man with his own sense of right and wrong, and an attitude of "the ends always justify the means". Often the most intriguing characters are ones that occupy "grey areas", and Rock is just such a man.Highly recommended to those who favour the Gothic horror of decades past.Seven out of 10.

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.

disdressed12 i really enjoyed this movie.i found it very stylish and atmospheric.i liked the dull,dreary look of the film.it was very appropriate in this case.i also liked the setting:Edinburg,Scotland in 1820.this movie was adapted from an original Screenplay by the poet Dylan Thomas.the script was written by Ronald Harwood.to me,this movie felt like something that Edgar Allen Poe would have written.i mean that in a good way.the general premise of the movie is as follows:Doctor Thomas Rock(Timothy Dalton)is an anatomy instructor at a local school.he is supplied his cadavers,or dead bodies,via the deaths of convicts who have been executed.however,two petty criminal lowlifes,named Timothy Broom(Stephen Rea)and Robert Fallon(Johnathon Pryce)find out they can profit by bringing bodies to the Doctor themselves and getting paid.from there,things begin to take a disturbingly chilling turn,but i won't reveal more.anyway,for me,this a genuine old fashioned ghost story that really works.there's no gore to speak of,but plenty of tension and suspense and some chills.if this seems like your bag,you might want to give "The Doctor and the Devils" a try.9/10 for me

jetan The Dylan Thomas screenplay finally makes it to the screen with a few minor alterations. Based on the Burke and Hare vivisectionist murders, this film has a lot of the feel of the old Hammer movies though for the most part it is played quite a bit straighter. Credible performance by 1960's icon Twiggy. Very good, under-rated small feature.