Burke & Hare

Disappointing horror/comedy account of Irish body snatchers who were operating in Edinburgh in the 1820's. More comic than horrific, much of the focus is on sexual comedy with a lot of the film taking place in a brothel. Plenty of nudity, very popular in the early 1970's, horror specialists Hammer themselves were doing this. Pity Hammer didn't do a straight horror version of this, likewise the Carry On team could have undoubtably made a much funnier movie. Lucky Derren Nesbitt as Burke shares a topless threesome romp with beauties Francoise Pascal and Yutte Strensgaard, and at least his accent sounds Irish. Glynn Edwards was great as Cockney barman Dave in ITV's "Minder" but is sadly quite poor as Hare, he is among several characters who have very unconvincing accents. It has a few good moments but overall I found this movie rather dull, the 2010 version is far better.

While not as well known as the likes of Dracula and Frankenstein, the tale of Burke and Hare is still undoubtedly one of horror's classics (even more so for the fact that it's based on actual events!). There has been an impressive amount of films based on this story - the classic 1945 film The Body Snatcher being the best and closely followed by The Flesh and the Fiends and The Doctor and The Devils. Horrors of Burke and Hare is a somewhat more obscure film version, and while that's not surprising considering the competition - this is still a good take on the classic story and surely deserves to be better known! The film would appear to stick to the story quite closely and doesn't bring anything new to the table that wasn't already seen in previous versions. We follow two paupers, Burke and Hare, who soon realise that there is money to be made by delivering bodies to the local doctor. It's not long, however, before they realise that there's only so many dead bodies available and later set out to make some bodies of their own...

The film is directed by British director Vernon Sewell, who previously made The Blood Beast Terror and The Curse of the Crimson alter. This film is undoubtedly better than both of those. While previous films based on this story have put their focus mainly on either the grave robbers or the doctor; this one is happier to broaden its scope and focus on not only both of these, but also things as well. This would not be a flaw if the point of the film still shone through effectively; but unfortunately this is not the case and big chunks of the story and its implications are left out. There also some confusion over exactly what style the director was going for; as the film takes on a very macabre tone at first, which works well, while at other times we are shown how much fun the lead characters are having (courtesy of an upbeat pop song!). The director does present his story very well, however, and the locations used all fit the tale very well. Unlike previous and later versions of this story, this one doesn't feature any real big stars, although all the main players are effective in their roles. Overall, if you're looking for a film based on this story; there are better ones out there, but this one is still worth seeing!

With some very familiar faces from British TV & film this little film is quite good, the scenery is quite atmospheric, maybe the direction might have been a little stronger but overall it's good fun black comedy from early 70's... British style !

Two men go into business supplying medical colleges with cadavers by robbing graves.

What you might recall about this film more than anything else is its theme song, which is certainly rather fun and moving. Bringing this tale to life is important and a great addition to horror cinema. Sure, it had been done before as "The Body Snatcher" and "The Flesh and the Fiends"... but it is my understanding that this was the first to be so explicit in the title.

The film also asks another question, perhaps philosophical or ethical: do dead bodies have value? Certainly murder is a terrible crime, but what of people who died naturally? Certainly their owners do longer need them -- why not be taken for medical science? (We now have donor cards and the like, but indeed, how were surgeons to learn their craft without practice?)

I wanted to see this having viewed and really enjoyed the Simon Pegg version.

No contest, the Simon Pegg version is far more entertaining than this one which just doesn't do it for me. Can't really explain why either, but nothing really seems to gel.