Matthew Kresal Inspired by the tale of 18th century British body-snatchers Burke and Hare and their benefactor Dr. Alexander Knox, noted Welsh writer and poet Dylan Thomas wrote the screenplays for The Doctor And The Devils in 1953 shortly before his death. Thirty-two years later Thomas screenplay, with work done to it by Ronald Harwood, was finally produced for the screen. That film stands up, twenty-five years after it was made, as a fine example of period drama brought splendidly to life.The screenplay is brought to life wonderfully by its cast. Timothy Dalton, himself a Welshman, plays anatomist Dr. Thomas Rock as a man so passionate and desperate to learn more about the human body that he resorts to paying grave-robbers to do so. Dalton brings a strong presence to any scene he's in and his background as a Shakespearean actor is put to good use in scenes such as his opening of the lecture that starts the film or his final piece of narration as the film ends. Believably playing versions of the infamous body-snatchers are Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea as Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom, respectively. Both Pryce and Rea share fine chemistry on screen, making them believable as friends turned body-snatchers with Pryce playing up Falon's obsessiveness and Rea Broom's cowardice. The supporting cast is just as splendid as well including Julian Sands as Rock's troubled assistant Doctor Murray, Patrick Stewart as fellow anatomist Professor Macklin, Beryl Reid as one of the body-snatchers victims, Phyllis Logan as Rock's wife, Siân Phillips as Rock's troubled sister and the singer Twiggy as Murray's prostitute girlfriend in a performance that proves every once in a while a singer can actually act.Period dramas rely heavily on their production values almost as much as their cast to bring them to life believably with this film being no exception. In particular the production design of Robert Laing and Imogen Richardson's costumes come together to bring to life the two clashing worlds of the film: the clean and cultured world of Doctor Rock and the dirty, grimy world of Fallon and Broom. The cinematography of Gerry Turpin and Norman Warwick helps to aid the production design and costumes as well while the editing of Laurence Méry-Clark bring pace, energy. Tension and even horror to those distinctly different worlds. The film is effectively scored by John Morris, including his haunting main title music. All this under the fine direction of Freddie Francis, himself an Oscar winning cinematographer in his own right. When put together these various elements insure that The Doctor And The Devils is well served by its production values.The true building block of the film is of course its script. Written by Thomas, with work done by Ronald Harwood, the script is an intriguing fictionalization of the tale of 18th century British body-snatchers Burke and Hare and their benefactor Dr. Alexander Knox. Presumably this fictionalization was done by Thomas to allow him to play a bit loose with the facts and explore the themes he wanted to explore. As a consequence, the film is very much centered around Doctor Rock, a cultured man who believes in the advancement of knowledge at all costs as stated eloquently in the character's opening lines. Yet this belief leads him into murky moralistic waters when Fallon and Broom begin bringing him bodies that don't seem quite right and Rock turns a blind eye to the questionable actions of the two men despite the warnings of those around him. The film also looks at Fallon and Broom, men of the grim and filthier side of London who take up body-snatching and indeed murder for a bit of Doctor Rock's money. Or at least until things go wrong and their biggest attributes, Fallon's obsessiveness and Broom's cowardice, threatens to destroy them. It is the scripts exploration of how the cultured, nobly minded but possibly amoral Doctor Rock is, in his own words, brought down into the slime that bred Fallon and Broom that lies at the heart of the film rather then the murders and body-snatching of "the devils" he employed.The Doctor And The Devils is not only an intriguing fictionalization of the tale of 18th century British body-snatchers Burke and Hare and their benefactor Dr. Alexander Knox but also a fine piece of period drama. This is thanks to the fine performances of its three lead actors, its supporting cast and its fine production values that brings the worlds of 18th century London to life. It is the Dylan Thomas (and Ronald Harwood) script though, with its exploration of the dangers of science without conscience and its consequences, that truly makes the film standout. Fact is stranger then fiction and, though fictionalized, The Doctor And The Devils proves that saying is still true twenty-five years on.

MARIO GAUCI This is the third historical grave-robbing film I've watched after THE BODY SNATCHER (1945) and THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS (1960) – for the record, other cinematic versions of the same events out there are the Tod Slaughter vehicle THE GREED OF WILLIAM HART aka HORROR MANIACS (1948) and BURKE AND HARE (1972). While certainly the least of the three I'm familiar with (due perhaps to its graphic wallowing in the lurid details of the plot), it's pretty good for a product of its time (incidentally, the mid-1980s produced an unexpected but all-too-brief outburst of Gothic Horror which also included Franc Roddam's THE BRIDE [1985] and Ken Russell's Gothic [1986]).The film was produced by Mel Brooks' company which had also been behind David Lynch's THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980) – which, incidentally, had marked Freddie Francis' own return to being a director of photography! Timothy Dalton as the overzealous doctor has a couple of good scenes in the first half, but he is clearly overshadowed by the more flamboyant turns of Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea as the nefarious night diggers. The impressive cast is completed by Twiggy, Sian Phillips, Beryl Reid, Julian Sands and Patrick Stewart; Twiggy (as another whore with a heart of gold) gets to sing as well and, predictably, medical student Sands falls for her charms.I recall the film playing theatrically but, needless to say, I was too young to catch it back then. It's based on an original, unproduced script by celebrated Welsh playwright Dylan Thomas – adapted here by future Oscar-winning screenwriter Ronald Harwood; curiously, the names of the characters have been changed from the real ones of Knox, Burke and Hare – so had been the case with THE BODY SNATCHER, for that matter, but that one had the excuse of being based on a Robert Louis Stevenson novella! Apart from the starry cast and the film's undeniably evocative look, its main asset is a spare, unusual but effective score provided by longtime Mel Brooks collaborator John Morris.

mlraymond This movie is well acted and literate, and boasts a regular Masterpiece Theatre cast. So why is it not more satisfying? The miserable lives of the poor and homeless of 1828 Edinburgh are vividly detailed. I have seldom seen a more alcohol soaked movie. Practically every scene has people drunk already, getting drunk, or scheming to get more liquor. The pervasiveness of alcoholic excess as a way of driving off the demons of poverty and hopelessness has seldom been shown in more graphic detail.The truly appalling characters of Fallon and Broom are portrayed with utter conviction by Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea, with excellent support from other British television and movie stalwarts such as Patrick Stewart and Sian Phillips. Former model Twiggy turns in a very moving portrayal of a young prostitute ,hardened by life at too early an age to accept the love of an earnest young medical student (Julian Sands.) Where the film falls down is in its mixed presentation of gruesome historical reality, lurid horror movie story telling, and the desire to have the film be a class act like something for the BBC.The nasty reality of the real life crimes of Burke and Hare is hardly something that could be overdone, in even the most Grand Guignol of horror movies. This film does not flinch from portraying the ugly reality of the sordid murders, including the two jolly killers getting an old woman drunk, so they can murder her more easily later on. These are matters of historical record.But there's a sense that the movie wants to be more respectable and holds back a little, unlike the all out Gothic horror of the 1959 Flesh and the Fiends, which conveys the genuine horror of the murders, its chiller movie presentation somehow working to emphasize, rather than diminish, the dreadful catalog of greed and brutality.Oddly, the more conventional horror movie presentation of Flesh and the Fiends tends to work better than its more respectable successor.One reason might be the large amount of gallows humor and absurdity in it, unlike the extremely serious Doctor and the Devils. The script is very witty, with George Rose and Donald Pleasence delighting in their ghoulishly humorous characters.The Doctor and the Devils is a well made, serious movie worth seeing. It is a bit long and flat at times, and arguably a little too real for its own good, with a bleak and despairing tone prevailing, rather than the Gothic horror of Flesh and the Fiends. This somber approach may work against the film, in the long run, but it deserves to be seen by a wider audience.

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.