The Doctor and the Devils (1985)

Back in 1985, Mel Brooks produced a Gothic horror film with a former 007 agent and a former Captain of the Starship Enterprise. That film was called 'The Doctor and the Devils', and is based on real events from a few 19th century murderers in England. And I'm not talking about the infamous Jack The Ripper, but rather 'Burke and Hare', who went on a big killing spree, where they took their deceased victims and sold them to a Dr. Knox, who would experiment on the cadavers to further the knowledge of science and the human anatomy.That is more or less of what is going on with 'The Doctor and the Devils' here. You can add to that with the iconic poet Dylan Thomas writing the screenplay for the film, who was recently seen in the film 'Interstellar' with the 'Do not go gentle into that good night' piece of dialogue. The film centers mostly on one Dr. Thomas Rock (Timothy Dalton), who is a a professor and doctor who examines and studies the human body.Dr. Rock wants to further the science and research of the human body, while others think that his methods aren't exactly kosher, including Professor Macklin (Patrick Stewart), who constantly tries to expose and stop Dr. Rock. Since Dr. Rock is needing more and more dead bodies to do his experiments on, he enlists the help of Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom (Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea), who hear about the "good" doctor's needs. Fallon and Broom both embark on a killing spree and deliver the newly dead to the doctor for a hefty fee and no questions.It seems like a reasonable deal, but Broom and Fallon (Burke and Hare) start murdering innocent people wherever they are, instead of doing the deed more rationally. There is an unfleshed out side story with Dr. Rock's apprentice (Julian Sands) and his lover (Twiggy), but it doesn't go anywhere really. To add to the Gothic horror tones, Thomas focuses on the religious themes of what happens to people's souls and bodies after death. And Rock must struggle with whether to keep accepting these dead bodies when he finds out that they were innocent murders.Everyone does a great job here with their roles, even if it seems a little too Gothic, but the dialogue is delivered perfectly. 'The Doctor and the Devils' is a great look with one hell of a cast and crew at some of the most horrific murders ever to grace the newspapers, and it still holds up thirty years later.

I wonder if this movie was made the same time as Jane Eyre. Timothy Dalton (I LOVE HIM!) had the same character type as Edward Rochester (only some of his lines in this movie were hysterical). Not that this is bad....BUT it's weird because the two movies are so different. I love Timothy's performance enough (LOVE Jane Eyre BETTER) to buy the movie.It was also a pleasant surprise to see Patrick Stewart, though he wasn't in it very much.The movie wasn't as "horrific" as I thought it'd be, which again was a pleasant surprise. Fans of Timothy, Patrick, Stephen Rea and Jonathan Pryce should check it out.

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.

For my money THE DOCTOR AND THE DEVILS is a worthy horror film for several reasons. It has a good cast, including Timothy Bottoms, Jonathan Pryce, Twiggy, Sean Rea, Patrick Stewart, Sian Phillips, Beryl Reid, and Patricia Neal (whose name I did not note in the cast - she was the mother-in-law of Dr. Rock). Secondly, it had a screenplay that was legendary for decades as one of the great unpublished screenplays by a prominent writer (Dylan Thomas, of all people). Finally, for the only time in his career comedy king Mel Brooks decided to produce this work. Despite the occasional dab at horror that was in some of his spoofs (the Holacaust in THE PRODUCERS - both versions; anti - Semitism in "the Inquisition" segment of HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PART I; the monsters in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and Dracula, DEAD AND LOVING IT; the murder conspiracy in HIGH ANXIETY all come to mind), Brooks always showed the spoof or satire behind the familiar sequences. Here, for the only time, he showed the grimness of serial killings.Those points said I have to limit the success. One misses Brooks' humor which leavens even the worse of his films. Still one can excuse it because Brooks did not direct the film (or at least it is not apparent if he did suggest anything). His production standards are high - he is creating the Edinburgh of 1828 - 29. For THE DOCTOR AND THE DEVILS is the retelling of the Burke and Hare story.As such it lacks the conciseness and tensions of the fictional retelling via Val Lewton and Robert Louis Stevenson of THE BODY SNATCHER (still the best version of the story), and the best historical account, MANIA. Also it lacks the blank verse approach of Thomas' original screenplay (which was never totally completed). It has been retouched here to make it more approachable as a movie project - which explains why it finally made it to the screen.The story does show how the murders were committed by Burke and Hare (Fang and Broome: Pryce and Rea), and even goes in greater detail about the luring of the victims and the method of suffocation used. But the variety of the victims seemed better shown in MANIA, and the chilliness of the killings were best shown in THE BODY SNATCHER in the sequences where the blind street singer and the blackmailing Joseph were both killed. Also here the capture of Fang is tied to his attempted rape of Jennie Bailey (Twiggy), a good set piece but not historically truthful at all. But the betrayal of Fang by Broome is correct - and here we see Broome smilingly getting away with it (not like the blinding of Hare - Donald Pleasance - in MANIA, which is not proved as true as of yet). Still, with all the changes, the story is still compelling enough, and the acting still first rate. It is a respectable attempt (as I said earlier) if not the best version of the horrible tragedy of the West Port.