gavin6942 Grave robbers supply a doctor (Timothy Dalton) with bodies to test on.Coming from a screenplay by Dylan Thomas with modifications from playwright Sir Ronald Harwood, directed by experienced horror director and cinematographer Freddie Francis and produced by Mel Brooks.Now let us mention the cast: besides Dalton, we have a pre-Trek Patrick Stewart as a higher-up doctor who suspects Dalton of doing something wrong, and Julian Sands as Dalton's assistant. Sands actually has a rather large subplot of being romantically involved with a prostitute before he starts to think his boss is a little shady.Coming from Francis' background with Hammer, there should be no surprise this has some Hammeresque qualities to it. And thank goodness!

utgard14 Another version of the Burke & Hare grave robber story. On the surface, this one has quite a few interesting things going for it. For starters, the script was based on one originally written in the 1940s by poet Dylan Thomas. That alone would be worth checking any movie out. Then we have, of all people, Mel Brooks producing it even though it's not a comedy at all. Freddie Francis, famed cinematographer and Hammer director, directs this and gives it that sort of throwback Hammer style. That's the film's strongest asset, by the way. To top it all off, there's a nice cast with Timothy Dalton, Jonathan Pryce, Stephen Rea, Julian Sands, and...um, Twiggy.So, with all of this, why doesn't the movie work better? Well, the main problem is that it's all so drearily serious to the point of being dull. No excitement, no humor, no suspense. It's definitely not a horror movie, either, in case you were led to believe otherwise. Yes the attention to detail and getting the period right is to be acknowledged but it just reminds me why 'realism' is a double-edged sword in films. This looks realistic to the point of being depressing. I won't say you shouldn't see it because it's intriguing enough to warrant a look. But keep expectations low. If you're really jonesing for a grave robber movie, I would suggest you see the Val Lewton/Robert Wise classic The Body Snatcher starring Boris Karloff instead.

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.

MoneyMagnet As others have noted, this should have been an excellent Hammer-style film, and it seems to me that that's how most of the actors were instructed to play it... but the screenplay is so leaden, poorly paced, and filled with a lot of dull soliloquies (poor Timothy Dalton is saddled with most of them) that it's all too overblown and self-important. This is an uncharacteristically weak performance from Dalton, although he quietly nails the climactic scene where Dr. Rock finally realizes what he's done. The only actor who comes off really well is Patrick Stewart who is a most welcome sight. Freddie Francis may have been a great cinematographer, but he was a lousy director.