I came across a slim volume at a cut-rate book sale in university back in 1973; it was Dylan Thomas's made-for-TV screenplay for "The Doctor and the Devils".It was a great read. I was impressed by how Thomas cleverly broke the action into small mini-scenes; you could call it short-attention-span theater, but I've gotta admit reading it was cinematographic: I felt like I was watching TV.So here's a Mel Brooks production, roughly based off the Thomas script.In truth, the story's changed quite a bit, but the spirit is the same. There's a tone to the movie which I think the director took from the script, which is simultaneously sage and florid... if you can imagine such a thing!So... if I have a misgiving about the movie, it's that the tone worked in the book, but somehow seems cheap and hammy in the movie.That's my sole complaint. Too bad that complaint colors my experience of the movie from start to finish!But... what's to recommend? The actors took direction VERY well. I was amazed at Twiggy: She is a true dramatic force in this flick, and (come to think of it) she somewhat tempers the tone issue I mention above. Hmm.In general, the production values are fine.I suppose if you want to take in the story, this flick will do. It delivers the tendentious payload--the dance of dawning scientific achievement, shabby preening moralism, and honest moral issues--quite nicely.I wish I could give this at least a 9. But it doesn't feel right. It's that "tone thing", y'know?

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.

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.

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.