Diagonaldi Very well executed

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

westley34 This movie is absolutely awful. Not sure if they are going for a humorous feel or if it is just really badly made, but it is not funny. It is definitely raunchy so maybe some people will like it for that. The title song that plays a few times during this movie is silly and poorly done, and very much speaks to the quality of the rest of this movie. I only watched this because Danish actress Stensgaard is in this and she was quite good in Lust for a Vampire. She was decent in this though not one of the main stars. She didn't save it. Just one poorly made scene I will discuss because it really stood out as bad was when one couple was kissing and the woman stops and screams at her lover out of the blue, for no apparent reason. I give many thumbs down on this piece of rubbish.

gavin6942 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?)

Woodyanders Randy William Burke (well played with considerable rascally charm by Darren Nesbitt) and his scraggly partner William Hare (robustly essayed by Glynn Edwards) are a couple of no-count grave robbers and murderers who eke out a living supplying fresh anatomical specimens to esteemed professor Dr. Knox (a deliciously hammy portrayal by Harry Andrews) of the Edinburgh Medical College in 19th century Scotland. Director Vernon Sewell, working from a racy and witty script by Ernle Bradford, relates the entertaining story at a snappy pace, offers a flavorsome evocation of the period setting, ably milks the blithely warped premise for plenty of wickedly amusing gallows humor, and further spices things up with a generous sprinkling of tasty female nudity as well as a good deal of cheerfully bawdy eroticism. The enthusiasm cast sink their teeth into the jolly depraved material with genuine zest: Nesbitt and Edwards display a lively and engaging chemistry as our titular gruesome twosome, Yootha Joyce lends fine support as the shrewish Ms. Hare, Robin Tucker contributes a likable turn as sweetly bumbling medical student Arbuthnot, and Francoise Pascal and Yutte Stensgaard are sexy and appealing as merry prostitutes Marie and Janet, respectively. Desmond Dickinson's bright and colorful cinematography gives the picture an attractive vibrant look. Roger Webb's jaunty score and the supremely catchy'n'groovy theme song by The Scaffold hit the frothy spot. Good ghoulish fun.

Coventry This is the fourth in a total of five film-versions revolving of the factual Burke & Hare murders and, although certainly not as mesmerizing and memorable as "The Flesh and the Fiends" (1959) or "The Body Snatcher" (1945), Vernon Sewell's interpretation of this macabre page in Scottish history is still a truly engaging and at times even frightening movie. It's actually unfair to compare this version with the aforementioned titles, as both those films starred famous names and perhaps even had a bit more financial means to work with. This is clearly a low-budgeted film with a very limited amount of set pieces and make-up effects, and relies mainly on atmosphere and a sinister choreography. To those that aren't really familiar with the story yet, William Burke and William Hare were two poor immigrants in Victorian Edinburgh that discovered a rather unorthodox way to get rich really fast. As cadaver-suppliers to the eminent anatomist/university professor Dr. Knox, they specialized in delivering the "freshest" corpses of all body snatchers. Of course, to keep assuring this service they quickly had to turn to murder. The main reason why "Horrors of Burke and Hare" is weaker than the other versions is because the story contains too many irrelevant elements and doesn't focuses enough on the known facts. Numerous sequences inside the fancy brothel are pretty redundant (albeit entertaining), whereas other very important aspects are seemly ignored. Like the actual interactions between Dr. Knox and his corpse suppliers, for example, or the men's dangerously increasing greed and immorality. Also, and this for the very first time, the wives of Burke and Hare are involved in the murders and I can't remember having read anything about this being the case. There's quite a lot of sleaze and gorgeous female nudity on display, which make the inaccuracy so much more endurable. Particularly the unearthly beautiful Yutte Stensgaard (the blond prostitute) and Françoise Pascal (the brunette) deserve a special mentioning. This film has its very own and totally unique title-song and that's arguable the greatest thing about it! It's an uncanny song, rather vulgarly sung and warning us all to BEWARE…of Burke & Hare. Perhaps not the best movie ever made, "The Horrors of Burke and Hare" is certainly on par with most contemporary British horror films (and actually better than Vernon Sewell's other films "The Curse of the Crimson Altar" and "The Blood Beast Terror") and it honestly deserves a wider distribution. One more film about the case came out during the mid-80's, namely "The Doctor and the Devils" starring Timothy Dalton, Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea.