Burke and Hare (15)

Film

Thrillers

BH-03371.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong>3/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong>3/5
Rate this  

Time Out says

Tue Oct 26 2010

If comedy is tragedy plus time, it stands to reason that the more time passes, the more tragic the event we can be persuaded to laugh at.  The murder of sixteen people – and the sale of their bodies for medical research – doesn’t exactly scream ‘comedy gold’, but set it in the nineteenth century, make it more a tale of poverty, pratfalls and political intrigue than actual hands-on killing, and hire ‘American Werewolf’ maestro John Landis to direct, and bingo. While ‘Burke and Hare’ can’t claim the wit, style and invention of Landis’s earlier grisly masterpiece, it does mark a major return to form for a director who has spent the better part of a decade in the wilderness. Rest assured, it’s a hell of an improvement on ‘Beverly Hills Cop 3’.

Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis play William Burke and William Hare, Irish immigrants to Edinburgh who turn to body-snatching when other enterprises dry up. As the presence of two such likeable actors might suggest, Burke and Hare aren’t the villains here, just hapless ne’er-do-wells desperate for cash. The real bad guys are, well, just about everyone else: Tom Wilkinson and Tim Curry as devious doctors, Hugh Bonneville as the sleazy surgeon general and David Hayman as cut-throat gangster MacTavish.

And it’s this rogue’s gallery of homegrown comedy and character acting talent which makes ‘Burke and Hare’ the pleasure it is: Pegg and Serkis are relaxed and likeable in the leads, Wilkinson and Curry hissable as their adversaries, and there’s sterling support from five decades of familiar comedy and classic horror faces: Christopher Lee, Jenny Agutter, Bill Bailey, Reece Shearsmith, Jessica Hynes, Stephen Merchant. The gold star goes to Ronnie Corbett’s impeccably infuriated turn as short-arse militia captain McLintock, though a single-scene cameo from Paul Whitehouse as a tuneless inebriate runs him close.

The one bum note is struck by Isla Fisher as Burke’s would-be girlfriend Ginny, but it’s hardly her fault: her Scots accent just about holds to the end of the movie, but her part feels awkwardly bolted on to provide romantic interest and sexual frisson. It doesn’t work: when the rest of the plot concerns dastardly deeds done down dark alleys, the sight of Pegg and Fisher making eyes at one another feels clumsy and inappropriate.

Landis directs like an old pro, cluttering the screen with intriguing little details (surgical tools, scientific equipment, body parts) and displaying a nice line in absurdist comic asides. The humour may be too broad in places – corpse-based slapstick pales with repetition – but, for the most part, ‘Burke and Hare’ is well-timed and often funny. Whether we ought to be laughing at this sort of thing is another matter, and reading into the actual facts of the case (most of the victims were women, Hare shopped Burke to save his own skin) does leave the movie feeling slightly vulgar and tasteless – but doesn’t prevent it from being highly entertaining.
40

Comments

Add +

Release details

Rated:

15

UK release:

Fri Oct 29 2010

Duration:

91 mins

Cast and crew

Director:

John Landis

Screenwriter:

Piers Ashworth

Cast:

Isla Fisher, Simon Pegg, Tim Curry, Christopher Lee

Share your thoughts
  1. * mandatory fields

Comments & ratings

Rated as: 3/5 (26 ratings)
  • instead of looking for some deep meaning to a film why not just go out to enjoy it for what it is - a slapstick comedy of laugh out loud proprotions. as it says at the beginning, the following evebts are true except for those that are not. 5 stars from me.

    tonylid Tue Mar 8 2011
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • I think that Landis tried to give comment on current situation with jobs and value of human life. This is a movie in stile of "Capitalism a love story" and "Inside job" in other words when you watch it you are shocked how things are still the same.

    Gort Sat Feb 19 2011
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • Help help can someome review this film instead of squabbling about how many people might have seen it and popularity lists.What was it like ???

    Pedro B Fri Nov 12 2010
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report
  • Stephanie: If you put your work out there and are happy to accept praise, awards, and the riches that go with the success of it, you have to accept when it’s poor it’ll be criticised.

    Dorothy Wed Nov 10 2010
    Report
  • Hmmmm ... Stephanie, I'm one of the ones grateful for those who post genuine, honest opinions on films here. All too often the movie industry gets excited about films that aren't that good. By the time you add drinks, and popcorn to the cost of the tickets, going to the cinema can be a costly mistake if it's been oversold by the reviewers. Perhaps less scrupulous writers, producers, actors, etc who inflate their movies on this site should think of Joe and Josephine Public who have to find the money to treat their family to a film. As for StatGurl, hasn’t she just pointed out what everyone else’s missed - that those on this page who’ve sworn the auditorium was bulging at the seams with audience have clearly been lying? I’d rather hear an honest comment than a dishonest one. Go for it StatGurl.

    Just Passing Thru Tue Nov 9 2010
    Report
  • I just think "Stat Girl" should "get a life"! Does nobody ever think about the writers whose hard work they are trashing.

    Stephanie Tue Nov 9 2010
    Report
  • I can only apologise for mis-typing '5th' instead of '6th'. But the thought I was putting forward still seems vaild to me : If there are something like 190 films on general release (and please don't take that as an exact number), and if it is statistically proven that no more than 40 people attend the 6th most popular of those circa 190 films, then it would not be a great outlook for the film industry ? Which makes me very glad I don't work in the marketing department of a film company. (I work in the city).

    jono Tue Nov 9 2010
    Report
  • So... Bums on seats equates to cinematic greatness? Then what price 'Miller's Crossing'? And must we kiss goodbye to 'The Shawhsank Redemption' too?

    Porco Tue Nov 9 2010
    Report
  • Thanks Jono, but no problem with basic maths here, and that's all this is. Only if the underlying information is wrong would the results be incorrect - and the info was lifted from the "Box Office" link at the top of the page. Nice try, but both sets of stats seem to demonstrate this film should have been sold to Channel 5 to be shown at 2am.

    StatGirl Tue Nov 9 2010
    Report
  • "fifth most attended"? where are you getting your info from "jono"? according to the box office links on this site b&h is 6th across the UK and 9th across london, not 5th. maybe your poor eyesight explains how you imagined all those people around you when you saw the film or, of course, maybe you’re privvy to info marketing departments would have - the sorting of marketing department you said in a previous post you didn’t work for. i didn’t rate this film either. i guess the number of cinemas who continue to show this film the week after next will show how popular this film has been and what effect word of mouth has had.

    just passing thru Tue Nov 9 2010
    Report
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  • Hotwise
  • Cool brands
  • Star