Skip to main content
Close

Burke and Hare: Lackluster Landis Return

By Brock Wilbur · September 26, 2011

I love John Landis. He gave us The Blues Brothers, Animal House, and An American Werewolf in London. The man created the great movies of my youth; flawed cinematic storytelling covered by grand spectacle and unforgettable characters. So I was prepared for the errors in Burke and Hare, his first film in thirteen years, but I wasn’t prepared for the scale.

Burke and Hare follows the real life exploits of two confidence men in 1812 Edinburg. The city is in the midst of the Scottish Renaissance, and the two largest medical colleges have been competing for study cadavers. When a formal decree makes it illegal to re-sell dead bodies, and the local militia begins patrolling the graveyards, it seems that the pursuit of advancements in medical science will come to a screeching halt. Through happenstance, Burke and Hare stumble not only upon a dead body, but a contact at the University who will pay them to recover other unfortunates for the city streets. Desperate to provide for their loved ones, William Burke and William Hare begin a string of murders.

Burke is played effortlessly by Simon Pegg (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) and is clearly in his element within the world of dark British horror comedy. So much so, in fact, that a number of scenes contain interactions and reactions lifted almost straight from Shaun. He’s complimented nicely in the Hare role by Andy Serkis, an actor who is always nice to see. Seriously. As Gollum, King Kong, and Caesar from Rise of Planet of the Apes, Serkis is almost always a motion-capture specialist, so getting to watch the man play a man is a rare treat. Unfortunately, there’s just not much for either of them to do.

Burke and Hare is an odd film. It’s book-ended by fourth-wall breaking soliloquies from Bill Bailey, as an executioner. It has moments of pure silliness and over-the-top satire, but is juxtaposed against weighty and serious matters. The love interest, an actress played by Isla Fisher, is introduced far too late and brings with her a number of plot devices so heavy handed that her arc becomes dead on arrival. But mostly it comes down to a story whose characters never branch into memorable or humorous territory, and a good deal of the movie leaves the main characters completely out, in hopes of finding something more interesting to explore.

In my opinion, re-contextualizing the film would actually make it much more enjoyable. As a feature film it seems lost, tries too hard for both emotions and comedy without ever hitting a real nerve in either, and can never find the tone it wants. But as some type of made-for-TV, true crime, or History Channel movie, it would be the greatest in the genre. Because that’s really what this is. Cut down to the one hour of material that makes a visual recreation of the Burke and Hare Wikipedia entry, it’s a fun and fascinating piece. But stretched out to an hour and a half, scenes and ideas and characters have to be shoe-horned in to extend the run-time. It’d rather watch the shorter version; all apologies, Isla.

The movie itself seems to want this. It was shot in early 2010 and released in October of that year in England (it is only now getting limited release state-side), and sports a laundry list of excellent British actors filling out even the smallest roles; from a diabolical set of bitter medicinal enemies (played by Tom Wilkinson and Tim Curry), down to Billy Corbett playing Billy Corbett as a brutal militiaman, down to a cameo by Stephen Merchant where he literally just makes faces while chewing the scenery. The script is obsessed with small side-plots involving this cultural renaissance, and the time period piece jokes that come with it, from the invention of the photograph to “paying protection money”, to “Burking”, Landis finds a way to openly wink to the audience in half of the scenes. By the time we reach the finale where we find out (amongst other things) that a character who never spoke in the film is a young Charles Darwin, it becomes clear that the film might have worked better as simply a list of Wikipedia facts; albeit brought to life by a collection of fantastic actors who are terribly squandered on this material.

Landis doesn’t even bring any Landis to the proceedings. He’s the director who wrecked hundreds of cop cars and a Chicago mall for no discernable reason in Blues Brothers, but here the biggest special effect sequence involves the leads chasing a poorly CGI’d barrel through the streets of Edinburgh.

Finally, there’s even the question of why do another Burke and Hare? There have been several movies directly based on the story, dozens more over the years that borrow from it, and little of cultural or political importance that is redefined here, or even made amusing. It’s not as light hearted as you might expect from the posters, not nearly as dark as it could be, and a little stagnant throughout.

But I want to like it. There are plenty of great lines, and Serkis could team up with Pegg to hold my attention through just about anything, so if this film seems interesting to you, just approach with the kind of expectations you’d bring to a True Crime documentary on late night TV, and you’ll find yourself pleasantly surprised. Go in expecting some kind of dark return to form from Pegg and Time Curry, you’ll find yourself cruelly taunted with its possibilities, and then completely underwhelmed.