Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

calvinnme With Peter Cushing as Dr. Knox billed as the lead, I felt that he did not get nearly enough screen time to justify the billing. The film starts out promisingly with Dr. Knox lecturing medical students in anatomy, scoffing at his fellow physicians for their hypocrisy and old fashioned ways, and receiving cadavers from two questionable fellows - Hare (Donald Pleasance) and Burke (George Rose)- as subjects for the study of his students and himself.This is where he goes wrong. He is paying for cadavers thinking them the product of morgue or grave robbing. Hare and Burke just see that they can get eight guineas per corpse. And every human being is a potential corpse. So why work so hard to dig them up if you can just find some homeless person with no friends or family, offer them a drink and a warm place by the fire for awhile and strangle them? Nobody will miss them and poof! Eight guineas! This is the rather predictable path similar films and even episodes of Night Gallery have trodden. What makes it good are the times that Cushing is on screen and his brilliant portrayal of a morally ambiguous figure, and the rather odd and unexpected ending that seems somewhat classist. Let's just say this couldn't have been made in the USA at the time because of the production code.The rather tiresome parts are the romances between minor characters that at first don't seem to have much purpose - actually one romance does - and the excessive footage in the bawdy pubs of impoverished London.Without Peter Cushing, I'd rate this a 5/10 - quite mediocre. With him it jumps a star to a worthwhile 6/10.

Prichards12345 The Flesh And The Fiends gives us the oft-told story of Burke And Hare - with a surprising amount of accuracy and some excellent performances.First of all we have Peter Cushing as Dr. Knox, a somewhat ruthless medical lecturer who is not exactly scrupulous as to where he gets his bodies for medical dissection. And it's a tribute to the mighty Cushing that his Knox is utterly different from his Baron Frankenstein. He gives a layered and fascinating performance, only at the end of the movie displaying a conscience in a marvellous scene with a street gamin.And in George Rose and Donald Pleasence we have a Burke and Hare to savour. True their accents are not exactly authentic but the mixture of callous cunning and rank stupidity they display has never been bettered. Pleasence in particular is a delight as the cowardly Hare. And then there's the excellent Billie Whitelaw - years before The Omen - giving an erotically charged turn as the girlfriend of a young medical student at Knox's academy.The film itself recreates 1820's Edinburgh brilliantly, and is superbly photographed. John Gilling, later responsible for the Hammer classic Plague of The Zombies, directs with a sure hand. The budget appears somewhat higher than your average 50s British horror movie - some well stocked crowd scenes are included here. The film doesn't stint on the horror, either. Perhaps the only real fault is the occasional lag in pace - the 95 minute running time could possibly have done with some slight trimming here and there. All told this is a splendidly realised and watchable horror drama.

Robert J. Maxwell A surprisingly effective retelling of the adventures and ultimate fates of the two grave robbers and murderers -- William Burke (George Rose) and William Hare (Donald Pleasance) -- and Dr. Knox, the lecturer on anatomy (Peter Cushing) who was complicit in their crimes.At the time, the mid-1800s in Edinburgh, Scotland, it was difficult for medical schools to come by cadavers for dissection. They were forced to wait for hangings and sometimes chafed at the long intervals between executions. The raggedy and snaggletoothed Burke and Hare, among many other "ressurectionists", collected dead bodies off the streets and sold them to Knox in an excess of zeal to advance the progress of medical science. The bodies would otherwise have wound up in pauper's graves. And there WERE dead bodies found on the streets. There is no poverty like the poverty of a northern city in the grip of unfettered industrialism.However, if a thing is worth doing well, it's worth doing in extremes. Burke and Hare made the short and simple step from collecting dead bodies, through grave robbing, to murder. Knox is portrayed as a cold-blooded scientist who believes neither in the soul nor in the guilt of his two enablers.I don't know how closely the script follows the historical events, but it's convincingly done, even if the budget is a bit low. The sets look a little perfunctory. The cobbled, crooked night-time streets of the city are nicely on display but there was no provision for fussy extras like street lamps or street litter or intimate nooks and crannies and cheap shops. The lighting seems to come from nowhere and what we're looking at appears to be a rather stark movie set instead of an atmospheric Edinburgh street.Burke and Hare eventually go too far -- knocking off victims that are well known and fondly thought of by some of the community -- but they don't really change. The arc of character belongs to Cushing's Dr. Knox. He's openly insulting to other figures in the medical profession. He seems not devoted to helping humanity, but holds them in contempt. Until, after the trial of Burke and Hare, he stoops down in a city square when a tattered little girl asks him for alms. He has no money but invites her to accompany him to his home where he will give her some cash. "Oh, no!," she replies, "You might sell me to Dr. Knox." That does it for Knox. He discovers his compassionate side.It would have been more effective if we'd seen his devotion to medicine but in fact his lectures have been as cold and distant as the rest of his character. Before this epiphany he's been a pretty unlikable snot, treating his students pitilessly.The performances are all rather good. Pleasance is a charming, unpretentious, treacherous psychopath, a little like Long John Silver. Rose is the dummy who gets hanged because he didn't know how to play "the prisoner's dilemma" to his best advantage. Billy Whitelaw is sexy, almost feral, as the hard-drinking tart being courted by one of the medical students. She overacts much of the time but, when reined in by her instincts or the director, she delivers some thoughtful lines. But then no one's performance is so bad that it's outstanding.I said that the sets and the set dressing didn't really evoke the Edinburgh of the 1840s and maybe that's a good thing. The cities of the period really stank -- literally. Endiburgh could be smelled miles away and was known as "Auld Reekie." In the absence of any social programs, poverty, drunkenness, poor health, and quick death were rampant on the foul streets. Women in particular were disenfranchised. Without a man, many of them wound up as prostitutes. The same conditions prevailed in London, making whores easy prey for Jack the Ripper.Well, that's reality, but this is cinema and, as such, is pretty good. More artful, in my opinion, is Val Lewton's inexpensive effort from RKO, "The Body Snatchers," its demonic overtones notwithstanding.

BaronBl00d The Flesh and the Fiends, also known as Mania, is one of those pleasant surprises. It is a very good film with excellent acting, a thorough, thought-provoking script, suspenseful direction, and quite a jarring, almost twisted/perverted mood. I was genuinely surprised just how good this film was, because I had heard so little about it. But I can honestly say that I found it a highly enjoyable, disturbing, horrific film. Where to begin? Let's start first with the story. The story covers old ground here(The Body Snatcher with Boris Karloff for instance precurses this)about those two infamous body snatchers of Scotland Burke and Hare and the doctor who needs dead bodies to help find cures for the sick - Dr. Knox. This film is pretty faithful to those stories. What really helps this come alive is three characterizations done by three highly gifted actors: Peter Cushing, Donald Pleasance, and George Rose. Rose plays Burke and Pleasance plays Hare and I do not think I have seen two men play such vile, degenerate men as well as these two do. They both ooze oil and shed scales with their portrayals of heartless, cold, ignorant men who don't want to work and find that there is easy money in grave robbing. Soon they find it is even easier to just kill then dig up bodies(in fact they do not dig up ONE body in this film). Rose is snaggle-toothed and has a real weird twitching laugh. He is just plain repulsive and this is one of his finest characterizations in film. The same can be said for Pleasance who also plays a bad man with such conviction. Both he and Rose fit like gloves together. But as good as these two are, the real star of the film is that wonderful, under-appreciated British screen stalwart Peter Cushing, who makes cold stoicism seem so easy. Cushing plays Dr. Knox as a heartless man only concerned with science and who never really wants to think about where these bodies that he pays for come from. Cushing plays the role to the hilt in several scenes. My favorite is where he argues with "colleagues" about their medical shortcomings, saying, "incline your heads to the right Gentlemen. There you will find the door. I suggest you use it." I love his ability to be so arrogant and yet so witty and convincing. Cushing even goes through some kind of a catharsis in this film which he does as only he can. Director John Gilling, a great Hammer film director, shows us why he was to make such good films as Plague of the Zombies. He is very sure behind the lens and knows how to pace and create suspenseful scenes. Mania is a very good film that, despite its above-average acting and directing, should make you think a bit about several philosophical/moral/ethical questions. Questions that may have changed shape today but still exist in some form.