If you walked into a theater in 2010 expecting a gritty, bone-chilling horror flick about Scotland’s most notorious serial killers, you probably walked out feeling very confused. Or maybe you didn't walk in at all. Most people didn't. The burke & hare movie, directed by the legendary John Landis, is one of those strange cinematic anomalies that exists in a bubble of "love it or hate it" energy. It’s not a slasher. It’s not a dry historical biopic. Honestly, it’s a slapstick rom-com about two guys who murder people for science.
Yeah, it sounds insane when you say it out loud.
But that’s exactly what Landis—the man who gave us An American Werewolf in London—was going for. He wanted to channel the spirit of the old Ealing Studios comedies, those pitch-black British farces where the humor is as dry as a desert bone. It stars Simon Pegg as William Burke and Andy Serkis as William Hare. On paper, that is a dream team. You’ve got the king of modern British geek-comedy and the master of physical performance. Toss in Isla Fisher, Tim Curry, and Tom Wilkinson, and you should have a masterpiece, right?
Well, the reality is a bit more complicated.
Why the 2010 Version Feels So Weird
Let’s talk about the tone. It’s the first thing anyone notices. The movie opens with a disclaimer that "some of these events actually took place," which is a cheeky way of saying they took a massive amount of creative liberty. In real life, Burke and Hare were desperate, brutal men who smothered sixteen people in 1828 Edinburgh to sell their bodies to Dr. Robert Knox. It was a grim, smelly, miserable business.
👉 See also: わかっていても：なぜ私たちはソン・ガンとハン・ソヒの「毒」から抜け出せないのか
In the film? They’re basically a bumbling "evil Laurel and Hardy."
Landis makes Burke a hopeless romantic. He’s only killing people so he can fund a literal "all-female" production of Macbeth starring Ginny (Isla Fisher), the woman he's obsessed with. It’s absurd. You’ve got scenes of them trying to stuff a body into a barrel while upbeat, jaunty music plays in the background. For a lot of critics, this was a bridge too far. Peter Bradshaw over at The Guardian famously said it wasn't "funny or scary enough," and honestly, he kind of has a point if you’re looking for a traditional genre film.
But if you view it as a macabre cartoon? It starts to work.
The chemistry between Pegg and Serkis is the only reason the movie doesn't completely collapse under the weight of its own premise. Serkis, playing Hare, is a cynical, greedy dirtbag who just wants to make a quick buck. Pegg’s Burke is the "soul" of the operation, which is a wild thing to say about a serial killer. They treat the murders like a tedious day job—sorta like filing taxes, but with more suffocating.
The Supporting Cast is Basically a British Comedy Who's Who
One of the coolest things about the burke & hare movie is the cameos. If you’re a fan of British sitcoms like Spaced or The League of Gentlemen, you’ll be pointing at the screen every five minutes.
- Jessica Hynes (Lucky Hare) is a powerhouse of manipulative comedy.
- Bill Bailey pops up as Angus the Hangman.
- Reece Shearsmith and Michael Smiley show up because Landis loves a good ensemble.
- Even Sir Christopher Lee makes an appearance as Old Joseph.
It feels like a massive party where everyone is having a blast, even if the audience isn't always invited to the joke.
Historical Accuracy vs. Cinematic Fluff
People often ask: did it actually happen like that?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: The "Burking" method was real. They actually did suffocate their victims to leave the bodies unmarked for the anatomy students. And Dr. Robert Knox was a real guy who was absolutely complicit in buying these "fresh" specimens without asking too many questions. However, the movie turns the rivalry between Knox (Tom Wilkinson) and Professor Alexander Monro (Tim Curry) into a high-stakes medical drama that’s mostly played for laughs.
In the film, the legal system is portrayed as a corrupt bureaucracy that just wants the problem to go away so it doesn't hurt the university's reputation. This part is actually pretty close to the truth. The city of Edinburgh was terrified that their status as a global medical hub would be ruined by the scandal.
The Box Office Disaster and Cult Status
The financial side of the burke & hare movie is almost as tragic as the murders themselves. In the United States, the movie was basically buried. According to Box Office Mojo, it opened on a single screen and made a grand total of $947. That’s not a typo. Barely a hundred people saw it in theaters stateside.
Globally, it did better, pulling in about $4.7 million, mostly from the UK. But for a film with this much star power, it was a massive flop.
So, why does it still matter in 2026?
Because we don't get "mid-budget" weirdness like this anymore. Everything now is either a $200 million superhero sequel or a tiny indie film. A movie that tries to be a historical black-comedy farce with high production values is a rare beast. It’s become a cult favorite for people who enjoy "uncomfortable" humor. It's the kind of movie you put on at 1 AM when you want something that feels like a fever dream.
Comparing Versions: 1972 vs 2010
It’s worth noting that this isn’t the only time this story hit the screen. The 1972 version of Burke & Hare was a completely different animal. It was part of that "Sexploitation" era of British cinema—lots of nudity, very little plot, and a weirdly upbeat pop soundtrack that felt totally out of place.
If you compare the two:
- The 1972 film is a mess of awkward edits and "Carry On" style humor that aged poorly.
- The 2010 film is a polished, intentional stylistic choice by a master director.
Landis knew exactly what he was doing. He wasn't failing to make a horror movie; he was successfully making a comedy that most people didn't want.
What to Keep in Mind Before Watching
If you’re going to dive into the burke & hare movie today, you need to adjust your expectations. Don't go in looking for The Silence of the Lambs. Go in looking for The Blues Brothers if the Blues Brothers were digging up graves in 19th-century Scotland.
- The Gore: It’s surprisingly restrained. There are some gross moments (especially involving the "pretzel" scene in the barrel), but it's more slapstick-gross than saw-your-arm-off-gross.
- The Romance: It’s the weakest part of the movie. The subplot with Isla Fisher feels like it belongs in a different film, but it’s the engine that drives Burke's character.
- The Ending: It’s surprisingly poignant. Without spoiling the real history, the movie follows the actual fate of William Burke, and the final shots of his "contribution" to science are historically accurate.
Honestly, the best way to enjoy this flick is to appreciate the craft. The costumes are great. The sets feel lived-in and muddy. The dialogue is snappy. It’s a movie made by people who love cinema, even if they aren't trying to please everyone.
📖 Related: Tenacious D and The Pick of Destiny Streaming: Why You Can’t Find It and Where It’s Hiding
Actionable Takeaways for Movie Buffs
If this sounds like your kind of weird, here is how to tackle the Burke and Hare rabbit hole:
- Watch the 2010 film first. It’s the most accessible and has the best performances.
- Visit the Surgeon's Hall Museums. If you ever find yourself in Edinburgh, you can actually see Burke's skeleton and a pocketbook allegedly made from his skin. It puts the "black" in black comedy.
- Check out "The Flesh and the Fiends" (1960). If you want a version that is actually scary, Peter Cushing stars in this one. It’s widely considered the best serious adaptation of the story.
- Listen to the soundtrack. The score for the Landis version is actually quite good and captures that "old Edinburgh" vibe perfectly.
The burke & hare movie is a reminder that history is often stranger—and darker—than fiction. While John Landis turned a series of horrific murders into a comedy, he also preserved a piece of folklore that defined a city. It’s a flawed film, sure. But it’s an interesting one, and in a world of cookie-cutter movies, "interesting" is usually worth a watch.