When you think of the Burke and Hare film, you’re probably thinking of John Landis’s 2010 dark comedy starring Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis. Or maybe you're a vintage horror buff picturing Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasence in the 1960 classic The Flesh and the Fiends. Honestly, there's a reason filmmakers keep coming back to these two guys. It isn't just because they were "body snatchers." In fact, technically, they weren't. They were something much, much worse.
Most people get the history mixed up. William Burke and William Hare didn't spend their nights digging up graves in 19th-century Edinburgh; that was too much work. They realized it was way easier to just create the "merchandise" themselves. They murdered 16 people over the course of a year and sold the bodies to Dr. Robert Knox for his anatomy lectures. It’s a grisly, uncomfortable bit of history that sits at the intersection of medical advancement and pure, unadulterated greed.
The Problem With Making Murder Funny
The 2010 Burke and Hare film directed by John Landis is a weird beast. You’ve got the director of An American Werewolf in London trying to find the slapstick humor in two men suffocating a grandmother. It’s a tough sell. Landis leans heavily into the "Ealing Comedy" style—that specific brand of British humor that is dry, witty, and a little bit morbid.
Critics were torn. Some loved the chemistry between Pegg and Serkis. They play the duo as lovable losers who just happen to be serial killers. Others felt the tone was a total mess. How do you make a "fun" movie about the West Port murders? You’re essentially asking the audience to root for guys who preyed on the most vulnerable members of society: the elderly, the disabled, and the destitute.
The film tries to justify their actions by framing them as victims of circumstance. They need money. They want to impress women (played by Isla Fisher and Jessica Hynes). It’s a classic comedic setup, but it constantly bangs its head against the wall of reality. When you see the real historical context, the "lovable rogue" persona starts to feel a bit thin.
📖 Related: Who is Really in the Enola Holmes 2 Cast? A Look at the Faces Behind the Mystery
What the Movies Get Wrong (and Right)
In the 2010 version, Dr. Knox is played by Tom Wilkinson. He’s portrayed as a man of science who is perhaps a bit too willing to turn a blind eye. This is actually pretty accurate. The real Dr. Robert Knox was a rockstar in the medical world. His anatomy classes were packed. He needed bodies, and he didn't ask questions about where they came from. When the murders were finally discovered, Knox wasn't prosecuted, but his reputation was totally nuked. The public was furious. He became the villain of the story in the eyes of the Edinburgh locals, even if the law couldn't touch him.
Compare this to the 1960 version, The Flesh and the Fiends. That movie doesn't try to be funny. It’s grim. It’s Gothic. It captures the sheer filth of 1828 Edinburgh in a way that the Landis version misses. The city was a place of extreme contrast. You had the "Enlightenment" happening in the New Town with all its philosophy and science, while the Old Town was a literal cesspool.
- The Method: Both films accurately depict "Burking." This was the technique of sitting on a victim's chest and covering their mouth and nose. It left no marks on the body, which was perfect for the doctors who needed pristine cadavers.
- The Betrayal: In almost every retelling, the story ends with Hare turning King’s Evidence. He ratted out Burke to save his own neck. Burke was hanged and—in a delicious bit of irony—publicly dissected. His skeleton is still on display at the University of Edinburgh’s Anatomy Museum.
- The Motive: While the 2010 film adds a romantic subplot, the real motive was purely financial. A body could fetch between £7 and £10. In today’s money, that’s a small fortune for someone living in a boarding house.
The Cultural Obsession with the "Good" Body Snatcher
It’s interesting how we’ve romanticized these guys. There’s a whole genre of "resurrectionist" fiction. We see it in The Knick, in Penny Dreadful, and even in Frankenstein adaptations. The Burke and Hare film legacy thrives because it taps into a deep-seated fear of what happens to us after we die.
Are we just meat? To Dr. Knox, the answer was basically yes. He saw the cadavers as tools for education. To Burke and Hare, the bodies were just currency. This nihilism is what makes the story so persistent. It forces us to confront the dark side of progress. We wouldn't have the medical knowledge we have today without some pretty shady practices in the past. It’s a "the ends justify the means" argument that still makes people squirm.
👉 See also: Priyanka Chopra Latest Movies: Why Her 2026 Slate Is Riskier Than You Think
Why the 2010 Version Flopped (and Why It’s Still Worth a Watch)
If you look at the box office, the 2010 movie didn't do great. It made about $5 million on a $10 million budget. Part of the reason was the marketing. People didn't know if it was a horror movie, a comedy, or a historical drama. It’s all three, and that’s a hard sell for a Friday night at the cinema.
But honestly? If you’re a fan of British cinema, you've gotta see it for the cameos alone. You have Christopher Lee in one of his final roles. You’ve got Ronnie Corbett, Stephen Merchant, and Bill Bailey. It’s like a "Who’s Who" of UK talent. The production design is actually quite good, too. They managed to make the studio sets feel cramped and claustrophobic, mirroring the living conditions of the time.
The film also does a great job of showing the rivalry between different medical schools. This was a cutthroat business. Doctors were literally competing for the best specimens. This pressure is what drove the market for illicit bodies. If one doctor wouldn't buy a suspicious corpse, the one down the street certainly would.
The Real Burke and Hare: A Timeline of Terror
To understand the movies, you need to know the actual sequence of events. It wasn't just a couple of murders. It was a year-long spree.
✨ Don't miss: Why This Is How We Roll FGL Is Still The Song That Defines Modern Country
- Late 1827: An old pensioner named Donald dies in Hare’s lodging house. He owed Hare £4. To recoup the debt, Burke and Hare sell his body to Dr. Knox.
- The Realization: They realize they just made a lot of money for very little work. They wait for someone else to die. No one does.
- The First Murder: They decide to "help" the process along. An elderly tenant named Abigail Simpson becomes the first victim.
- The Spree: They target people who won't be missed. Mary Paterson, a local woman of the streets. "Daft Jamie," a well-known and liked local lad. This was their big mistake. People noticed Jamie was gone.
- The End: Their final victim, Margaret Docherty, was found by other lodgers under a bed. The police were called. The game was up.
Acting the Part: Pegg vs. Serkis
Simon Pegg brings a sort of nervous energy to Burke. He’s the "conscience" of the duo, which is a bit of a stretch historically, but it works for the narrative. Andy Serkis, on the other hand, is terrifyingly good as Hare. He plays him with a predatory, cold-eyed intensity. You get the feeling that Hare would have killed Burke too if the price was right.
The chemistry is what carries the 2010 Burke and Hare film. Without them, the movie would likely be forgotten. They manage to find moments of genuine pathos amidst the murders. There’s a scene where they’re trying to transport a body in a barrel, and it’s pure physical comedy. It’s uncomfortable to laugh, but you do anyway. That’s the Landis touch.
Is there a "Definitive" Burke and Hare Movie?
Hard to say. If you want historical accuracy, none of them really nail it. They all take liberties. The Greed of William Hart (1948) is another one to look out for, though it had to change the names because of British censorship laws at the time. Apparently, the names "Burke and Hare" were still too scandalous for the censors over a century later!
If you want atmosphere, go with The Flesh and the Fiends.
If you want a weird, star-studded experiment, go with the 2010 version.
There’s even a 1972 version starring Derren Nesbitt that leans more into the exploitation side of things.
The reality is that this story is a mirror. It reflects whatever the current society is afraid of. In the 19th century, it was the fear of the "resurrection men." Today, maybe it's the fear of being "commodified"—the idea that we're worth more dead than alive to certain systems.
Actionable Insights for Fans and Historians
If this dark corner of history has piqued your interest, here is how you can dive deeper without relying on Hollywood's filtered lens:
- Visit the Source: If you ever find yourself in Edinburgh, the Surgeons' Hall Museums and the University of Edinburgh Anatomy Museum are must-visits. Seeing Burke's skeleton in person provides a sobering reality check that no film can replicate.
- Read the Trial Transcripts: The actual court records from 1828 are available online and in various historical books. They are far more harrowing than any screenplay. Reading the testimony of the lodgers who found the body of Margaret Docherty is a masterclass in true-crime suspense.
- Check Out "The Anatomist": This play by James Bridie explores the character of Dr. Knox in much more detail. It’s often performed in Scotland and offers a more nuanced look at the ethics of the medical profession during the 1820s.
- Support Local History: Many "Ghost Tours" in Edinburgh cover the West Port murders. While some are a bit theatrical, the "Real Mary King’s Close" and similar historical tours provide excellent context for the living conditions that allowed Burke and Hare to operate for so long.
- Analyze the Cinematography: If you're a film student or buff, watch the 1960 and 2010 versions back-to-back. Observe how lighting and color palettes are used to shift the tone from Gothic horror to satirical comedy. It’s a great exercise in understanding how a single historical event can be interpreted through different cinematic lenses.