i sell the dead be a big and sloppy horror comedy that refuse to take itself too seriously . this have advantage and drawback . the 85 minute of the film breeze by and the film be full of bit sometimes funny and sometimes scary and sometimes gory and occasionally all three at once and but the individual bit be much good than the sum of the film part . the story and such a it be and follow professional grave robber arthur blake ( play by dominic monaghan ) . arthur partner in crime willie grime ( larry fessenden ) have just have his head chop off for murder and arthur have one night leave before his own head be forfeit for the same crime . arthur insist that he be innocent of murder and but there be plenty of other crime that he be willing to confess to when bribe with irish whisky by a catholic priest ( play by ron perlman ) . since the movie be a series of grave rob anecdote confess by arthur and it become a sort of horror anthology a series of disjointed tale and all link by a similar cast ( arthur and willie ) and a similar theme ( grave rob ) . like most horror anthology and there be no consistent mythology and because all mythology be true and happen simultaneously even when they contradict one another . it probably do not help that i saw this film the same night a trick r treat and a horror anthology that avoid all of the trap that i sell the dead fall into . in fact and trick r treat and design a an anthology and tell a more unified and consistent story than i sell the dead which be intend to be a united narrative . the other problem with the film ( and i recognize that this be insane nit pick ) be the way the film play fast and loose with history . grime be kill with a guillotine . we might be able to stretch a point and say that he be kill by a scottish maiden and a precursor to the french guillotine and but the scottish maiden be abandon in 1709 and this film be set a good hundred year later since burke and hare be mention and they be execute for murder in 1829. grave robbing a an industry become obsolete with the passage of the anatomy act ( 1832 ) so the film must take place before then . i know that bring this up be the ultimate in historical nerdiness and we be clearly deal with a universe where all sort of dead and undead and legendary dead be possible and but the easy way to anchor a fantasy and to convince the audience to suspend their disbelief be to use something real and authentic to bounce the fantasy off of . and it not like the history of grave robber or body snatcher or resurrectionists ( call it what you like ) be a boring story . the most frustrating thing be that writer . director glenn mcquaid clearly do know the history and especially the good bit . a an example and when grime first take on arthur a his apprentice he correctly explain to arthur that a resurrectionists and they do not steal the clothes from the dead and because steal corps be a misdemeanor and punishable by a small fine and while steal clothes be a felony and punishable by deportation or possibly even death . so you would expect wille and arthur to strip the corpse at this point ( and for the rest of the film ) but of course they do not . you could accuse the director of ignore his writer script and but not when the writer and the director be the same person . my point isn not that there should have be a lot of buck naked corps in the film and my point be that if you be go to bring up this quirk in the law and make it clear that willie and arthur will follow the law no matter how silly it be and than you do have to pursue that thought to it logical conclusion and even if that mean that willie and arthur wind up chase a zombie through a graveyard try to rip his or her clothes off and stuff them back in the empty coffin and so that they do not get deport for steal the walking corpse clothes and otherwise do not bring up the matter at all . historical nerdiness aside and i sell the dead be worth a rental a a slight but funny horror film that could have be much more .