Never Take Candy from A Stranger (1960) User Reviews

Superior Hammer Thriller In a Not so Bloody Vein

[stephen-alexander-2 · 8/10 · 12 September 2007]

Vastly under-rated (no doubt due to it's lack of release and being regarded as just another Hammer Horror) it is yet another offering from that studio that shows just what crafted film-makers the team from Bray studios actually were.

Director Cyril Frankel extracts first-rate performances from the leading performers, with Janina Faye worthy of special mention as the key victim in the saga.

Production values are the usual high standard from the Hammer team of the late 50's - Early 60's, Bernard Robinson's production design triumphant transforming Pinewood's Black Park locations into a small Canadian town.

Freddie Francis does his sterling filter work yet again, adding menace to the lakeside finale and offering more in monochrome than could have been achieved in colour.

Considerably superior to most films that broach the subject matter and (although the copy I have seen is no better than average quality) it is hoped that the upcoming DVD release will restore the widescreen ratio thus allowing us to see it as it was intended.

Incredible Thriller

[kalibeans · 8/10 · 25 May 2012]

If you think all Hammer films are vampires and werewolves and Frankenstein - think again. Hammer made all kinds of films. No doubt the Cushing/Lee films are classics, but some of these lesser known thrillers are masterpiece low budget films. I truly wish the Hollywood of today would take some notes from these thrillers and realize that with a great script and competent actors you can have an excellent film without spending a fortune. This film is especially terrifying if you are the parent of a child under 15. A new family moves into town, the father taking up post as the new schoolmaster. Their young daughter makes friends with a local girl and all seems well. But this town hides a decades old secret. As with many small towns there is one family that is the town patriarch. The founders. The family that has their hands in every pie in town. And this patriarchal family wields their power like a hammer. They also have a family member with problems that they expect the town to turn a deaf ear to. Felix Aylmer, a wonderful British character actor gives a sit on the edge of your seat performance as the creepy Clarence Elderberry, Sr., without uttering one single word in the entire film. Without being explicit, gory, or using foul language, Hammer presents a gut wrenchingly terrifying film that also serves as a timely public service announcement! Another great one to watch on a cold, dark, stormy afternoon. This movie will stick with you and make you ever aware of your children's whereabouts.

A more than interesting smaller Hammer flick!

[The_Void · 8/10 · 12 February 2007]

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger is yet another small scale and less popular Hammer film, but still one that gives the studio's more well respected efforts a run for their money. This film is macabre in a way unlike most other Hammer movies. The frightening things about this film don't come from overly maniacal characters or fantasy monsters - but from a threat that has become more widespread in the past few decades. The main theme here is paedophilia, and it feels odd watching this film as the attitudes expressed towards the hideous act are nothing like they are today. Because paedophilia is more often heard about now, the film isn't quite so frightening - but somehow it feels like it wasn't as frightening back in 1960 as it must have seemed like quite an outlandish idea. The plot follows a couple of young girls. One of them loses her 'candy money' and the other says she knows where they can get some free candy. They go to Mr Olderberry's house, but when the young girl comes home saying that the old man made them take their clothes off and dance for candy - her parents, new in town, decide to take the powerful Olderberry family to court.

Aside from showing a real life monster, the film would also appear to want to serve as a warning against immoral lawyers manipulating the truth to get the wealthy off the hook. Director Cyril Frankel seems to want to take a moral stance on these issues, and that's no bad thing. There is a macabre atmosphere in the film, but the bulk of it happens in a courtroom. Hammer may be famous for horror, and this film does feature some towards the end - but on the whole it's more of a courtroom drama than anything else. This isn't a bad thing, however, as the courtroom action is always interesting and this is backed up by an undercurrent of terror as we get to watch a guilty man walk free. The acting is pretty decent, with Janina Faye standing out the most. It's hard to judge the production values as my copy wasn't exactly great, but I doubt that the film was short on budget; and there's nothing in the film that would have been particularly expensive anyway. Overall, Never Take Sweets from a Stranger is a damn good lesser known Hammer flick that boils down to a terrifying and memorable conclusion, and it therefore comes recommended to anyone who enjoys a good thriller!

Hammer Change of Pace

[gordonl56 · 7/10 · 24 September 2006]

A rather unseen film from Hammer Films. A pair of 9-10 year old girls are lured into a house by an old man offering candy. He has them dance naked for him though he stops short of sex. After discovering what has happened, the family of one girl call the police and insist the old man be charged. The police are somewhat reluctant to go after the man. It seems that he is the elder member of the most powerful family in the town. They own the local factory where the majority of the town is employed. The old man's lawyer lets the girl's family know that he will destroy the girl on the stand if the matter goes to court. The girl's family stick to their guns and the old guy is charged. Witnesses for the young girl suddenly leave town and the family is shunned by the rest of the town. The lawyer is true to his threat about destroying the girl. They can only take so much and decide to withdraw the charges. Two weeks later the same old guy lures another girl to a small cabin and kills her. A rather intense film which handles the subject matter in a thoughtful mature way. A good film.

Gord

Very suspenseful B-picture

[galensaysyes · 9/10 · 22 August 2000]

I saw this on video as "Never Take Candy from a Stranger," under which title it was apparently released in the U.S. It was the one serious film produced by Hammer Films, famous for its Gothic horrors, and I found this much more suspenseful, as well as much better made, than the lot of them. It begins with small tensions of frustration and mild dislike among members of the academic community in a small town and gradually, subtly builds to an atmosphere of dread that catches in the throat. Every character, down to the bit parts, has something of interest to say, and what they say and do, and how their actions combine, lead step by step to the harrowing conclusion. The only fault is the over-simplicity of its social viewpoint, as expressed by the main character and justified by the events of the story, which are by no means unbelievable but not inevitable either. Apart from that, I thought it was a first-class B-picture, a small film in the good sense, compact and economical, with all its resources, human and otherwise, firmly in hand. Also, it has the grey photography that once used to give films of this type the aura they needed: the grey of rain and fog and dusk and uneasy feelings.

Hammer's take on paedophiles and sex offenders: not sensationalised and exploitative as you might predict, but sensitive and responsibly done.

[barnabyrudge · 7/10 · 1 November 2013]

Usually associated with their horror output, Hammer tried their hand at other styles and genres a lot more than people realise. Never Take Sweets From A Stranger for example is a tense and well-handled drama about a dangerous child molester; rather than being the standard sensationalised exploitation thriller one might be expecting, it is actually a sensitively done drama which tries to tackle its themes with due responsibility and earnestness. Initially undervalued by the critics of the day, the film has since had its worthiness and precautionary relevance proved by time: people hiding behind status and public perception to hide their sexual misdemeanours is something which has reared its ugly head in modern times with celebrity cases such as Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall. Perhaps the snooty critics back then should have spent a little less time rubbishing the film, and a bit more time praising it for trying to address a very real danger.

Peter Carter (Patrick Allen) is the new principal at a school in Canada, bringing his wife Sally (Gwen Watford) and daughter Jean (Janina Faye) over from England with him. Initially thrilled at their new lives in this faraway land, the dream rapidly turns ugly when Jean reveals she has been persuaded to strip naked in return for candy by a local elderly man, Clarence Olderberry Sr (Felix Aylmer). Distressed and enraged by what Jean is telling them, the Carters challenge old man Clarence about his actions. Unfortunately for them, Clarence Sr. is a tremendously rich and successful figure, a trusted stalwart of the town's community, the originator of its thriving economic heritage, and no-one seems willing to accept he might be a paedophile. Or at least no-one seems willing to give evidence against him even if they do harbour any suspicions. The Carters' case is tossed out of court; Clarence Sr. is cleared of all offences. But the failures of the justice system are to prove tragic and costly when old man Clarence, freed and cleared, strikes once more…

Starkly shot in black and white, and set in Canada presumably to highlight that the threat of paedophiles is a universal danger (not just something limited to Britain), the film sets up its basic premise tastefully but uncompromisingly. The moment where young Jean reveals what old Clarence has been making her do is every bit as raw and effective as the subject demands, making the viewer uneasy and uncomfortable (just as it should) and setting the tone for the unpleasantries to follow. The brutal court case in which Jean is taken apart and Clarence Sr. made to look innocent is electrifyingly handled. It's not an entertaining film – the subject matter prevents that – but its moral and social intentions are certainly in the right place. The biggest drawback is the portrayal of the paedophile: played creepily enough by Aylmer, the problem is that he is far too broadly written; a slobbering, trembling, staggering monster of a man who is too obviously perverted and dangerous to be a truly believable character. Real paedophiles are much harder to identify, more cunning and evasive and seemingly 'normal'. That aside, however, this is a very impressive message movie from the Hammer people.

Quite amazing and modern for 1960.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 27 November 2011]

"Never Take Sweets From a Stranger" is an odd anomaly. What I mean by this is that there aren't a whole lot of films like it back in its day--or even now. It tackles a topic that was never really talked about until recently--and hardly at all back in 1960--at that is the topic of pedophilia. Sadly, because of the American Production Code, such topics were pretty much forbidden for decades and it took the British (Hammer Films) to broach the topic. While the film is not perfect in talking about sexual abuse, it is awfully good considering so little was known about it at the time. I can say this with some confidence, as in my old job (before I went into teaching) was working with victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse--a job that nearly ate me up inside. I appreciate when a film makes a sincere effort to discuss sexual abuse--and "Never Take Sweets" should be commended.

The film begins with a little girl being told by her little friend that there is a man nearby who will give them free candy. While nothing is shown and the child doesn't seem shaken up, she later mentions in passing about the old man who paid the two girls to dance around naked for him! Not surprisingly, the parents are concerned--and when they learn the whole story from their child, they are furious and push to have the man prosecuted. Interestingly, however, the old man comes from a VERY powerful local family and the community seems to have little interest in doing anything. To make things worse, the old man's son threatens the family if the prosecute. And, not surprisingly, the case is badly bungled and the old pervert gets away with it.

Now this might sound like the entire film--but it's not. What follows is what makes the film so exceptional. The ending and how the film is handled from then on is terrifically handled--and I can't see how they could have made the ending any better--or any more tense and exciting. The bottom line is that this film is brilliantly done for 1960 and holds up well even today. The only negative, and for the time it was quite realistic, is that the sex offender was played a bit too broadly. He simply LOOKED like a dirty old man--and this is usually NOT the case with sexual abuse. But, on the other hand, it clearly shows how sex crimes can progress to even more serious ones if people stand back and allow it to go unpunished. A truly exceptional film--and one that is quite riveting.

By the way, I do wonder why the film was set in Canada and the victim's family was British. Why didn't Hammer just set the film in the UK? Just wondering....

Found it at last!

[b_moviebuff · 7/10 · 26 October 2006]

This was one of the most controversial films of its time, I remember vividly the the bad press this movie got,but what we have here is now so relevant to today's society and Hammer should ensure this is restored and put on DVD, I managed to track a copy down from the US where it had been on television, the owner of the disc can be found on a very well known auction site, to my knowledge this has never been shown on British TV.

Starring veteran and distinguished theatre actor Aylmer, who does not breath one word in the movie by the way is accused by a young girl of being a child molester and is taken to court by the girl's father Patrick Holt, sadly Aylmer is the town's big-wig and is a much respected professor as well as owning most of the land in the town, the case against him is thrown out due to lack of evidence from the young girl.

What follows is a harrowing chase scene involving the same girl and her friend from school both chased through the woods by a psychopathic Aylmer and ultimately leads to death of one of the girls before he is caught.

Curiously set in Canada with an uneasy blend of stiff British upper lip and north American accents, talky in parts but stick with it to the end where the final scene's are shattering and every parent's nightmare, this movie should be seen by all.

Lesser known Hammer that is certainly worth a look.

[Hey_Sweden · 8/10 · 6 March 2018]

Give Hammer Studios credit for this one: they were ahead of the curve in exploring one of the most distasteful real-life horrors of them all. This isn't one of their period Gothics that tend towards the utterly fantastic. It's all too uncomfortably real. It REALLY hits a nerve, even if you, like this viewer, are not yet a parent. The corruption and despoiling of innocence is one of the worst things that we can imagine.

Taking place in an Eastern Canadian village, but with a cast still largely consisting of British actors, it tells a tale (based on a play by Roger Garis) of happy married couple Peter and Sally Carter (Patrick Allen, Gwen Watford) who've come to this community where he will be a school principal. Very soon after arriving, their daughter Jean (Janina Faye) and her new friend Lucille (Frances Green) are victimized by elderly pervert Clarence Olderberry Sr. (Felix Aylmer, Polonius in Oliviers' "Hamlet"). The Carters find the path to justice a tricky one to navigate, since the Olderberry family retains such influence in the area.

Marked by some very effective acting (Niall MacGinnis as the defence attorney, Alison Leggatt as Watfords' mother, Bill Nagy the old creeps' power-wielding son, Michael Gwynn as the prosecutor, and MacDonald Parke as the judge, et al.), "Never Take Sweets from a Stranger" plays out in a reasonably believable way, with all sorts of arguments being thrown about for how to proceed, and the facts of the matter. Olderberry Jr., understandably enough, has a hard time believing that his father could be such a monster, even though the old man DID spend time in a sanitarium.

Exceptionally well shot in black & white widescreen by Freddie Francis (one of the greats in his field), this is overall a well made film and compellingly told story, which leads to positively chilling events.

The material is handled is a respectably delicate manner by the filmmakers (including writer John Hunter and director Cyril Frankel), and fortunately does not tend towards the sensational, preferring to remain fairly low-key.

Eight out of 10.

You certainly have to admire its intentions

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 10 December 2016]

Highly controversial at the time of it's release and still disturbing today "Never Take Sweets from a Stranger" now feels like a polemic which somewhat dilutes its effectiveness as a thriller. It's extremely well-intended if a little on the dull side. The subject is child abuse; of course, being 1960 the abuse in question is never actually shown and is actually not even looked on as abuse by anyone other than the parents of the abused child.

Felix Aylmer is admirably and bravely cast as the old man who gets a couple of little girls to dance naked for him while he gets off on it. Unfortunately Aylmer is a local bigwig while the family of one of the abused children are newcomers to this closed community who then gang up against them, taking the side of the abuser's family. (The family of the other little girl don't seem to want to know). Consequently the film is as much about the abuse of power as it is about sexual abuse.

It was a product of Hammer Studios and sold as a 'horror' film but it's a very serious and sober picture, a message movie rather than an outright thriller. It is well written and Patrick Allen and Gwen Watford are fine as the parents while Niall MacGinnis as Aylmer's attorney and Alison Leggatt as the little girl's grandmother are outstanding. Today the film remains virtually unseen and while it may be no masterpiece at least you have to admire its intentions.

Brave, literate and very powerful.

[christopher-underwood · 8/10 · 29 April 2018]

An extremely well executed film with very difficult theme and despite the care and attention, never mind the pre-filming censorship problems, one wonders just who was likely to be the intended audience. Perhaps the answer is in the makers' fight for a certificate less than an 'X' on the grounds that otherwise children would not be able to see it. It seems that the intention was to send out a warning that not all is wonderful in the world and care should be taken when 'strange' men or simply 'strangers' offer incentives for children to disrobe. The film is of necessity disturbing and there seems little chance such a film would even today be made available to 'children', however hypocritical that is. Gwen Watford is excellent and Janina Faye as the 'victim' absolutely spot on in a very difficult role. Brave, literate and very powerful.

Bold Drama.

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 21 November 2013]

Cyril Frankel directed this still bold drama set in England. Two Pre-teen girls named Jean & Lucille are playing in the woods when they learn that they can get free candy from the old man in the mansion. His name is Clarence Oldenberry Sr.(played by Felix Alymer) and unfortunately he is also a pedophile, and their parents learn later had the girls dance nude for him in exchange for candy. Outraged, Jean's parents Peter & Sally Carter inform the authorities, but are told that because the family are huge town supporters, that filing charges would be unwise. Undeterred, the Carters file charges, with unforeseen consequences for all... Provocative film remains quite daring, but is made with intelligence and restraint, and sadly also remains quite timely as well. An unusual but worthwhile film from Hammer studios.

A powerful piece of serious film making from Hammer as vital and relevant today as it was then.

[jamesraeburn2003 · 19 November 2018]

An English family, Peter and Sally Carter (Patrick Allen and Gwen Watford) and their nine-year-old daughter Jean (Janina Faye), emigrate to a small Canadian town where Peter has got the job of principal at the local school. However, their dream of a new life turns into a nightmare when their daughter says that an elderly man made inappropriate advances towards her and her school friend, Lucille (Frances Green). They find the local people close ranks against them when they file a complaint with the police since the man in question, Clarence Olderberry (Felix Aylmer), belongs to the wealthiest and most influential family in the community who opened a salt mill, which created jobs and increased the town's prosperity. Olderberry's son (Bill Nagy) warns the Carters that if they take his father to court, he will use his family's wealth and influence to ensure that their case is thrown out of court. And, sure enough, it is. The jury is stacked and the Defense Council (Niall McGuinness) questions Jean in a bullying and unsympathetic manner in the witness box, which is successful in creating the impression that she is an unreliable witness. Olderberry walks out of court a free man and the Carters announce that they are leaving town. However, Olderberry goes on the warpath again and this time his tendencies become homicidal...

Highly controversial in its day, this Hammer drama deserved a wider audience than it got and it is certainly one of their best films. The subject is treated with absolute sensitivity by the entire cast with Allen and Watford especially good as the horrified and anguished parents. The way in which the community closes ranks against them as they fight for justice for their daughter is well depicted and creates much tension and suspense. The courtroom sequence is particularly harrowing and, although the film was shot at Bray Studios in the English home counties where so many of Hammer's timeless gothic horrors were made, you will be surprised at how successful the film makers were in creating an authentic sense of place and realism for the Canadian setting. This adds to the unsettling atmosphere which is augmented by the b/w cinemascope camerawork of Freddie Francis who shortly after this would go on to win an Oscar for his work on Sons And Lovers (1960). Directed by Cyril Frankel, who is best remembered as the director of such cult TV classics as Randall and Hopkirk Deceased, Department S and The Champions, this ranks among the best work he did for the cinema. He would go on to make one other film for Hammer, the flawed but interesting witchcraft thriller, The Witches (1966), which featured Joan Fontaine's last big screen appearance. While he ensures that the film is entertaining, suspenseful and tense, he also brings out the powerful social message within John Hunter's script about the responsibility we all have in protecting our children and that one's money and influence is no excuse for complacency or exonerates them from the responsibilities they have to society. Niall McGuinness offers a fine performance as the prosecuting attorney, Bill Nagy is noteworthy as the accused man's son and Felix Aylmer, even though he has no dialogue, succeeds in creating a convincing and unnerving performance as the accused man.

All in all, after nearly sixty years since it was first made, this remains a powerful piece of film making that still manages to entertain while at the same time delivering an important social message that is as vital and relevant now as it was then.

Hammer misfire

[minamurray · 4/10 · 12 November 2009]

This will gather "unhelpful" votes from fans, but oh, well... Hammer was great with sumptuously lush Gothic monster stories, but messages were never their strong suite. Their clichéd Victorian patriarchs were always tormenting sanitized younger generation, and that was bad enough, but "serious" picture Never takes sweets from a stranger is worse. Film was described by producer Anthony Hinds as a movie about dangers of psychopaths roaming free, so who is this pedophiliac murderer in question? Oh yes, elderly mental patient, a real menace to society. Rolleyes. This makes film's "message" downright squalid, because in real life pedophiliacs are usually not dotty old men or outsiders of society, but doctors, priests etc. Just like in real life calculating pervert Hannibal Lecter would have been sent to death chamber instead of psychiatric facility. Thank atheism this film was commercial and critical flop and Hammer returned to what they did so splendidly - entertainment. Halleluja.

Unusual

[adriangr · 7/10 · 29 March 2013]

I knew that this movie concerns a child molester, so I wasn't sure how that would turn out as the plot of a thriller. My opinion after watching it is that Hammer treated the subject in the right way, but that making the film probably wasn't a good idea.

The story is simple...two 9yr old girls go to an old man's house on the promise of some candy, and are assaulted (well they are not hurt but it amounts to an assault). This event opens the story, and the rest of the movie charts the attempts of the parents of one child to have their story believed. What's interesting is that the main angle - which is that the molester is part of the most influential family in town, and nobody dares to challenge them - could very easily happen today. Sure the film looks dated now, especially the idea of making the molester himself into an almost imbecilic goon when it's very easy for child molesters to pass unnoticed among society, but it's still unnerving enough to have impact.

Because the subject matter is unpleasant, it kind of makes watching the film hard to enjoy. There isn't a lot of plot but the acting is all very good, especially the family and their daughter, who do seem to react very realistically to the situation...although it's very obvious that all the cast are British and can barely pull of what are supposed to be Canadian accents. I'm glad to have seen this odd little film, but I can see why the topic doesn't come up very often - there's probably no easy way to make entertainment out of it.

One of Hammer's single most chilling and upsetting movies

[Woodyanders · 9/10 · 24 June 2010]

Hammer is best known for their horror pictures, but this studio also made a sizable number of thrillers as well. This particular thriller is perhaps one of Hammer's most powerful and unsettling entries in the genre because it's about something that can actually happen -- and sadly does happen all the time even to this very day. The Carter family arrive in a prosperous small Canadian town. When sweet and innocent daughter Jean (a fine and touching performance by Janina Faye) accuses the elderly Clarence Olderberry Sr. of making her and her friend Lucille dance naked in front of him for some candy, her parents decide to take Olderberry to court despite the fact that he's the patriarch of an extremely rich and influential local family. Director Cyril Frankel, working from a gripping and intelligent script by John Hunter, handles the delicate subject of pedophilia in a commendably tasteful, nonexploitative, and straightforward manner; while the subject matter is undeniably unpleasant, it's nonetheless made tolerable by Frankel's wise decision to avoid explicitness in favor of suggestion instead. This film further benefits from uniformly outstanding acting from a top-rate cast, with especially stand-out work from Gwen Watford as the concerned Sally Carter, Peter Allen as the resolute Peter Carter, Bill Nagy as Olderberry's protective and formidable son Richard, Nial McGinnis as the shifty and aggressive defense counsel, Michael Gwynn as the shrewd and compassionate prosecutor, and MacDonald Parke as a wise no-nonsense judge. Felix Aylmer contributes a memorably creepy portrayal as the odious Clarence Olderberry; he manages to project a genuine sense of menace without ever uttering a single word. Moreover, we've also got a strong and provocative central message about the corruption of both justice and innocence and the abuse of power. But what really makes this film so potent and effective is the fact that it's firmly grounded in a thoroughly plausible everyday world populated by equally believable characters (Clarence in particular is an all-too-real human monster). The uncompromising grim ending packs a devastating punch. Both Freddie Francis' crisp black and white cinematography and Elisabeth Lutyens' moody score are up to par. An excellent, albeit quite harrowing and disturbing film.

Like hammering a stake into a Vampires heart, yet more shocking than any Hammer film I've seen.

[charlesrabone-59949 · 7/10 · 23 July 2020]

The title of the film is a bit of a give away. and for some reason I missed the first scene and I picked up the film when the parents get home and nanny is knitting a sweater, music is light and the little poppit creeps down stairs to say hello to her folks. I was expecting lassie to make a cameo appearance at this point to complete the scene. What the little girl comes out with at this point is no less than putting a stake in any parents heart. It was a shocker. Far more than a public information movie.

You will naturally draw parallels if you are of a certain age.

There is horror all around, a cigarette box on the dressing table, a jury full of middle aged men only, as two examples and not one bloodstain or masked assailant is required.

Highly recommend to all, but the goth lovers of horror, won't be your couple tea.

I don't know who's more dangerous, you or your father?

[hitchcockthelegend · 9/10 · 20 April 2012]

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger is directed by Cyril Frankel and written by John Hunter who adapts from the play Pony Cart written by Roger Garis. It stars Patrick Allen, Gwen Watford, Janina Faye, Felix Aylmer, Michael Gwynn, Alison Leggatt and Niall MacGinnis. Music is by Elisabeth Lutyns and John Hollingsworth and Megascope cinematography by Freddie Francis.

British family the Carter's have emigrated to small town Canada and are rocked when it is revealed that 9 year old Jean (Faye), and her friend Lucille (Frances Green), were asked to dance naked for candy at the home of elderly Clarence Olderberry Senior. Filing an official complaint, parents Peter (Allen) & Sally (Watford) are astounded to find the town's denizens are reluctant to believe the Carter's take on things. It becomes apparent that the Olderberry family were instrumental in the building of the town and the family has much power within it. With the town closing ranks on the British outsiders, there's a real chance that a suspected paedophile will go unpunished and maybe strike again?

Thought provoking and intelligent handling of sensitive material, Hammer's Never Take Sweets from a Stranger has finally garnered the credit it deserves. Back on release the taboo subject of the plot ensured the film was mostly shunned, with bad marketing also proving to be a hindrance. However, it is ahead of its time in many ways, Frankel's (School for Scoundrels) picture manages to gnaw away at the senses with its calm and measured approach work. Francis' (The Innocents) black and white photography a clinical ally to the realism wrung out by Frankel.

The alienation of the Carter family is steadily built up, the small town mentality to strangers in their little world unspools calmly by way of credible acting and believable passages of dialogue. By the time the last third arrives, the frustration of the Carter's is shared by the viewers, things get legal and gripping, and then it's the uncoiling of the spring to unleash the denouement. Point made, a message movie of some standing, monsters in our midst indeed. Not merely the predators preying on our children, but also the guilty around them, ignorance most definitely isn't bliss. 8.5/10

'Message movie' from Hammer Films...well done in spite of some melodramatics and a sensationalized climax

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 19 September 2017]

John Hunter adapted Roger Garis' play "The Pony Cart" about the indecent procurement of a child by an adult. Story concerns a British family, recently relocated to a small Canadian village after the father has been hired as the school's new principal, who stir up a town-tempest after their little girl tells of an elderly man (from a prominent family) who asked that she and a school-friend take off their clothes before he would give them candy. The fact the girls approached and entered the old man's house of their own accord, and that he didn't physically touch or hurt them, gives the child's pragmatic grandmother reason to pause; however, the shaken mother wants immediate action, only to learn that the man in question has a history of behavioral issues that no one wants to touch. An unpopular title in the Hammer Films library, but not for the acting or writing (both of which are solid). The taboo subject matter was something neither the British nor US cinemas were prepared to tackle at the time, and the picture was unjustly forgotten. It has an interesting, complex scenario--with both sides weighed in court--that isn't at all dated, with only a bit of sensationalism rearing its head at the finale. Hammer Films never attempted anything of this sort again (because it failed to turn a profit), but the fact it isn't geared towards the mass market makes the film all the more worthwhile. **1/2 from ****

Hammer drama

[EdgarST · 9/10 · 7 July 2011]

This fine drama as well as "Cash on Demand" are, in my opinion, two of the best dramas produced by Hammer Film, though not as well known as Joseph Losey's science-fiction drama"The Damned", or Michael Carreras' thriller "Maniac", which had casts with better known actors as Kerwin Mathews, Viveca Lindfors, Macdonald Carey, Nadia Gray and Alexander Knox. In the line of New York scholar Ruth Goldberg's recent studies of the evolution of horror film, this is definitely a precursor to her approach, according to which characters from films as "No Country for Old Men", "Safe", "Fargo", "Precious", "Monster", and others, are real monsters that convey the feeling of fright found in the traditional horror motion pictures. The old man (Felix Aylmer) who abuses two little girls, who is taken to court, and finally follows them in the woods, is definitely one of the most terrifying monsters to come out of Hammer. If it still works today as an effective and startling drama, in 1960 it must have been shocking to audiences. Very good black & white widescreen cinematography by maestro Freddie Francis ("The Innocents", "The Elephant Man"). Don't miss it.

An interesting artifact

[ebeckstr-1 · 7/10 · 24 July 2020]

This movie does not seem to be discussed much on imdb as an exploitation film, but that is in many ways how it functions, which is part of what makes it interesting. The lurid content is very much in keeping with the famous Hammer horror cycle, but also intersects with Hammer's cinematic forays into drama, melodrama, and crime films, which characterized much of the studio's output before the classic era of its horror cycle.

Within the context of the latter, we have a "monster," who literally shambles like the Frankenstein monster; the climactic moments take on a close approximation of those of many Frankenstein movies; and the last third or so takes on a dark and sinister fairytale quality. All of this makes the movie a really interesting Hammer artifact.

There are flaws. The movie has not aged particularly well in terms of its treatment of the pedophile and the town's response to the situation, which is not surprising given that attitudes about sex offenders and the way children are treated in court have changed a lot since then. Another unfortunate way in which the movie is a "product of its time" is that all two of the non-white characters are cast in roles subservient to the white characters (a chauffeur, a bailiff). The days of simply and completely forgiving movies for this sort of thing, or glossing it over, because they were made "back then, " are probably and ought to be a thing of the past.

Really Surprisingly Good

[Better_TV · 8/10 · 4 April 2018]

This flick was screened in 16mm at the Gene Siskel Film Center in 2016 as part of a "British noir" series; associate director of programming Martin Rubin wrote in the center's monthly gazette that this was an "undiscovered gem" that "combines taut suspense with a sensitive treatment of a delicate subject." I agree with that assessment.

This film also won me over by getting to the juicy bits, fast; the pacing is nice and quick, so that the pervy Mr. Oldberry does his sick deed (off screen, of course), and the Carter family is left to grapple with the consequences. The Canadian-set film is written superbly for a 1960 "issues" film with a schlocky title; it seamlessly morphs from domestic drama to legal procedural to suspenseful thriller in the final act.

A movie like this could have easily gone the way of unintended farce, but its well-rounded characters and willingness to look at all sides of the issue mostly keep it floating above the realm of silliness.

The audience at the showing I was in gave a couple chuckles in the beginning, when the film opened with a title card warning us that this story could potentially take place in any town, at any time; those sniggers subsided when the film proved its nuance during the rest of its 80-minute runtime. A great, underseen gem.

A Hammer Horror production

[atlasmb · 6/10 · 17 June 2014]

"Never Take Candy from a Stranger"--as the film was titled when I watched it--is a product of Hammer Productions or, as it is sometimes known, Hammer Horror. As I watched the film, I regarded it as a drama, and that is how it is described on IMDb, but as the film progressed I realized it is a horror film, pure and simple.

Like the film "Jaws"--which is listed under the horror genre--the monster is a largely unknown quantity. This allows the audience its fear of the unknown. We see the old man early on, but only briefly. The director does not allow the monster to talk. This is a plot hole, as the Jean, the daughter who visited his home, describes conversation they had. But it's a clever way to make the man less human.

Other reviewers have described the old man (Clarence Olderberry, Sr.) as a "pedophile". I can see why they would use that term, but in the film he is somewhat like Frankenstein's monster--uttering inarticulate gibberish, with a stumbling gait. Frankenstein's monster was merely misunderstood, of course, and the old man may be no more than that. He certainly has a mental illness in the broadest sense of that word. The director does a good job of implying the worst and let the viewer succumb to his own fears.

Another plot hole concerns the way Jean becomes so afraid of Clarence Olderberry, Sr. despite the fact that when she first tells her parents of meeting with him, she is quite matter of fact about it and displays no fear of the man. It's possible that Jean's opinion might have been altered by the behavior of her parents or her courtroom experience. The director needs her to be afraid so that the ending of the film has an impact.

But the film is not really about the fears of the young girls. The fears of the parents are what the director taps into to create tension and fear in the audience. And he does a good job of it. The use of B&W stock gives the film a Gothic tone. He often shoots from the point of view of the girls when they are being chased. Seen strictly as a drama, this film is adequate, but as a horror film it is quite effective and the plot miscues can be seen as contrivances necessary to create tone. I suggest that it might have been even more effective if the elder Olderberry had not been shown at all in the early part of the film. Like the shark in "Jaws", the alien in "Alien", or even Boo Radley in "To Kill a Mockingbird", more tension can be elicited if the monster is left strictly to the imagination of the viewer.

A film that is more successful in tapping parental fears is "The Bad Seed", where the horror is tempered with the parents' own fears that they contributed to the creation of the monster.

Critically panned dull, predictable film on controversial subject

[lambchopnixon · 2/10 · 7 December 2010]

This film received the critical battering that another controversial film of 1960 also suffered. The differences between the two are manifold, the main one being that whereas PT was a work of genius, working on many levels, which were universally misunderstood, Never Take Sweets From a Stranger is utterly dull, mundane, predictable, and pointless, other than saying 'there's such a thing as pedophiles'.

The old man, who's a bit loony and has been put in an asylum for a stretch is back. He's a bit loony but not at all interestingly so. There's no character. The film is made by people with nowhere near the subtlety or intelligence of the makers of Peeping Tom. In Never Take Sweets, the old man has no background, is not at all fleshed out, and in no way shown to have been made as he is as we are all made as we are. The masterful Peeping Tom has its protagonist as a tender victim on a path he couldn't deviate from and shows why, brilliantly. Never Take Sweets has a cut-out for a character, to initiate boring, predictable plot 'twists' carried out by unsympathetic actors. This is only good for people who see Hammer doing non-horror but 'message', as interesting. The film deserves the critical put-down for being so dull.

Questionable film

[GeoSlv · 7/10 · 5 June 2014]

My sympathies are with the review by minamurray in 2009. I'm a sceptic and I agree with the public rejection of this film in 1959. Basically because it creates a false fictional monster based on imagination rather than reality. I want to consider the mind of the writer of the story. Consider how views can be twisted. We get lesbian feminists squawking about men who are interested in women, and all the sheep nod and say yes yes how evil. We get homosexuals disdaining heterosexual interests and influencing public policies. In America the slightest sensual tendency is squelched and censored. When Teresa Brewer spun her dress and showed her award-winning legs, Ed Sullivan switched to another camera angle to avoid it.

So I need to know the orientation of the writer first. Is this a disdain of hetero instincts? Is this a real picture of reality? That's why the film bugs me.

Yes it does have an effective horror atmosphere toward the end. But there are other Hammer dramas that bug me in similar ways. I think it was Yesterday's Enemy where a Jewish writer preaches that in wartime you're not supposed to kill the enemies. So it's a good thing Hammer quit making message films after this. I'm not sure it is really healthy for the public.