★ 8 / 10
I don't know who's more dangerous, you or
John Chard
I don't know who's more dangerous, you or your father? Never Take Sweets from a Stranger is directed by Cyril Frankel and written by John Hunter who adapts…
I don't know who's more dangerous, you or your father?
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
Read full review
★ 9 / 10
Quite amazing and modern for 1960.
MartinHafer
"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…
"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....
Read full review
75%
AUDIENCE
· 100 ratings
7.4/10
2.4K
•••
One of Hammer's all-time best. Extremely underrated.