Interesteg What makes it different from others?

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

christopher-underwood 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.

atlasmb "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.

GeoSlv 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.

AaronCapenBanner 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.