source: Never Take Candy from A Stranger

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.

"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....

It was the title of this film that attracted me to it . " Never take sweets from and a stranger and never talk to strangers and never go away with strangers " was a warning given to children of my generation because strangers were always " bad men " which was a polite euphemism for child molesters . Anyone watching the news in Britain today can't help noticing the number of big name celebrities being arrested for historic child abuse . One wonders what the attitude amongst the public was towards child sex abuse ? It's actually something that's not portrayed in drama very often and perhaps the first time I saw it explicitly referred to in film or television was the opening episode of BLAKES 7 . This forgotten drama by Hammer Films must be close to unique in its subject matter but after seeing NEVER TAKE SWEETS FROM A STRANGER it's easy to understand its obscurity since it's a badly made film on a very important subject There's two themes too the film - paedophiles in the midst and hostility to the outsider . As I said in a previous review Hammer has a running theme in their films of somebody arriving in a town and the new arrival being given the cold shoulder by the locals . This film continues the heme and it's no coincidence the family of protagonists are English moving over to Canada where 9 year old Sally Carter and her Canadian friend are asked to strip naked by Clarence Olderberry Snr and when Sally's parents make a complaint to the police the locals close ranks There's zero subtly and zero ambiguity to the film . From the outset the fact that Olderberry is signposted with luminous flags . He watches the two girls through his binoculars and and it's almost like watching a paedophile version of Benny Hill as he shakes and gets flustered . Honestly I expected steam to come out of his ears . After Sally tells her mother that Olderberry asked her and her friend to dance around naked she goes to the police and the policeman in charge starts criticising the mother " for letting your daughter go to the home of someone like that " then the policeman realising what he's said and assuring her he meant strangers not wanting to be bothered by children . It's pretty clear that the police have their suspicions but won't do anything because ... well the Olderberry's built the town . I know things are different nowadays where the shoe is on the other foot and anyone accused of being a paedophile is in danger of a witch hunt - i'm sure we've heard that story a bunch of vigilantes lynched a filing cabinet because they confused it with a paedophile - but do we honestly believe the mounties would ignore an open secret about a child molester simply because he's rich and well connected ? The film also suffers from some outstandingly bad dialogue which feels fundamentally wrong . After hearing from Sally what has happened where she was told to strip naked for which Olderberry gave her sweeties Mrs Carter relates Sally's story and finishes with " The candies weren't very nice " !!!! Let me get this straight :If the candy was nicer would that make it all right ? On a similar theme during the court case Sally says she didn't like Olderberry because he was old and scary and the defence attorney asks " Would you have liked him if he was young and handsome ? " The dialogue feels wrong as does the entire film as to the points it's making . The English newcomers are good because not only are they victims they're English and the locals are bad because they're bad and not English I don't think I've seen a film that has come up with a couple of better themes that instantly blows it on almost every level . That said because of its subject matter it possibly does deserve a wider audience and become slightly better known . That said I doubt if it'll be popular in Canada and quite right too . If the local characters in this movie were called Goldberg , Silversmith and Rubinstein you'd think you were watching a remake of THE ETERNAL JEW

This tale of child molesting was pretty bold for its time. But it's another time and the drama now seems contrived. As the new school principal in a Canadian town, Peter Allen is shocked when his 9-year-old daughter tells him that a dirty old man offered her candy to dance naked. He wants to press charges. But the old boy is the paterfamilias of the family that has run the community for generations -- and nobody wants to make waves. After a powerful courtroom sequence, the film descends into an all-too-predictable climax. But at least you have Felix Aylmer looking every bit the elderly nutcase you hope your children never have the ill fortune to encounter. A nice try from Hammer Films. But they more comfortable when Vlad the Impaler was sinking his fangs into Victorian necks.

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

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.

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.

This Hammer film is set in Canada and it's always interesting to hear British players sound like they're from across the pond. Gwen Watford and Patrick Carter have come across so Carter can take a job as the new high school principal. One fine day the parents are startled to hear their daughter tell that she and a friend met a kindly old stranger who had them take off their clothes and dance in the *. When they go to the authorities they've got quite a surprise from them in that they know who it is and are reluctant to take action. It's as if Ben Cartwright in his dotage was given to this behavior. Felix Aylmer who plays such classic good guys as Isaac Of York in Ivanhoe and Merlin in Knights Of The Round Table is our old pervert. Aylmer who possessed one of the most majestic speaking voices in British cinema is silent here. Eventually they get their day in Canadian court, but Aylmer and his family have juice. That only sets things up for the shocking climax. This Hammer film doesn't have the blood and gore associated with the name. It also doesn't really move until the climax. It was rather unnerving to see Felix Aylmer in such a role. It's a sub par film and a sub par Felix Aylmer.

An excellent movie which,in my opinion,did not get the recognition it deserved.I saw this film on the cinema,more years ago than I care to remember.At that time it was rated with what was known as an "X" certificate,which meant that anyone under the age of sixteen was not legally allowed to go into the cinema to watch this film.I also felt that this rating was ill-judged,since it is a film that children ought to be allowed to see,since it sounds out a powerful warning. A film which ought to be revived,particularly in the light of Soham.The title of the film is very misleading,since the offender in this film was,as in the Soham case,not a stranger to the children concerned. I do know how to obtain a copy of this film on video.It is a must for parents with young children,they should allow their children to watch it and heed the warning!