User reviews

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It is well over 30 years since I saw this film, and from time to time have tried to track it down within this IMDB system, but, until now, due to its title (I've always identified it as "The Pony Cart", the title of the original play),was frustrated in my search.

I'm a bit hazy about some of the details, but I do remember it being a gritty cautionary tale of two missing children...it is grimly realistic, without being exploitive, and years ahead of its time, in warning of, when it comes to children's safety, who can one trust?

Its story is set in Canada, thus leading me to the impression that it was a Canadian production - it is, in fact, English, and all concerned did a splendid job with a harrowing tale.

I can't recall ever seeing it advertised as appearing on t.v., or anywhere else, so it maybe it's gone where many other good films go - celluloid heaven, leaving us with lots of garbage which drifts around forever.

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 ****