ShangLuda Admirable film.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

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.

bkoganbing 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 nude.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.

Theo Robertson 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

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 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....