"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....

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.

Hammer is best known for their horror pictures, but this studio also made a sizable number of thrillers as well. This particular thriller is perhaps one of Hammer's most powerful and unsettling entries in the genre because it's about something that can actually happen -- and sadly does happen all the time even to this very day. The Carter family arrive in a prosperous small Canadian town. When sweet and innocent daughter Jean (a fine and touching performance by Janina Faye) accuses the elderly Clarence Olderberry Sr. of making her and her friend Lucille dance naked in front of him for some candy, her parents decide to take Olderberry to court despite the fact that he's the patriarch of an extremely rich and influential local family. Director Cyril Frankel, working from a gripping and intelligent script by John Hunter, handles the delicate subject of pedophilia in a commendably tasteful, nonexploitative, and straightforward manner; while the subject matter is undeniably unpleasant, it's nonetheless made tolerable by Frankel's wise decision to avoid explicitness in favor of suggestion instead. This film further benefits from uniformly outstanding acting from a top-rate cast, with especially stand-out work from Gwen Watford as the concerned Sally Carter, Peter Allen as the resolute Peter Carter, Bill Nagy as Olderberry's protective and formidable son Richard, Nial McGinnis as the shifty and aggressive defense counsel, Michael Gwynn as the shrewd and compassionate prosecutor, and MacDonald Parke as a wise no-nonsense judge. Felix Aylmer contributes a memorably creepy portrayal as the odious Clarence Olderberry; he manages to project a genuine sense of menace without ever uttering a single word. Moreover, we've also got a strong and provocative central message about the corruption of both justice and innocence and the abuse of power. But what really makes this film so potent and effective is the fact that it's firmly grounded in a thoroughly plausible everyday world populated by equally believable characters (Clarence in particular is an all-too-real human monster). The uncompromising grim ending packs a devastating punch. Both Freddie Francis' crisp black and white cinematography and Elisabeth Lutyens' moody score are up to par. An excellent, albeit quite harrowing and disturbing film.