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.

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

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

"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....