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.

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.

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

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.