"The Hand" begins with a prologue in which three British soldiers were captured by the Japanese during WWII. They are being interogated and when the first two refuse to talk, the Japanese officer cuts off their hands.The story then jumps to 1960. An old drunk is found in bad shape--his hand having just been amputated. The police are shocked when in the midst of the investigation, the man is killed! And, soon other folks bgin dying as they follow the trail.This sounds like a very exciting film with all the amputations, but somehow the film misses the mark. Much of it is the rather pedestrian direction as well as the cheap feel to the movie. All I know is that is should have been much more exciting...and the ending less trite and downright stupid.

I was expecting this to be a horror film of the disembodied hand variety (as would be the case with its 1981 namesake, which, incidentally, I watched fairly recently); instead, it's an eccentric, cheap but surprisingly tolerable Edgar Wallace-type policier which, for its modest length (running barely over an hour), turns out to have an unnecessarily complex plot – wherein myriad characters (many of them having lost the titular body part) are involved with organ-trafficking, impersonation, suicide, murder and the like! The plot has a WWII Burma-set prologue in which three British soldiers are captured by the Japanese; the latter seek to learn the position and number of the opposing Allied forces and, to this end, two of the prisoners suffer the loss of a hand. Then, we cut to the present day, where it transpires that the third had turned cowardly – so his companions' sacrifice was in vain – and, rather than having the maimed duo seeking the traitor out for revenge, it is he who's still persecuting them! The finale, however, sees the villain getting his just desserts in a most ironic (yet totally predictable) fashion.Investigating the weird goings-on are a couple of Scotland Yard detectives; bafflingly, one of the most frustrating aspects to this intriguing but ultimately unsatisfying film is the peculiar fact that a lot of the male actors here boast strikingly similar physiognomies and, so as not to get hopelessly confused, one has to keep reminding himself of just who the various characters are and what they represent!

When I first saw this movie in the 1960's, it seemed an interesting little piece, which stood up quite well as a double-bill feature (with Village of the Damned, maybe?). However, now it just comes across as a rag-tag effort with not much substance, and virtually no style whatsoever. The opening scenes are quite effective, and are by far the best in the film. What follows is largely disappointing, and the storyline has more holes in it than a colander - it just barely makes any sense. This isn't helped by the poor direction & editing, as well as the stilted acting, especially by the lead detective played by Ronald Leigh-Hunt, who seems to hesitate, in thought, every time a line is to be delivered. The transfer to DVD is also poor and, all in all, the end product is a big let down.

Great start!And yeah - lots of talk, and no action - which was the curse of British B movies of the time. But you've got to pay attention to the dialogue this time, or you won't work out what the motivation is. In other words, Ray Cooney's dialogue is a bit cleverer than the norm at the time.Nasty shots (for 1961) - one severed hand (natch!)Who's the murderer, then? Bloody Hell - Derek Bond has the lead role on the posters, and doesn't appear after the MEANINGFUL prologue until well into the movie.Ray Cooney wrote the screenplay, and went on to script several extremely successful comedy/farce plays. This seems to have been his only foray into nasty stuff.He also appears in the movie. Several rewinds suggest that he's the main Cop's second hand( heh, heh!) man.(The credits aren't helpful)I had to hunt this movie down after many years. Hard to find. Is it good? Well - all I can say is that, had I the chance to view it at the time, I may not have been disappointed. Very English, shoestring budget. Today?It's an hour long, you've got to pay attention to throw-away dialogue - but it's much better than those Butcher Film movies that send you to sleep after 5 minutes and -Amazing for 1960: Bad language! In the prologue, a character calls his WW2 captors "Dirty Bastards!" Believe me, STRONG stuff for the time.BUT - this is NOT a lost classic. Tape it on late night TV if it ever shows, but don't pay what I did to give you this review.GEISTERZUG