I have just seen this film for the first time, and I must say, it's staggeringly good.
It was light years ahead of its time, and seems ever so relevant today, like it could be from today's headlines. It's not dated at all, and has lost none of its punch.
I was definitely pleasently surprised. It may not be a pleasent film to watch, but it is very well done.
I've seen Hammer push the limits many times over the years, but this may be their most mature and controversial film.
I'm not usually one to suggest older films for remakes, but a remake of this film would be a controversial powerhouse today! I think a newer version would be even more gripping in today's era.
I felt like this movie got me in it's teeth, shook me hard and didn't let me go until I flew off at the end. The movie is a perfect time capsule that couldn't be duplicated today. The world has changed too much.
I can't even imagine a 6 year old being as naive and trusting as the 9-10 year olds Jean & Lucy were in the movie. I also can't see a whole community stay silent for years for the benefit of someone like Mr. Olderberry Sr. Town rich guy or not.
So many points during the movies, I had to scream "Are you kidding me?!" at the screen.
Very emotional movie.
No two persons ever watch the same movie.share
Agreed, but it would have to be made in the right way. No need to show the actual crime....it is far more suspenseful to have to wonder how creepy Olderberry Sr. was. And boy was he creepy ! Great acting
shareJust watched this with my 21 year old daughter. As Olderberry was walking through the woods I observed he was scarier than the Frankenstein monster to which my daughter quickly agreed. No remake necessary, just watch the original.
shareI agree. This film was very potent and upsetting. Clarence Olderberry is a genuinely scary and all-too-real human monster.
"We're all part Shatner/And part James Dean/Part Warren Oates/And Steven McQueen"
I couldn't agree more, and no, absolutely NO remake is necessary.
My wife and I watched this last night for the first time (for both of us) and 15 minutes in I had to pause the DVD to emphatically remark, "This is *beep* up," which I meant as a compliment. (I know: it's not the most eloquent way to express the sentiment, but somehow seemed appropriate for the material.). By the time it go to the climactic chase, my wife couldn't refrain from confirming, "This is seriously *beep* up."
So, yeah, we both really, really liked it.
Packs a nice punch, and Felix Ayler is effectively creepy, without a line of dialog!
"Remind me to tell you about the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke."
Wow, this was releaed in 1960, three years before 'The Naked Kiss.' This is the first time I've seen someone beat Sam Fuller to the punch when it comes to making films about a controversial subject.
Come to think of it 'Lolita' (book and movie) were also made before 'The Naked Kiss.' I guess Samuel Fuller was pretty late in covering that subject
How did they ever make a movie out of 'Lolita' anyway?
Personally, I thought this to be quite dull, the character of the old man as a paedophile did not work well at all, his actions were entirely inconsistent with what is known as paedophile behavior, and the daughter of the teacher wholly unsympathetic. Plot holes galore, Hammer laid an egg with this tripe.
Cheers
Osmooms
What exactly is "paedophile behavior"?
shareGood question, what constitutes it?
I guess the actions of the old man strictly did exhibit "paedophile behavior", but something didn't ring entirely true with me, esp. the ending where he immediately attempts to kill the girls after the court case. I suppose that's the inconsistency I'm talking about, and I guess it pays to remember when this movie was actually made, and the social mores and tolerance to such behaviour at the time.
Thankfully society nowadays is much less tolerant of paedophile behavior, certainly judicial sentences for such crimes are much harsher, and if (GOD forbid) a remake was made in this day and age a whole different outcome would be scripted.
Once again, whilst I'm not suggesting any real sympathy for the villian's character, to me he came across more as a sad and lonely old man rather than a genuine predatory paedophile.
YMMV
Cheers
Osmooms
"...he came across more as a sad and lonely old man rather than a genuine predatory paedophile."
I think he was supposed to be both; a sad old man with a dark-side he kept successfully hidden from most.
I dislike the use of the Greek word ‘paedophile’ that has been rammed down our throats by the media during the past few decades. I suppose they use it because it sounds more horrorfic than its English translation ‘childlover’, which sounds a bit too acceptable. But that’s by the by. In reality, there are just as many different types of childlovers as there are people who are attracted to adults.
To demonstrate, I offer my own experience as a six years old boy sixty years ago in 1953. In those days, unlike the paranoia led times of today, children and adults mixed freely together and to us children at that time, a man who spoke nice to you was your friend. So it really was quite easy for a man who was that way inclined to befriend a boy out playing on his own in some isolated spot and lead him off, which is what happened to me. There were no sweets offered (they were still on ration after the war, anyway), the man was only about half the age of the senile old feller in this film and, at his suggestion, I went off with him quite happily and willingly to explore the area. There was no fear and no frantic chase through any woods. He made a big fuss of me; lifting up and swirling me around by my arms; tickling me all over to see how ticklish I was and making me laugh and giving me a piggy back ride and so on…all calculated to put me completely at ease with him as we slowly made our way back to his house where he lived alone, there to have his way with me.
That was his way of getting what he wanted. Other men would have had their own methods. But it was a far cry from how such things were depicted in this film. Today, of course, with all the Stranger Danger paranoia, such a man as I met back then would probably find it impossible to befriend a youngster and lead them off as he did with me. It would have gone on a lot more when I was a child, because it was so easy for such a man to do, but would, for the most part, have gone unreported. I doubt that it happens much today, if at all.
Wow, sorry to hear that:(
shareThanks, dalldorfw, but it really is a lifetime ago now. Those from the UK of a certain age reading this will probably remember the days when they were young boys waiting outside a cinema to ask a man going in to take them in with him when an 'A' certificate film was showing (children not allowed in unless accompanied by an adult). Sometimes, but rarely, the man taking you in would grope you in the darkness. The interior of cinemas was much darker in those days than in the modern multiplexes of today and the rows of seats were much closer together, so nobody else was able to see what he was doing, especially if there was a night time scene on the screen, which made the cinema interior even darker. Only you and he would be aware of what was going on. It happened to me on a couple of occasions in the late 1950s. It couldn't happen to, say, six year olds, as I was in the account in my above post, because such boys were taken in by their parents, but to older boys of 11 or 12 years, who had started to go to the cinema on their own. It definitely wouldn't have happened during any screening of "Never Take Sweets From a Stranger", because it was an "X" certificate film and no one under the age of 16 years was allowed into a cinema to see it.
shareInteresting post David - an experience similar to what you describe happened to me when I was 11 in the Odeon cinema Barnsley. I remember it vividly all these years later and the film that was on was the Man from Uncle film 'The Spy In The Green Hat'. I have never told anyone in my whole life before.
shareYes, hesketh27, I suppose it happened to a lot of boys in those days and no doubt they all kept it a secret at the time for the same reason I kept it a secret...that is, if my father had gotten to know about it, he would have gone up in the air about it and forbidden me to to the cinema again. I didn't want that, so I kept quiet about it. But I don't mind mentioning it now, as it is, after all, between 53 and 55 years ago and is now ancient history.
shareAnd did you tell your folks when that other guy raped you?
shareIf you mean the man in 1953, he didn't rape me (if by the word rape you mean anal penetration). He didn't want to harm me, just love me. But no, I kept quiet about it for 47 years, until I told my doctor about it in the year 2000.
shareYou sound like a filthy pedo apologist. Are you a pedo yourself?
shareNever happened to me. I must have been an ugly kid. :-(
share[deleted]
Watched it last night (I have the DVD set that it is part of). Wow - all I can say is that it is a very powerful film even 53 years after it was made. It must have been really controversial at the time and is still relevant today of course. The last 15 minutes or so are absolutely gripping and ultimately disturbing / shocking. Well worth a watch of this forgotten classic if you can get hold of a copy.
share[deleted]