Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

John Hunter adapted Roger Garis' play "The Pony Cart" about the indecent procurement of a child by an adult. Story concerns a British family, recently relocated to a small Canadian village after the father has been hired as the school's new principal, who stir up a town-tempest after their little girl tells of an elderly man (from a prominent family) who asked that she and a school-friend take off their clothes before he would give them candy. The fact the girls approached and entered the old man's house of their own accord, and that he didn't physically touch or hurt them, gives the child's pragmatic grandmother reason to pause; however, the shaken mother wants immediate action, only to learn that the man in question has a history of behavioral issues that no one wants to touch. An unpopular title in the Hammer Films library, but not for the acting or writing (both of which are solid). The taboo subject matter was something neither the British nor US cinemas were prepared to tackle at the time, and the picture was unjustly forgotten. It has an interesting, complex scenario--with both sides weighed in court--that isn't at all dated, with only a bit of sensationalism rearing its head at the finale. Hammer Films never attempted anything of this sort again (because it failed to turn a profit), but the fact it isn't geared towards the mass market makes the film all the more worthwhile. **1/2 from ****

Usually associated with their horror output, Hammer tried their hand at other styles and genres a lot more than people realise. Never Take Sweets From A Stranger for example is a tense and well-handled drama about a dangerous child molester; rather than being the standard sensationalised exploitation thriller one might be expecting, it is actually a sensitively done drama which tries to tackle its themes with due responsibility and earnestness. Initially undervalued by the critics of the day, the film has since had its worthiness and precautionary relevance proved by time: people hiding behind status and public perception to hide their sexual misdemeanours is something which has reared its ugly head in modern times with celebrity cases such as Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall. Perhaps the snooty critics back then should have spent a little less time rubbishing the film, and a bit more time praising it for trying to address a very real danger.Peter Carter (Patrick Allen) is the new principal at a school in Canada, bringing his wife Sally (Gwen Watford) and daughter Jean (Janina Faye) over from England with him. Initially thrilled at their new lives in this faraway land, the dream rapidly turns ugly when Jean reveals she has been persuaded to strip naked in return for candy by a local elderly man, Clarence Olderberry Sr (Felix Aylmer). Distressed and enraged by what Jean is telling them, the Carters challenge old man Clarence about his actions. Unfortunately for them, Clarence Sr. is a tremendously rich and successful figure, a trusted stalwart of the town's community, the originator of its thriving economic heritage, and no-one seems willing to accept he might be a paedophile. Or at least no-one seems willing to give evidence against him even if they do harbour any suspicions. The Carters' case is tossed out of court; Clarence Sr. is cleared of all offences. But the failures of the justice system are to prove tragic and costly when old man Clarence, freed and cleared, strikes once more… Starkly shot in black and white, and set in Canada presumably to highlight that the threat of paedophiles is a universal danger (not just something limited to Britain), the film sets up its basic premise tastefully but uncompromisingly. The moment where young Jean reveals what old Clarence has been making her do is every bit as raw and effective as the subject demands, making the viewer uneasy and uncomfortable (just as it should) and setting the tone for the unpleasantries to follow. The brutal court case in which Jean is taken apart and Clarence Sr. made to look innocent is electrifyingly handled. It's not an entertaining film – the subject matter prevents that – but its moral and social intentions are certainly in the right place. The biggest drawback is the portrayal of the paedophile: played creepily enough by Aylmer, the problem is that he is far too broadly written; a slobbering, trembling, staggering monster of a man who is too obviously perverted and dangerous to be a truly believable character. Real paedophiles are much harder to identify, more cunning and evasive and seemingly 'normal'. That aside, however, this is a very impressive message movie from the Hammer people.

This fine drama as well as "Cash on Demand" are, in my opinion, two of the best dramas produced by Hammer Film, though not as well known as Joseph Losey's science-fiction drama"The Damned", or Michael Carreras' thriller "Maniac", which had casts with better known actors as Kerwin Mathews, Viveca Lindfors, Macdonald Carey, Nadia Gray and Alexander Knox. In the line of New York scholar Ruth Goldberg's recent studies of the evolution of horror film, this is definitely a precursor to her approach, according to which characters from films as "No Country for Old Men", "Safe", "Fargo", "Precious", "Monster", and others, are real monsters that convey the feeling of fright found in the traditional horror motion pictures. The old man (Felix Aylmer) who abuses two little girls, who is taken to court, and finally follows them in the woods, is definitely one of the most terrifying monsters to come out of Hammer. If it still works today as an effective and startling drama, in 1960 it must have been shocking to audiences. Very good black & white widescreen cinematography by maestro Freddie Francis ("The Innocents", "The Elephant Man"). Don't miss it.

Just as there is no difference between bad and good fudge, as some people might say, there is also no difference between good power and bad power. You see, power is the problem, period.This may be difficult for some people to understand, especially to those who pray to a good power as if there was such a thing. What makes such confusion possible is probably, more than anything else, the deterioration that the word "power" has undergone since the days of the old Greeks, as seen in Platon's dialogues, in which power was clearly and only what we now call "might" or "abuse of power" and not such things as "knowledge", "strength" and "ability", which may all be used for good as well as for evil purposes. For the old Greeks as well as for all of us when we are affected (and not carelessly affect!), power meant the possibility, lent by society, to rule over other person's lives, more or less gratuitously (depending on what kind of society). In short one might also say that "he or she, who cannot abuse power without punishment, simply have no power to begin with".In this film, a man of power is a pedophile and can allow himself much more than if he was a black man in the South, for instance. This is shown very clearly in this film, which makes this film rare, since it is an attack on power.In the fifties, in which this story takes place, there were many opportunities to work and less opportunities to control the working-force, which is probably why people still dared to speak up against power. This kind of film has become very rare these days. The film industry seems to have sold out to brainless entertainment or artsy-fartsy "literature" - it's safer that way, so most artists and journalists seem to argue.