The Hand
The Hand
NR | 21 March 1961 (USA)
The Hand Trailers

During World War II, a group of British soldiers are captured by the Japanese, tortured and their hands are cut off. Years later, a mad killer terrorizes London by cutting off the hands of his victims.

Reviews
Protraph

Lack of good storyline.

... View More
Beystiman

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

... View More
Humbersi

The first must-see film of the year.

... View More
Rio Hayward

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

... View More
MartinHafer

"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.

... View More
malcolmgsw

I am extremely indebted to the other reviewers of this Butchers B Movie since i realised after viewing it that i had rather lost the plot.I just could not fathom out what was happening.Mind you when a film starts with the subtitle "Burma 1946" and starts with scenes set in the Second world war you are bound to be a bit mystified.As has been stated by other reviewers the best part of the film is the opening 7 minutes set in Burma.The rest of the film rather lets it all down.The climax in particular is extremely badly handled.The ending is predictable and ironic but there is a total lack of suspense.You would think that with just an hour to tell a story that it could be kept fairly straightforward,but alas the producers of this film failed to achieve that.

... View More
MARIO GAUCI

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!

... View More
ronevickers

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.

... View More