Corruzione a Jamestown

If you think all Hammer films are vampires and werewolves and Frankenstein - think again. Hammer made all kinds of films. No doubt the Cushing/Lee films are classics, but some of these lesser known thrillers are masterpiece low budget films. I truly wish the Hollywood of today would take some notes from these thrillers and realize that with a great script and competent actors you can have an excellent film without spending a fortune. This film is especially terrifying if you are the parent of a child under 15. A new family moves into town, the father taking up post as the new schoolmaster. Their young daughter makes friends with a local girl and all seems well. But this town hides a decades old secret. As with many small towns there is one family that is the town patriarch. The founders. The family that has their hands in every pie in town. And this patriarchal family wields their power like a hammer. They also have a family member with problems that they expect the town to turn a deaf ear to. Felix Aylmer, a wonderful British character actor gives a sit on the edge of your seat performance as the creepy Clarence Elderberry, Sr., without uttering one single word in the entire film. Without being explicit, gory, or using foul language, Hammer presents a gut wrenchingly terrifying film that also serves as a timely public service announcement! Another great one to watch on a cold, dark, stormy afternoon. This movie will stick with you and make you ever aware of your children's whereabouts.

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.

Cyril Frankel directed this still bold drama set in England. Two Pre-teen girls named Jean & Lucille are playing in the woods when they learn that they can get free candy from the old man in the mansion. His name is Clarence Oldenberry Sr.(played by Felix Alymer) and unfortunately he is also a pedophile, and their parents learn later had the girls dance nude for him in exchange for candy. Outraged, Jean's parents Peter & Sally Carter inform the authorities, but are told that because the family are huge town supporters, that filing charges would be unwise. Undeterred, the Carters file charges, with unforeseen consequences for all... Provocative film remains quite daring, but is made with intelligence and restraint, and sadly also remains quite timely as well. An unusual but worthwhile film from Hammer studios.

Never Take Sweets from a Stranger is yet another small scale and less popular Hammer film, but still one that gives the studio's more well respected efforts a run for their money. This film is macabre in a way unlike most other Hammer movies. The frightening things about this film don't come from overly maniacal characters or fantasy monsters - but from a threat that has become more widespread in the past few decades. The main theme here is paedophilia, and it feels odd watching this film as the attitudes expressed towards the hideous act are nothing like they are today. Because paedophilia is more often heard about now, the film isn't quite so frightening - but somehow it feels like it wasn't as frightening back in 1960 as it must have seemed like quite an outlandish idea. The plot follows a couple of young girls. One of them loses her 'candy money' and the other says she knows where they can get some free candy. They go to Mr Olderberry's house, but when the young girl comes home saying that the old man made them take their clothes off and dance for candy - her parents, new in town, decide to take the powerful Olderberry family to court.

Aside from showing a real life monster, the film would also appear to want to serve as a warning against immoral lawyers manipulating the truth to get the wealthy off the hook. Director Cyril Frankel seems to want to take a moral stance on these issues, and that's no bad thing. There is a macabre atmosphere in the film, but the bulk of it happens in a courtroom. Hammer may be famous for horror, and this film does feature some towards the end - but on the whole it's more of a courtroom drama than anything else. This isn't a bad thing, however, as the courtroom action is always interesting and this is backed up by an undercurrent of terror as we get to watch a guilty man walk free. The acting is pretty decent, with Janina Faye standing out the most. It's hard to judge the production values as my copy wasn't exactly great, but I doubt that the film was short on budget; and there's nothing in the film that would have been particularly expensive anyway. Overall, Never Take Sweets from a Stranger is a damn good lesser known Hammer flick that boils down to a terrifying and memorable conclusion, and it therefore comes recommended to anyone who enjoys a good thriller!

I saw this on video as "Never Take Candy from a Stranger," under which title it was apparently released in the U.S. It was the one serious film produced by Hammer Films, famous for its Gothic horrors, and I found this much more suspenseful, as well as much better made, than the lot of them. It begins with small tensions of frustration and mild dislike among members of the academic community in a small town and gradually, subtly builds to an atmosphere of dread that catches in the throat. Every character, down to the bit parts, has something of interest to say, and what they say and do, and how their actions combine, lead step by step to the harrowing conclusion. The only fault is the over-simplicity of its social viewpoint, as expressed by the main character and justified by the events of the story, which are by no means unbelievable but not inevitable either. Apart from that, I thought it was a first-class B-picture, a small film in the good sense, compact and economical, with all its resources, human and otherwise, firmly in hand. Also, it has the grey photography that once used to give films of this type the aura they needed: the grey of rain and fog and dusk and uneasy feelings.