18 reviews
THE HAND (Henry Cass, 1960) **
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!
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!
- Bunuel1976
- Feb 22, 2008
- Permalink
Half a Hand of Applause
I find the poster art for The Hand great and it made me want to check it out. British 1960 also intrigued me as well. It is a very British affair, the jazzy score is wonderful, and it did keep me engaged for the most part despite a story that I found overcrowded with character names and all a bit confusing. It's not really a horror film as much as a suspense/who done it affair with a couple slightly grisly moments. As for the cast, it's a large cast many of whom look somewhat alike due to the rather poor film quality. Despite its shortcomings I still found The Hand to be a small little film to be one worth checking out.
Seen on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater in 1965
- kevinolzak
- Apr 3, 2019
- Permalink
Grisly semi-horror story that marked a change of pace for Butcher's.
- jamesraeburn2003
- Oct 1, 2017
- Permalink
Mister Roberts
Director Henry Cass's final exploitation film before he embraced Moral Rearmament.
Both very cheap and very nasty with an incredibly complicated plot devised by a young Ray Cooney and Tony Hilton, who also kept costs down by both playing coppers investgating a gruesome discovery made in a then contemporary East End of payphones with button Bs (when the NHS was already staffed by foreign nurses).
In only sixty minutes it also manages to throw in Japanese wartime atrocities and incredibly only carried an 'A' certificate from the British censor. But AIP were sufficiently satisfied with it to release it stateside.
Both very cheap and very nasty with an incredibly complicated plot devised by a young Ray Cooney and Tony Hilton, who also kept costs down by both playing coppers investgating a gruesome discovery made in a then contemporary East End of payphones with button Bs (when the NHS was already staffed by foreign nurses).
In only sixty minutes it also manages to throw in Japanese wartime atrocities and incredibly only carried an 'A' certificate from the British censor. But AIP were sufficiently satisfied with it to release it stateside.
- richardchatten
- Aug 3, 2020
- Permalink
All a bit half-baked
This is a strange addition to the British 60's Horror collection- though in truth it also fits somewhere between mild thriller and fairly obvious whodunnit. First qu: why do the film's producers go to the trouble of setting the opening scenes as "Burma - 1946", when Japan had surrendered in August 1945, ending WW2? An inauspicious start.
The acting is a little stilted, although interesting to see Ray Cooney (the future king of farce) standing in as Ronald Leigh-Hunt's sidekick. Unfortunately the screenplay isn't Cooney's best and the editing is so frantic it must have been done with the finesse of a chainsaw. Despite all this and its obvious shoestring budget, there's some fun to had for us cult b+w geeks...
The acting is a little stilted, although interesting to see Ray Cooney (the future king of farce) standing in as Ronald Leigh-Hunt's sidekick. Unfortunately the screenplay isn't Cooney's best and the editing is so frantic it must have been done with the finesse of a chainsaw. Despite all this and its obvious shoestring budget, there's some fun to had for us cult b+w geeks...
- barkiswilling
- Sep 8, 2021
- Permalink
Lost The Plot
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.
- malcolmgsw
- May 25, 2013
- Permalink
Lurid tale of amputated hands is a good little mystery that is far from run of the mill
- dbborroughs
- Jul 22, 2006
- Permalink
Good in the 60's, but now.......................................??
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.
- ronevickers
- Mar 8, 2007
- Permalink
*Spoilers* Exceedingly strange, Brylcreem and jazz music British B-movie
I'm still giving it '7' for sheer weirdness more than anything else. As 'Malcolm' the reviewer of 26.5.2013 states, it mysteriously starts off with a caption of: 'Burma, 1946'. I wondered where that was going as strangely, it looks like WW2 - with British commandos being tortured by the Japanese. The latter threaten to cut off the hands of the soldiers unless they tittle-tattle their military secrets. Two don't and have their hands cut off. One, Derek Bond, alias 'Crawshaw', looks more nervy and it's left there, before going to the present day (well, 1960). It seems like a tramp has had his hand cut off in the present day by Crawshaw's bent, or lent on brother, who on police investigation by Ronald Leigh-hunt, is trying to get to the bottom of that. Brodie, one of the soldiers who had his hand cut off ends up dead after Crawshaw has visited him in the meanwhile. This can be a vague story, but as one other reviewer says perhaps some credit should go to 'Run for Your Wife' Ray Cooney who wrote and stars in it. It 'does' seem as if Crawshaw who retained his hand by not telling the Japanese soldiers the secrets, may have tried to ease his conscience by 'producing' a hand to Brodie and the other chum to show it wasn't him, or that his secret was out in the open as a sort of traitor. The cops eventually catch up with Crawshaw when he visits the other officer who wouldn't blab (and one-handless of course), Crawshaw runs off and you can guess what happens - let's say he may as well have held back in WW2. Strange, but loved the London locations. So much so (is this sad?) I looked them up and went to see them - quite interesting, most hadn't changed apart from one side of the road churned up for a council estate. Worth watching for the weird factor as well. (Okay, I admit, I've recorded it for my collection of British B-flicks!)
It should have been a lot more exciting....
"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.
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.
- planktonrules
- Dec 12, 2017
- Permalink
A forgotten movie - but with interesting details.
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
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
- Geisterzug
- May 13, 2002
- Permalink
Wouldn't you give your hand to a friend?
- mark.waltz
- May 12, 2020
- Permalink
Not what I'd hoped for
This was billed in my TV guide as a horror film, and indeed both Wikipedia & IMDb class it as one. The reality is that its a plodding British crime drama with a few dark, gruesome scenes. Quite hard to follow & a bit of a drag despite it's short running time. I liked the jazzy score though.
- Stevieboy666
- Sep 4, 2018
- Permalink
Stodgy krimi wannabe
Despite the lurid title, THE HAND is nothing more than a stodgy British attempt at a krimi film; these were a sub-genre of German crime films, invariably based on the works of Edgar Wallace or his son. In them, the streets of London were inevitably prowled by masked killers, while criminal gangs extorted the innocent and dogged detectives gradually closed in on their prey. I thoroughly recommend the krimi film, which provides a neat comparison to the Italian giallo genre that was developing around the same time.
Sadly, THE HAND turns out to have little in common with those films. The narrative is painfully slow, aside from an arresting opening set in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. There are way too many similar characters here, half of them extraneous, and any incident in the film has seemingly been excised so that we're left watching characters discussing what they saw rather than seeing it for ourselves. There are neat flourishes of style and horror and touches of atmosphere here and there, but for the most part this is a waste of time.
Sadly, THE HAND turns out to have little in common with those films. The narrative is painfully slow, aside from an arresting opening set in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. There are way too many similar characters here, half of them extraneous, and any incident in the film has seemingly been excised so that we're left watching characters discussing what they saw rather than seeing it for ourselves. There are neat flourishes of style and horror and touches of atmosphere here and there, but for the most part this is a waste of time.
- Leofwine_draca
- Feb 23, 2015
- Permalink
Nastiness
It starts with Japanese commander Walter Randall interrogating three British prisoners of war, demanding information on their regiments and dispositions. Two refuse to answer and have their hands chopped off. We don't see what happens to the third. Then, fifteen years later, one-handed men are being killed or committing suicide. Scotland Yard gets involved, hunting down a man called 'Roberts'.
It's a nasty movie about nasty people doing nasty things to each other, with some hints of psychology in the story, but mostly just sadism for the audience. The police are baffled, then get a break and then close in on their desperate quarry. It's hardly the sort of thing you'd have expected Henry Cass to be directing at this stage of his career, judging by what he had been working on a decade earlier.
Cass was born in 1903, and by th time he was 20, he was not only acting at the Old Vic, he appeared in one of Lee Deforest's sound films. By 1934, he was directing at the Old Vic, and he made his debut as a movie director in 1937. He peaked as a director in the early 1950s with LAST HOLIDAY, a bitter view of how to get ahead by not caring, starring Alec Guinness with a script by J.B. Priestley. Three more fine comedies came out over the next two years, then a break, and when he came back it was all programmers and second features. He directed his last movie in 1968 and died in 1989.
It's a nasty movie about nasty people doing nasty things to each other, with some hints of psychology in the story, but mostly just sadism for the audience. The police are baffled, then get a break and then close in on their desperate quarry. It's hardly the sort of thing you'd have expected Henry Cass to be directing at this stage of his career, judging by what he had been working on a decade earlier.
Cass was born in 1903, and by th time he was 20, he was not only acting at the Old Vic, he appeared in one of Lee Deforest's sound films. By 1934, he was directing at the Old Vic, and he made his debut as a movie director in 1937. He peaked as a director in the early 1950s with LAST HOLIDAY, a bitter view of how to get ahead by not caring, starring Alec Guinness with a script by J.B. Priestley. Three more fine comedies came out over the next two years, then a break, and when he came back it was all programmers and second features. He directed his last movie in 1968 and died in 1989.
Tremendous
It was very rare that the British film industry gave us such films, besides the pure horror genre in the Hammer Films or Tiggon productions fashion, most notorious horror films companies. Because this film is a crime thriller with a rather American style plot. It is short, maybe too short for this kind of scheme. It is tense, sharp, riveting, exciting, maybe the most interesting film from director Henry Cass, who gave us some horror flicks. It is not complex to understand or follow, no real deep mystery plot, complicated links to assimilate. It is useless to put many action scenes in such a story which may seem a bit disturbing for some audiences. I highly recommend it to any movie buff.
- searchanddestroy-1
- Sep 27, 2023
- Permalink