The Hand (1960) User Reviews

THE HAND (Henry Cass, 1960) **

[Bunuel1976 · 4/10 · 23 February 2008]

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!

Seen on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater in 1965

[kevinolzak · 4/10 · 4 April 2019]

1960's "The Hand" was an hour long programmer from Butcher's Film Service in England distributed by AIP in the US, still to this day falsely advertised as a horror film and definitely lacking in thrills. The opening is at least arresting, the setting WW2 Burma (misidentifying the year as 1946), a Japanese commander seeking knowledge on the position of Allied forces, three captured soldiers refusing to offer anything more than name, rank, and serial number. One by one each prisoner is marched off to a separate interview, losing his right hand as punishment for holding out (the fate of the third is the only one left unseen). Fast forward to 1960 London, where elderly alcoholic Charlie Taplow (Harold Scott) is found with 500 quid in his pocket and his right hand crudely amputated, telling a wild story of sacrificing the five fingered appendage for ready cash. A constable on guard fails to prevent Taplow from being kidnapped, his corpse later found in the river, leading Scotland Yard Inspector Munyard (Ronald Leigh-Hunt) to the hospital where the sloppy surgery was conducted, the patient's name given as Roberts. The doctor turns out to be Simon Crawshaw (Garard Green), a nervous type who reveals only that he found the patient by the side of the road and assumed that he'd been in an accident, requiring the amputation of his right hand. No further information is forthcoming due to Crawshaw's self inflicted gunshot suicide, his cousin Roger (Derek Bond) discussing the requested loan of 500 quid that he had refused to grant because he wasn't told the reason for it. A mysterious phone call puts the Inspector on to another suspect, Michael Brodie (Reed De Rouen), who isn't very cooperative and seems to be missing his right hand. Once he too winds up dead another amputee enters the fray, George Adams (Bryan Coleman), happily married with young son, currently keeping his distance out in the country but soon to be the killer's next target. Since there were only three POWs held by the Japanese it's obvious that the guilty one has to be the third, and that unsurprisingly is Roger Crawshaw, whose real name is Roberts, but needed the old drunkard's hand to try to placate Brodie's understandable bitterness, his ultimate fate appropriate but quite unbelievable. Reviewers lament the picture's awkward structure (the WW2 flashback up front rather than saved for the conclusion), a mistake that had audiences a step ahead of Scotland Yard, for the so called mystery dissipates as the film moves along (even so, a large number of viewers remained confused by the overcomplicated plot). One can forgive the script's inadequacies knowing that it was only the first from actor Ray Cooney, doubling as the Inspector's right hand man, moving behind the camera after a decade in front of it, later specializing in comedy for both stage and screen (his next film was "No Place Like Homicide," an old dark house mix of chuckles and chills, starring Donald Pleasence and Michael Gough).

Good in the 60's, but now.......................................??

[ronevickers · 4/10 · 9 March 2007]

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.

Grisly semi-horror story that marked a change of pace for Butcher's.

[jamesraeburn2003 · 2 October 2017]

An elderly alcoholic called Charlie Taplow (Harold Scott) who claimed to have had his right hand amputated in exchange for £500 is found murdered. Two more deaths follow and Inspector Munyard (Ronald Leigh- Hunt) links the crimes to three ex-servicemen; Corporal George Adams (Bryan Coleman), Private Mike Brodie (Reed de Rouen) and Captain Roberts (Derek Bond) who served together in Burma during the Second World War. They got captured and, whilst being interrogated by a sadistic prison officer at a Japanese POW, they had their right hands severed for refusing to talk. Yet, it appears that one of them may have cracked under pressure and, as a result, was spared the fate of his fellow men. Could the murders be a revenge plot?

Grisly semi-horror story that marked a change of pace for b-pic specialists Butcher's Film Service who usually made run of the mill crime dramas. It has some effective moments such as a reasonably passable Burma-set prologue in which the interrogation and amputation scenes are reasonably unsettling and carry some tension. There is a good suspense sequence set on board a London-Norwich express train in which a little girl with a doll she calls Belinda innocently gives the killer away to his travelling companion by noticing that he has half a button missing from his raincoat. The other half was found at the scene of a murder by the latter who is the victim's brother: "Would you like Belinda to sew one on for you?" asks the child before her mother tells her not to pester the gentleman and then leaving the compartment unaware that his traveling companion's life is now in grave danger.

It is competently acted and the most notable performers are Ronald Leigh-Hunt as the Scotland Yard man, Reed de Rouen and former 1950's matinée idol Derek Bond as the villain. Director Henry Cass directs with brisk paced efficiency, but the whole thing is let down by a confused narrative - either due to a poor script or a botched editing job. This seriously hampers what is otherwise an above average film for its type. It was produced by Bill Luckwell, a former publicist, who made seventeen b-pics in ten years!

Mister Roberts

[richardchatten · 3/10 · 4 August 2020]

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.

Lost The Plot

[malcolmgsw · 5/10 · 26 May 2013]

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.

Lurid tale of amputated hands is a good little mystery that is far from run of the mill

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 23 July 2006]

Lurid little thriller tells the story of the police search for the story behind a drunk having his hand cut off. Later as the police investigate the drunk is murdered and the hunt for the killer is on. The story begins in Burma during the Second World War when three commandos are captured by the Japanese and interrogated. The Japanese solution to get the answers is to cut off some hands. The repercussions of what happened so many years ago is what drives this little movie.

This is a neat little film that never fully makes 100% sense. We follow as the police try to unravel what has happened and why but in the end I don't think that everything is perfectly clear. Not that it matters since the movie is so dark and lurid at times you can't help but get drawn into the action. The violence is brutal and the language is course (at least by 1960 standards). Its a movie that doesn't behave like your typical by the numbers crime drama and is better for it.

I liked this movie a great deal. Its far from perfect, but it does hold your attention. Definitely worth seeing if you run across it.

All a bit half-baked

[barkiswilling · 4/10 · 9 September 2021]

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...

*Spoilers* Exceedingly strange, Brylcreem and jazz music British B-movie

[naseby · 7/10 · 3 June 2013]

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!)

Wouldn't you give your hand to a friend?

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 13 May 2020]

This is a perplexing British thriller that seems to be confused as to what type of film it wants to be. Is it any post-war drama of surviving a horrific prisoner of war situation? Is it a horror film regarding the removal of one person's hand? Or is it a thriller about revenge? When a man is mysteriously murdered evidence only to someone named Roberts as the killer. Who this person is remains a mystery until the conclusion, and even then, if it comes for flexible to try and figure out the motives for the crime. The only real for real thick moment comes when a disembodied hand is shown being revealed in a box. the best elements for me about this film were some of the characterizations at a few of the performances, particularly maddilyn Burgess as a man's widow. The score, filled with jazzy notes, is also quite intriguing. however, it is slow and moody and difficult to really get into, even though it's running time is very brief.

Not what I'd hoped for

[Stevieboy666 · 4/10 · 5 September 2018]

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.

A forgotten movie - but with interesting details.

[Geisterzug · 14 May 2002]

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

It should have been a lot more exciting....

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 13 December 2017]

"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.

Stodgy krimi wannabe

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 24 February 2015]

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.

Nastiness

[boblipton · 5/10 · 8 October 2019]

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.

Tremendous

[searchanddestroy-1 · 28 September 2023]

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.