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.

Leofwine_draca 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.

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.

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.