Own the rights?
13 out of 16 people found the following review useful: Not all THAT bad., 8 October 1999 Author: Warren Hawkes from Melbourne, Australia
Oliver Stone and Michael Caine may well feel a little embarrassed by this tale of a cartoonist haunted by his own severed drawing hand, but despite it's ludicrous premise and rather rubbery effects from Stan Winston, the film isn't all THAT bad.Michael Caine brings an amiable nonchalance to the E.C. horror comic style proceedings while portraying his character's ever growing bitterness perfectly. While the story provides little in surprises the film does work on more than one level, leaving the viewer wondering if what's going on , is all in Caine's character's mind or that it is indeed actually happening. And for a film like this that makes you think, or more fittingly, makes you stop thinking how all very silly this all is, is no mean feat.
10 out of 11 people found the following review useful: Stone tries his 'hand' at horror, 30 January 2003 Author: JOHNBATES-1 from vista, ca
An early Oliver Stone directed film. The Hand does well with atmospheric settings, an essential part of any horror story. There's the beautiful country lakeside home, a New York loft and a rain drenched Northern California town.The horror level won't blow you out of the room however. It's more of a story of dark, suspicious moods and egos presented with intelligent scripted dialogue by a first rate cast. Mara Hobel, playing the young daughter, even does well with little furtive glances, dead pan stares and pert smiles.A master touch is the final scene between a thoroughly exhausted and shattered Caine and the Viveca Lindfors 'there are no such things as ghosts' psychiatrist. The final freeze frame of Caine rising up with a look of gloating madness is brilliant.
7 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Decent enough, 14 October 2007 Author: Bjorn (jbjorns) from Iceland
I don't know if I was in a rare forgiving frame of mind but The Hand actually worked for me.It doesn't go very deep in the psychological department and just about every average viewer can spot the twist but then the end just throws everything out the window and leaves the audience shouting; What the ****! But it's well acted, especially by Caine who completely earns viewer's sympathy. Writer/director Oliver Stone effortlessly builds up suspense and atmosphere and some scenes here do work really well. Technical aspects are surprisingly well handled and make up effects are gruesome and well done.While The Hand won't go down as a cinematic masterpiece, it's a solid thriller nonetheless.
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful: THE HAND (Oliver Stone, 1981) **, 20 March 2007 Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta
Nobody can ever accuse Michael Caine of not having had a fascinating career. His incredibly prolific filmography (132 appearances and counting in just over 50 years) is littered with high highs (a handful of all-time classics and 2 Academy Awards) and low lows (actually, from quite early on in his career to, unsurprisingly, the present day). Still, the latter bunch are, for all their glaring faults, hardly unwatchable and, at times, fairly tolerable and this rare horror item is certainly among his more interesting failures.Apart from its horror elements and the chance to watch another Michael Caine stinker (although, as it turns out, Jon Voight and Christopher Walken had both previously turned down the lead role), the film's main draw nowadays is watching an early (though not the first) directorial stint from Oliver Stone (he even has an amusing unbilled cameo as an ill-fated tramp) and, most intriguingly, within an exploitation genre from which he has distanced himself completely since then. As I mentioned earlier, the film ends up being less the disastrous embarrassment I had anticipated and more a watchable (if hardly original) horror flick which moves rather slowly but has has the occasional effective shock moment to satiate genre fans. In fact, Stone infuses the film with a modicum of style including subjective shots from the marauding hand's point of view, delirious dream sequences often shot in monochrome and, most incredibly, an utterly grisly freak car accident sequence (with fake blood galore) early on in the film in which cartoonist Caine loses his drawing hand and which sets the narrative in motion.The thing is that, while it starts well enough, the film is soon bogged down by repetitive marital squabbles between an increasingly unhinged Caine and his free-spirited wife Andrea Marcovicci. Besides, Caine's stump is not exactly the greatest and, when all is said and done, we have been here once too often and I only need to point out the other more notable cinematic examples of "the walking hand" - THE HANDS OF ORLAC (1924), MAD LOVE (1935) THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS (1946), THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962), DR. TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS (1965) and ...AND NOW THE SCREAMING STARTS! (1973) - for this film's relative redundance to become apparent. Still, that such an old-fashioned concept was revived at this point in time and by these film-makers is extraordinary in itself but, even if they did try to bring it up-to-date with the addition of gore and sleaze, I can't say I was too surprised by the twist ending which - while not making a great deal of sense and somewhat dispelling the strong similarities with Michael Caine's previous role in another imitative (but much more successful) slasher, DRESSED TO KILL (1980), which had previously been to the fore - provided Hollywood veteran Viveca Lindfors with a very brief but notable cameo as Caine's no-nonsense shrink.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: Liked the psychological demons of Michael Caine, 20 July 2007 Author: horacekohanim from Lala Land
As a psychological thriller this actually works. In large part because of Michael Caine. As a B movie about a killer hand or a schizo cartoonist it features Olive Stone's tortured man, driven to ruin by a woman, whose lack of self-knowledge and unchecked rage propel him to violence. I kind of agree with another reviewer's disappointment at the ending not wrapping it up, but The Hand is enough of a thing that I feel neither way about the end. Stone's vitriol for women, a characterization many have stuck on throughout his career, is very apparent here. Caine as Johnathan Lansdale is comfortable in his beautiful country home, crafting a semi-popular syndicated cartoon. But his yogic wife Anne (Andrea Marcovicci) wants to do something with her life and demands a move to NYC. This ends up undoing him, but not before he struggles with having his writing/drawing hand severed. Without saying more, I'd recommend this for Caine's gradual unraveling, an engrossing trip into The Mind and even a good Oliver Stone cameo.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful: The sound of one hand strangling..., 8 October 2007 Author: Scott LeBrun from Winnipeg, Canada
Very interesting and pretty effective psychological horror stars the always wonderful Michael Caine as the creator of a fantasy-based comic strip who is having some pretty strained relations with wife Anne (Andrea Marcovicci). Well, his life takes a horrific turn when, in a bizarre traffic accident, his drawing hand is severed. As Jon Lansdale (Caine) goes to live in solitude with a new gig as a college professor in California, the missing hand seems to have taken on a "life" of its own, murdering everybody who makes Jon angry.I severely under-rated this one upon first viewing a few years back. I now realize what the intent here was, and the film works quite well, drawing us into the increasingly unstable and paranoid mind of Jon. Caine does a highly creditable job in this role. It's a dark and moody tale, well realized by future Oscar-winning film-maker Oliver Stone, in this early directorial effort. Stone also gets good performances out of the supporting cast, which also includes adorable young Mara Hobel - the young Christina Crawford in the same years' "Mommie Dearest", Rosemary Murphy, Annie McEnroe, Bruce McGill, Charles Fleischer, Pat Corley, and Tracey Walter.Carlo Rambaldi supplies the many different hand effects, James Horner contributes a solid score from the early years of his career, and King Baggot is the excellent cinematographer. Stone has a very good crew to work with here.In contrast to the psychological aspects of the story, Stone doesn't shy away from the red stuff when it's time. The severing of the hand is a good and gruesome set piece. For the most part, though, it's a subtle piece of work.Although the final scene doesn't seem all that necessary, the picture does end on a memorable final note. The final freeze frame of Caines' face just says it all.Overall, it's an under-rated shocker worth looking into for the curious.8/10
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful: It's the ending that makes this movie., 20 September 2006 Author: jamnar from United States
I remember watching this movie soon after it came out and the special effects were not bad for the time period that it came out despite what people say. Remember, Star Wars had only been out a few years by this time. As far as the movie goes, Caine does quite well with his part and the plot is believable in the way Freddie Kruger is believable. If you've seen many "creature" movies, then this one could seem to be predictable and thus lose some of it's "boo" effect. Wait until the end and watch closely. If you've seen this movie you should know what I mean, if not then pay close attention. After seeing that final scene you suddenly realize that maybe all wasn't as it seemed. Go back through this movie and keep in mind that last scene. Suddenly the whole movie transcends the Freddie Kruger believable and becomes in fact quite plausible. It's like watching Star Wars Episode 4 after just watching Episode 3, it all takes on new meaning!
7 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Under-appreciated Psychological Thriller, 28 January 2007 Author: desert-buddha from Western Desert United States
I watched this movie twice recently, and thought that it was excellent. Great, in fact.This early Oliver Stone film is quite good in that you really have to be "sharp" to "get it". Although on the surface, this movie seems to be almost a 'slasher' movie, it is not. It is much, much more. Might be a little too heady for some to grasp, but that makes it no less great.I think the performance by Mr. Caine was superb. I could really feel his emotions at times. He certainly reached way inside of himself in this role. In my opinion, the best performance I have seen by him.This is definitely one of those 'more than meets the eye' type of movies. If you watch it, and don't get it, watch it again.I would recommend this film to fans of Psychological Thrillers, Horror, Mystery, Crime Drama, and cult film fans.I can't believe this has a cumulative rating of only 4.7. I give 'The Hand' 8 out of 10. A GREAT Horror Psychological Thriller.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: as a fan of Caine's and a (usually) fan of Stone's it's suffice to say this is crap, 9 May 2009 Author: MisterWhiplash from United States
The Hand is a psychological horror film, at least that's what it touts itself to be on the video box. It's mostly just a lot of heavy-handed pseudo-thrills meant to give chills and shocks when really it just creates some redundancy. We're given the tragedy of a character, Joe Lansdale, who loses his hand in a rather freak accident while his wife is driving the car, and he can't seem to find the bloody thing in a field. He gets a metal replacement put on ala the Terminator, but does the old hand left for the bugs in the field have its own mind? Or is Joe just controlling the thing and going after all of the people he's close to (i.e. his own wife, his mistress, his mistress's actual guy on the side, etc)? The real intentions aren't made totally clear, this despite Oliver Stone's attempts at creating a sense of danger and paranoid with Caine's character. And Michael Caine, he does try his best, he really does, going for every scene with the kind of dedication and (trying to search for) truth of the matter even as the script tries to undercut him with below-par dialog. Maybe Stone wasn't really equipped for this material anyway, that in his defense (if possible) he was a hired gun- based more possibly on his first film Seizure, a horror film, than any clout he got from his first Oscar- and whatever skills he brought weren't put into a style that really made things work.Indeed, now that we have a movie like Raimi's Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn, we see how cheesy a killer-hand flick really is and how it would be simply better off as unintentional comedy. There's a couple of scenes were we see the potential for something over the top, like when the black cat jumps up on the desk and inexplicably crashes through the window (!) or just the image of that lizard's tale flapping about which the original book from the movie has its name. But none of the characters are convincing, and the tendencies that are weakest that Stone tends towards which are, frankly, beating-you-over-the-head things with direction and writing, are put way up front here. It's been said, by the man himself, that Stone was on coke for a period in the early 80s prior to writing Scarface. Maybe some of that rubbed off the wrong way here? Bottom line: whatever's meant to be scary is downright lame, and its just crappy film-making that battles with an actor of Caine's caliber who does try and make it interesting. He does, actually, which may be the only real longevity this has. If you're at all a Stone fan, as I am (up to a point) it's a disappointing Psycho variation, and for his haters it's just more fuel for the fire.
Disembodied hand story minus the usual camp, 28 October 2009 Author: Polaris_DiB from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Many early films, even from big name directors, are simple concept horror films. From world famous Oliver Stone comes a somewhat familiar disembodiment story where an artist loses a hand, only for the hand to become a literal "manifestation" (get it?) of his psyche--especially his anger. Now, disembodied hands have a history in cinema stretching back to the silent era, but for some reason in the 80s it was a really popular concept--Idle Hands, Evil Dead II... What's interesting about Stone's take is that it's played with a straight face and a minimum of camp.Partly that has to do with Michael Caine. Caine is always good, and here he's downright sadistic as a grumbling, postal frustrated artist. Another element is the script. Based on a story by Marc Brandel, "The Hand" has more to do with a floundering marriage and unstable future than it does with cheap shocks and startles (though we are speaking Oliver Stone here, so there is more than enough blood). Thirdly, there's Stone's directing itself, which delights in unsettling camera play and some really impressive lighting. Though this is not Stone's first movie, for an early one it is still a very impressive indication of his skill behind the camera, his ability to direct actors, and his visual acumen.For someone looking for scare-a-minute thrills, the plodding length and necessary character development will get in the way, but for those who like their psychological thrillers slowly bubbling up from the bottom, The Hand is very well-paced fare. It all becomes worth it as Caine's psyche breaks down and even he loses track of what he's responsible for.--PolarisDiB
Add another review
