Toys (1992)

reviewed by
Shane Burridge


Toys (1992) 118m. 

I doubt many people were prepared for this whimsical project from Barry Levinson, especially considering the solid base of reality that his previous works had been grounded in. Apart from occasionally flirting with the fantastic (allegory in THE NATURAL, hallucinations in YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES) Levinson had not been pegged as a fantasy director by the Hollywood establishment, so it's interesting to discover that TOYS was intended as his directorial debut (he made DINER instead). It's just as well he postponed it for ten years - given its ambitious nature and lavish production I don't see how he could have made it back then.

Film is set in a toy factory (which looks like a kind of kiddie METROPOLIS) inherited by a cashiered General (Michael Gambon) who is less than happy about losing his career in the army for a future in a toyshop, especially one run by his frivolous nephew (Robin Williams, in another of his kid-who-never-grew-up roles). The world of TOYS is too innocent by half, which is why it comes as no surprise to us when the General decides to exploit the factory's production concepts for his own ends. Story is inventive and otherwordly, but even after ten years of thought it doesn't appear that Levinson has gotten it quite right - I think the ending, while logical in light of where the film is heading, is unsatisfying, for one thing. But as TOYS is set in a world where nothing is what it appears, any intangibility on Levinson's part can only seem fitting. It's as if he remembered a dream and tried to visualize it for others to see. I also like the tone that he maintains throughout much of its length - it would have been too obvious to go the way of black comedy. TOYS definitely isn't dark: its bright primary colors are mixed with pastels; everything we see is supergeometric, shiny, and spotless. Even the newly-enthused General gets into his role as factory owner by switching the design of his camouflage outfit over to cheerful colors.

The main reason to see TOYS is its look. Its crystal-clear photography and innovative sets deserve to be seen in a cinema -that much was apparent to me when viewing it a second time on television and seeing how lacking in atmosphere the opening sequence looked in comparison. Surreal visual sense (inspired by Magritte), magical setting (the only scenes outdoors take place in a ubiquitous green field), and naive, offbeat plot make for a perfect bedtime story. Simple message - 'War is bad' - will not be lost on children. That we think the meetings of the toy executives trivial and absurd is ironic considering we think nothing of the more familiar (but equally absurd) domain of the strategic military conferences in the film. Williams combines both levels of play (toys and soldiers) in his climatic address to the factory toys, throwing in every jingoistic cliche in the books, combining Gandhi, Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Henry V, Lord Kitchener. Rapper LL Cool J acquits himself well as the General's son. Joan Cusak gives a standout performance as Williams' quirky sister, who sums up attitude of film in her line "the best part is no-one got hurt".

TOYS is like a big toy itself, a grab-bag of novelties and visual gags - there's a great bit where the General, under X-ray surveillance, is spouting about war as if he is Death personified. Sci-fi fans will pick up the line poached from THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL as the last war toy fires its final shot (I don't know how many people share this view, but contrary to film's message, I find the military toys more interesting than the boring clockwork toys that seem to be the factory's main product line). Film's memorable trailer featured Williams improvising in an open field, setting audiences up for an out-and-out comedy that they didn't get. This goes some way to explaining its lukewarm reaction at the box office.


The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews