While this film certainly had a lot of hard work poured into it and a talented cast to work with, it was visually all over the place to the point where it made me wish I was colour blind. The bizarre soundtrack did nothing to add to its appeal, and Williams often came off as obnoxious throughout. I did like the intro credits with the New York Christmas set pieces, but the rest of it looked like some sort of chaotic avant-garde mess that was trying way too hard and not focusing enough on its actual story. It's all well and good to be flashy, but it gets old really fast if there's nothing good to back it up with. It's more pretentious than anything else, much like its positive reviews that insist that people who hate t "just don't get it" or are "too shallow to appreciate the genius". To that I say, get down off your high horse. Most of the characters were just irritating, the themes clashed to the point where it seemed like the creators were just reaching out of nowhere for any old crud they could make money off of, and it's campy but not even in a remotely humorous way, nor is it "so bad, it's good." It's just weird, and there's a difference between a cool or creative weird and just plain annoying and pointless weird.

I saw 'Toys' at age 12 and again last night, now being 16. Before seeing it last night I tried to drum up all of my previous memories of this film. I recalled it being wildly colorful, creative and entertaining, and it held an important message. Upon a re-watch, I realized that I still identify with most of my earlier observations, but being older and more mature, with more knowledge in general, I came to appreciate something else the film had to offer. As far as the message goes, as a child it seemed so concrete. But now older I find it hard to pin down. But it has something to do with the inner child being extinguished by the quote-unquote "real world." Robin Williams is in this film. I loved him as a child, I found him funny and entertaining as well as serious when needed. His face drums up memories of Jumanji and Bicentennial Man. In this film plays the son of an eccentric toy factory owner. Where is this toy factory? The location is never established, and I believe that is intentional. Any scenery outside of the toy factory consists of rolling green fields that stretch all the way to the perfect blue sky, meeting at the horizon. The factory within is even more colorful, with bright blues, reds, whites and yellows that reminds us of childhood with its brightly colored plastic toys. Many of which are featured in this film, especially around the climax. We also see many cute, nonsensical things, such as toy ducks crossing a hallway while some characters sit and wait in their car. Why do they wait for the ducks to cross? What would it matter if the car simply ran over the lifeless, plastic ducks? Or for that matter, why do the characters dress so brightly with unnecessary flares and silly gimmicks? (ex: Robin Williams's character at one point is wearing a jacket that produces smoke, a "smoking jacket") Of course this leads one to the question, what's the purpose of aesthetics or art at all? Here the film makes a valid and pressing point. I came to realize that it is not in fact purposeless at all. The purpose is that the character wearing the "silly" outfit wants it that way. That is how he/she prefers it. The characters here live in a world without judgment and are free to express themselves. I have a feeling that if people were given unlimited resources and freedom from judgment, they would dress like this in a world like this. Then I came to realize this: this film, with its rolling green hills and perfect blue skies outside of the factory, and pure unprejudiced creation within the factory, takes place inside the mind. If you had to draw the interior of the mind, how would you draw it? Then when I realized that, everything else in the film seemed to match up nicely with human thoughts. The factory in 'Toys' is our idea of a perfect existence, being able to do whatever we wanted, free of judgment, having as much fun as possible and never growing up. This is childhood. But as the reader knows, childhood is not forever. Eventually we grow up and act not in interest of having fun as much as acting to avoid judgment or avoid bad judgment. We want to move along in unison with the rest of the people who had grown up to want the same thing. From out of this idea we get our villain, the uniformed general and brother to the original factory owner. He's what we'd call grown up and here to destroy everything childish and have the factory start producing war toys. This is our mind reaching what is called maturity. Society tells us that maturity is good, even though we can feel our inner child dying (which is also illustrated in the film, by showing a graphic toy war with flying plastic chunks and sparks). Nonetheless, the film then turns around and does something most people growing up do not do. The general, symbolizing maturity, is vanquished and the characters go on with their happy existence. Following my simile about the human mind, this part can seem confusing. But after deliberation, I concluded that the mind in the film had rid itself of the need to mature, and therefor was forever happy, free of judgment and free to express. I have a feeling that if this film was understood by more people in the way that I do, the message would be followed religiously and the film labeled as a holy scripture. It's why self-help books are so popular and for that matter, it is also why religions like Taoism, Buddhism and other beliefs that promise enlightenment are so popular. If you are a Taoist and you understand this film like I do, it would seem to be a work of art, an achievement of bliss and a goal to strive for. I give it a 9 out of 10. The only unnecessary part was discovering that (SPOILER::) the sister was a robot. There is really no point to this, but having said what I did earlier about things that seem pointless, I will not complain.

The BAD news: the story really 'goes off the boil' after about forty five minutes and the second half of the films drags like an anvil being hauled over rocky terrain. Michael Gambon, as the 'baddie', also gives what must be a career-worst movie performance and his character is more sleep-inducing than threatening. Williams also puts in what is one of his irritating/nerve-grating performances and his one-liners fly off at such speed that they can hardly be understood (and when you have really strained yourself enough to hear one, you rapidly conclude that it was not worth the effort in any case).The GOOD news: this film is an absolute visual treat. I remember being totally blown away when I saw this upon release in 1992 on the big screen and (despite having seen it quite a few times on the small screen subsequently) would go virtually any distance to see it in that format again. The factory production lines, the 'house' Williams and his sister live in and, in particular, the countryside around the toy factory (and Williams' father's 'grave site') are just stunning visual statements and ones you can never tire of. Secondly, the musical accompaniment is very good (even if not always perhaps in line with the development of the plot) and, in the case of 'The Mirror Song', is accompanied by a really neat video backdrop. Thirdly, Joan Cusack gives a gloriously wacky performance as Williams' sister which easily outshines him and really embodies the mad-cap, zany atmosphere I am sure the script writers and director had in mind (and which Gambon and Williams are light years away from achieving to any degree at all).Overall, then, a real mixed bag but, in my view, certainly a film worth seeing at least once and one which, with two different male leads and better script work, could have become a real 'cult' film (a la 'Tron') (and which, incidentally, has become even more interesting in plot terms when you consider the use of drones (pilotless aircraft) as a regular feature now of warfare in the 'war on terror'!)

What is this? Is it a speech about the madness of the military America against all the innocent imagination and the childish spirit? Is it a kids' movie with sexual innuendos all the way?! Is it unidentifiable work? Well, it's hard to watch before being hard to define !(Barry Levinson) here co-wrote, produced, and directed what he dreamed of making for whole 10 years. But let's review what *really* happened; He wanted to go Hollywood yet by his own rules, so the flashy movie must have a substance. He glided into not big budget. And he was unfortunately in his worst artistic condition too!The outcome of that was so bad on all the levels. As a political satire it's pathetic. As a comedy it's an outrageous flop; giving the feeling that it is a typical French comedy ! And as an action (Levinson) did a perfect job to destroy everything, starting with the ugly narrow cadres, to the hideous slow-motion, the crappy war toys, the primitive special effects, ending with that embarrassing climactic battle. In brief (Levinson) didn't "liven" a thing, mastering one strangled movie! The script is dreamy, however the treatment killed it utterly. Take for instance the relationship between the lead and his girl. (Robin Wright) did nothing but laughing at the lead's jokes all the time like an idiot, then at one very early – very serious – point she judges him as if he's her long time lover !! Did you notice how she didn't add anything to the conflict later ?! Another matter; so the alleged sister is a toy, what's the point of that ? Another matter; originally who was leaking the info from the factory? These many "matters" lessen my respect to (Levinson) the writer once of (...And Justice for All) and (Sleepers). On a deeper level why the fantasy was that disappointed? as we were just watching things that happen in some factor (!!). Otherwise, it could have enriched the movie's personality to be more vivid and lovable. Actually the reason why this was deadly poor remains at 3 questions : why it wasn't made as a frank fantasy? Or a musical ? Or a cartoon ? I bet with being the 3 together, having a real funny material, it should have been more balanced and useful, because I was watching politics meeting Disney's lowest TV movie !Speaking about "funny", it has unfunny time to the max. The dialog isn't any good, and with the dark directing the whole thing turned into horrible. The moments in-between the serious talks diversified at making disgusting gags every time (vomit, fart jokes, someone shoots his own feet, head that goes off,…) that didn't entertain anyone. Considering his other movies, (Levinson) doesn't have a smart sense of humor (remember Envy, or Bandits?!). The man can't make pure comedies. Obviously he thinks too much, and when he wants us to smile, he chooses awful things ! (Robin Williams) made little effort to produce laughs. Most probably his talking scenes were something of his improvisation. Sure the have-not atmosphere with the movie's own confused personality made his role look like a trivial cameo among a sea of silly weirdness. (Joan Cusack) seemed scary let alone pointless. (Wright Penn) made a movie to regret it later (and if she wouldn't, THEN I WOULD FOR HER!). (Michael Gambon) isn't charismatic enough or droll enough to play that childish war maniac. Despite being the best of all, (LL. Cool. J) totally missed the funny touch of his character. Even the music didn't compensate, being another factor of bore. See, as a whole it is a new proof that there is something HUGLY wrong with the movies that are being written and directed by the same person !Save only few imaginative sets (Toys) earns its rank as one boring movie. I was wishing every minute to leave or change the channel. Too bad that I didn't have the luxury of pressing the fast-forward button!. The movie's intention, of the original tagline, that says "Laughter this time is a state of mind" didn't work. Simply the formula was unusual, yet surely uncorrected too. Accordingly that tagline seems eventually so pedant. In my viewpoints it failed at winning the kids, the eccentric kids, the grown-ups, the eccentric grown-ups; namely all. Unless good ol' Barry did it while having a turbid state of mind, or financial problems with it, then he must be an eccentric child and grown-up himself, delivering uninteresting "toys" for unbearable 2 hours. It succeeds only in being whether a black sneer at the foolish Hollywood Toys in general, or the worst satirical movie ever made. Damn. I can't forget the moment at the end in which the 2 war maniacs were saluting the toy soldiers; it's the top of this movie's naivety and poorness! Finally an advise : watch (Uncle Buckle-Up) instead. It's one of The A-Team's episodes, made 6 years earlier than (Toys), where the leads fought a gang by just toys. In comparison it's more meaningful. Otherwise; wait for a better remake !