Toys (1967) User Reviews

This Canadian Public Service Announcement . . .

[pixrox1 · 9/10 · 9 May 2023]

. . . goes a long way in explaining why the continent's North-most region's Vietnam War veterans came back from Southeast Asia so much better adjusted for a happy return to a shallow Civilian Life than their counterparts to the South, aka ticking time bombs prone to explode at the drop of military-style semi-automatic assault rife. TOYS begins by showing a mixed group of Canadian tykes goggling a vacuous cocktail party being conducted by a gaggle of carefree Ken's and Barbie's. However, the mood soon sobers, as all the Ken's are sent overseas into a vicious war zone. Realistic sound effects horrify the kids, as some of the Ken's are ripped limb-from-limb by tank and artillery shells, land mines and aerial bombings. However, for the surviving Ken's, the upbeat party music eventually resumes, with the sadder but not much wiser dudes dealing the chicks once again. By ingraining such lessons about recognizing when it's time to forget the past and move on--rather than wallowing in P. T. S. D., like their southerly neighbors--upon impressionable youngsters, Canada commits a rare display of Common Sense.

You will never look at war toys the same way again.

[Ken-120 · 10/10 · 22 May 2000]

Before there was Small Soldiers, there was this film that took something of same subject matter, but in a superior fashion.

When the kids in the film see the toy soldiers in the display, the film presents them as a glamourous bunch with light music highlight how cool they are. However, when these toys come to life, the music suddenly stops and the whole atmosphere becomes foreboding as these soldiers go through the motions of their roles.

When the fighting erupts, the violence displayed is horrific as it is run with rapid cuts and stark lighting. Nothing is untouched, there are scenes of explosions, hurled bodies, death spasms, soldiers being bayoneted and incessant gunfire. All of it is contributing to a terrifying mess of imagery and sound that is all carefully calculated to deglamorize war.

All of this culminates with the sequence of one surviving soldier inspecting the area with all its sickening plastic carnage that seems so authentic in an abstract manner. Then the soldier is discovered and is hit with a flame throwing with a death scream. You will be chilled to the bone, even if they are dolls.

To this day, I cannot see 12" inch figures without those lingering images, which is the precise point of the filmmakers who intended to show what the real purpose of soldiers and war.

Still one of the most remarkably powerful films

[eolas_pellor · 10/10 · 3 November 2005]

I first saw "Toys" in 1966 or maybe 1967; I was 8 or 9, and very fond of my original G.I. Joes (the toy of the title). I can still recall the frisson created by the flame-thrower scene, and the power of the whole film. I saw the film again about 7 or 8 years later, as part of a film studies class, and I was still in awe of the power of the piece. Today, teaching film and video to high school students, I use "Toys" as part of a unit on war films; students still react.

The most remarkable thing is how short this short is. I fully expected, as an adult, for it to be in 15 - 20 minute range; it is a mere 8 minutes. Every second of the film is pregnant with potential; Grant Monroe did not waste a single shot in this NFB classic. The stop-action animation is very good -- right up there with some of the classic stop-action material of the 60s, and surprisingly "life like" considering the fixed facial expression of G.I. Joes, and their limited hand positions.

I give this film one of the highest ratings I have ever given, and I feel it earns every single star.

Once again, the bots are too squeamish . . .

[oscaralbert · 5/10 · 16 May 2023]

. . . to allow any facts from the director's cut of TOYS--which is on Disc 2 of the CUT UP home DVD set--to get through their squelching anti-American censorship net. One of my colleagues wished to report on the director's cut of TOYS. Eventually she had to quit films in frustration. The generalities posted here as Rules for Free Speech offer nothing in the way of meaningful Do's and Don't's that people lacking a Doctorate in Dictatorship can understand. My friend does not know if she was censored for specifying a relevant coastal French Film Festival, named after the nearby clothing-optional beach's many bare derrieres. Alternatively, she thinks she MIGHT have been muzzled for using a ubiquitous amphibian nickname for local residents. She also suspects that hidden, under-the-table payola and political influences resulted in her being silenced. To what is the intolerant World of Today coming?