Toys Are Not for Children

The good people at Something Weird Video obviously don't watch any of the exploitative junk they distribute and simply put films together purely based on matching titles or something! "Toys are not for Children" sounds like an ideal companion for another movie called "The Toy Box", but if you've seen them both, you can immediately conclude these two movies differ enormously when it comes to atmospheres, filming styles, substance and intensity level. "The Toy Box" is totally lurid and nonsensical crap about sexist aliens, whereas "Toys are not for Children" is an aspirant-controversial and mildly perverted tale about a girl with an unhealthy desire for her father. This is not a particularly pleasant movie – and definitely not the usual type of light-headed sleaze Something Weird brings forward – but it's nevertheless a curious attempt at drama and adult themes. 19-year-old Jamie is obsessed with her daddy ever since her shrewish mother kicked him out for visiting prostitutes. He still sends her presents and she "plays" with them, all right, but let's just say the toy soldier didn't get any training for this type of field work… Jamie gets married but refuses to sexually satiate with her husband and still only wants to play with daddy's toys and recapture memories of her early childhood. She then flees to the big city and moves in with an elderly prostitute who introduces her to a lot of old perverts that just love to act like Jamie's daddy. You don't need a degree in quantum-physics to predict the film builds up towards an actual encounter between Jamie and her dad in a climax oozing with incestuous vibes, bizarre fetishism and abrupt acts of vengeance. The atmosphere and themes of "Toys …" may be extremely sordid and sleazy, but there's actually very little nudity or sexual content on screen. Writer/director Stanley Brassloff had copious opportunities to turn the movie into one gigantic sex feast (Jamie's husband picks up randy girls in bars, Pearl's pimp assaults women, etc…) but the sexual content largely remains suggestive and off-screen. Rather than to focus on all the luscious and willing women in the film, the story solely revolves on the frigid Jamie and her messed up sentiments. Like the other genius reviewer already stated, "Toys are not for Children" probably one of the sleaziest concepts ever thought up, but the actual content is rather sober. That's quite a remarkable accomplishment; especially for the early 70's. The production values are also fairly decent, with monotonous but relatively stylish photography and nice musical guidance. Definitely recommended for avid cult fanatics, but stay clear if you're just looking for rancid sleaze. In that case, you're better off watching the aforementioned "The Toy Box".

The sort of movie that would have been a sepporting feature after the main movie at a drive-in, when half the cars had left! Stupid acting, stupid story! A bit of nudity, barely an attraction....

Infrequently lauded, boundary-blasting Grindhouse impresario, Stanley H. 'Two Girls' Brasloff reaches his onanistic apogee in his anti-Sirkian, wonderfully wrong-headed, sadistically squirrelly, promiscuously incestuous, preternaturally potty pot-boiler 'Toys are not for Children' (1972) which arguably remains one of the most sinisterly outrageous grope operas ever conceived to boggle previously thought as 'un-boggle-able' B-Movie minds!

Taking a deliciously degenerated, John Waters approach to sweaty-palmed, morally napalmed family values, Brasloff paints a fascinatingly lurid, stink-fingered portrait of the sin suppurating, salaciously-skewed Godard family. We savour the flavoursome interlude of lusciously ripe young, Jamie Godard (Marcia Forbes) squirming avidly upon the bed suggestively appropriating her childhood plush toy for intimate tasks, perhaps, entirely extra to its original design! Hamming it up with scummy aplomb, the majestically malevolent matriarch Godard (Fran Warren) strides into the bedroom incensed by the sight of daughter, Jamie's breathy exhortations over her absentee father!

This heady 'opening' sordidly telegraphs the transgressive, manifestly strange milieu of gamine, infantile Jamie's troubled, rigorously unconsummated marriage to peachy-keen, handsomely lean Toy Shop co-worker, Charlie (Harlan Cary Poe), and Jamie's singularly misguided quest to locate her long absconded, highly suspect, serially abusive father. Our ingenuous heroine having to endure the profoundly unpleasant, morally repugnant undertakings of her truly venal pimp, Eddie (Luis Arroyo), and suffering additional ignominy at the insensitive hands of her dysfunctional mother/guardian/abuser, Pearl (Evelyn Kingsley).

The technical aspects of Brasloff's twisted drama are quite exemplary, being of a much higher standard than the outre subject matter might suggest. Especially notable is the refined quality of acting, which gives this exquisitely dark and fetishistic tale of starkly forbidden familial love some remarkably heartfelt pathos, demonstratively absent from similarly illicit 42nd Street fare of the period. Fondly recalled, and deservedly so, the evocative opening theme 'Lonely Am I' is an ear-wormingly diggable ditty that belies the film's queasy examination of child abuse and its deleterious effects upon the wholly corrupted lives of all those involved. 'This bracingly adult film is certainly NOT for childish minds!'

Brace yourself for a profoundly unsettling cinematic experience-this film stands out as one of the most disturbing pieces of art ever created. It delves into the complexities of the human psyche, weaving a storyline filled with darkness and perverse twists that will resonate in your thoughts long after the final credits have rolled. Each frame is meticulously crafted, dripping with an overwhelming sense of foreboding that pulls you into an uncanny world where the line between reality and nightmare blurs and horrors appear in the most unexpected forms.

Approach this film with utmost caution, for it is not a narrative for the timid or faint-hearted. Prepare to confront your deepest fears as you navigate through a labyrinth of psychological terror, where every moment keeps you on edge and makes you question your own perception of reality.

Toys Are Not for Children (1972)

*** (out of 4)

Jamie (Marcia Forbes) is a mentally unstable young woman who is still suffering various daddy issues. She eventually marries Eddie (Luis Arroyo) but is too afraid to sleep with him, which leads to her relationship with Pearl (Evelyn Kingsley), a known prostitute. Pretty soon Jamie's daddy issues lead her into prostitution and soon she runs into her real father who left her years earlier.

If you're a fan of Something Weird Video then you know they've released all sorts of strange sex pictures. If you're expecting a sex picture out of TOYS ARE NOT FOR CHILDREN then you will either be shocked or disappointed because that's not what this movie is. Instead of cheap sex and nudity, this movie instead goes for a more psychological approach and it actually works in delivering a very surreal and dark tale of mental illness.

What shocked me the most is the fact that this film is rather ambitious and tries to be more like Bergman than the various trashy film that were playing 42nd Street. Of course, this isn't anywhere near the level of Bergman but I really do respect director Stanley H. Brassloff for trying to do something deeper. I really liked how the story jumped around from various times in Jamie's life and I thought this added a nice flow to the material. Another major plus is the fact that the director manages to hold your attention throughout even though he was obviously working with a very small budget.

Another plus are the performances, which for the most part were very good. Forbes is wonderful in the role of the woman who is still very much like a child due to her daddy leaving. I really thought she nailed this character and made for a very good character study. The actress was believable no matter what the role was calling for. Harlan Cary Poe was also very good in the role of the abusive pimp. Both Kinglsey and Arroyo were good as well.

TOYS ARE NOT FOR CHILDREN isn't a movie that's going to appeal to everyone. The low-budget look of the picture does make it appear more raw and overall I was surprised to see how captivating the film was.