IN: Review: Fascinating movie, based on a true story, about an Australian woman, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) accused of killing her baby daughter. She insists that a dingo took her baby, but the story is highly suspicious. The film is actually about the media circus that took place around the case, the way Australians interpreted what was presented in the media, and the lynch mob mentality that ultimately led to the woman's conviction, based on barely any hard evidence. I love films that question the media, and also films that take a hard look on how people are railroaded by the justice system. I've always thought that juries ought to be showed 12 Angry Men before they go through with their duties. It's not, as has often been said, a liberal movie, but a clinical look at how we as human beings interpret events based so much on our prejudices and a desire for revenge. A Cry in the Dark is likewise clinical. Schepisi is careful not to make the film at all melodramatic. Some may find the film boring or dry, but I found it engaging.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.

There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.

It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.

4 out of 10, kids.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??

this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.

Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.

The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying "Just kidding."

But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.

It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.

Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative