Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: If you are studying Welles and want to see just how far he fell after Citizen Kane, this film will prove it. The cheap excuse of making the protagonist a self-admitted dummy to explain how he might fall into such a half-baked scheme fails to explain the absurd courtroom theatrics and ridiculous plot twists that eventually ensue. Don't be taken in by the high rating of this film in the db as I was; all I can guess is that there are a lot of die hard old Welles and Hayworth fans out there.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: 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.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Gorgeous Barbara Bach plays Jennifer Fast, a television reporter who travels with her crew (Karen Lamm and Lois Young) to Solvang, California, to cover a Danish festival. The problem is that their accommodations have fallen through and all hotels in town are full. So they travel out of town to a remote location and take advantage of the hospitality of the seemingly friendly Ernest Keller (a phenomenal Sydney Lassick). Wouldn't you know it, Ernest and meek partner Virginia (Lelia Goldoni) are hiding a big secret in their cellar: pitiable, deformed, diaper-clad "Junior" (Stephen Furst, in a remarkable performance) who ultimately terrorizes the girls.

A deliciously unhinged Lassick plays the true monster in this disturbing little horror movie. It builds slowly but surely to an intense confrontation / climax, delivering the horror in small doses until the final half hour. The hotel and the foreboding cellar - large echoes of "Psycho" here - are great settings. Most of all, the perverse plot involves incest and patricide, allowing the movie to take on a truly dark quality. And yet it also becomes poignant as we realize Junior is no one-dimensionally evil bogeyman but as much a victim as the girls. The final shot is especially sad.

"The Unseen" is a solid little horror flick worthy of discovery.

8/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This episode apparently grew out of the cold war. There has been a holocaust but somehow Elizabeth Montgomery and Charles Bronson have come through unscathed. It then becomes a battle for turf. She is attracted to him and vice versa, but the instinct for survival takes over. It's a quiet, slow moving, chess battle as they attempt to achieve trust. They come to truces but distrust takes over and they start again. Of course, the male female role of the sixties comes into play and modern viewers might find that her need to follow him is a bit offensive. But it still is captivating and interesting. Because she doesn't speak, we don't know here mind very well, but in the end we can guess.