Toys Are Not For Children (1972)

Movies that don't quite meet the requirements to be on-topic for FLM, maybe because the actors are too old or screen time is too small.
benjaminblack
Posts: 107
Likes:
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:00 am

Toys Are Not For Children (1972)

Post by benjaminblack »   1 likes

Toys Are Not For Children 1972


[Image]
[Image]
[Image]


http://www.moviepro.net/download-toys-a ... movie.html

It's not a child movie , so that I only did a small clip .

http://www.zshare.net/video/63789268dbfcac7d
User avatar
kev
Site Admin
Posts: 3632
Likes:
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:00 am

Re: Toys Are Not For Children

Post by kev »   0 likes

Hmmm.. :think

Off-topic, but might be interesting...

kev.
User avatar
Night457
Global Moderator
Posts: 5219
Likes:
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: Toys Are Not For Children

Post by Night457 »   0 likes

User avatar
Sully23
Posts: 1335
Likes:
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 7:41 pm

Re: Toys Are Not For Children

Post by Sully23 »   0 likes

kev wrote:Hmmm.. :think

Off-topic, but might be interesting...

kev.
You are right, the young actress only has little participation and only appears in the flashbacks, even in the sex scenes the camera passes very quickly, it does not let the viewer at least enjoy it, it is definitely not a movie for FLM. :cry:
User avatar
kev
Site Admin
Posts: 3632
Likes:
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:00 am

Re: Toys Are Not For Children

Post by kev »   0 likes

Night457 wrote:Are you necrobumping, kev? OK, I'll play!

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0153225/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

https://ulozto.net/file/zu85N7k5bK3b/to ... 5WnmV3AN==

...Audio Commentary version with critics Heather Drain and Kat Ellinger!:
https://www.film1k.com/toys-are-not-for ... -1972.html
Cool X-tra info on the film, thanks Night457. I actually had found a uloz link too, downloaded and watched it last night: I was just planning to skim it at first, then I got caught up in the movie and watched the entire thing. For a low-budget, poorly scripted, badly acted exploitation flick I actually found it entertaining.

It would be interesting to hear what other people thought of it with the commentary. :think
Sully23 wrote:
kev wrote:Hmmm.. :think

Off-topic, but might be interesting...

kev.
You are right, the young actress only has little participation and only appears in the flashbacks, even in the sex scenes the camera passes very quickly, it does not let the viewer at least enjoy it, it is definitely not a movie for FLM. :cry:
Though I DO agree with you on it being 'Off-Topic', I'll have to disagree as to it being 'definitely not a movie for FLM'. (While an erotic drama [even fitting the 'Exploitation' genre] is is by no means a pornographic film.)

Also, if you add up all of the onscreen time of the character of young Jamie it's maybe between 5 and 10 mins. We have a number of movies here where the children in them have less time than she did in this movie.

The thing is; in THIS film the scenes involving young Jamie are pivotal in understanding her character as an adult. As a child she had a VERY loving [non-sexual, but pretty damn close] relationship with her daddy-o. When he moved out and left Jamie alone with her overbearing and hateful mother it was psychologically traumatizing to her and caused her natural love for her father to morph into an incestuous one..

Rake that he was, he DID love his little girl as evidenced in the pix. :heart
[Image][Image][Image]

Then of course there's the bath time, where he sang 'Itsy Bitsy Spider' to her as he dried her off.. :heart
[Image][Image][Image]

The little actress who play 'Young Jamie', Tiberia Mitri, played bit parts in a couple TV Soaps and this film; that seems to be the extent of her career.. Too bad, she was cute and with some lessons might have become a talented little actress... :heart :heart

While, again, I agree it is an 'Off-Topic' movie; I maintain that due to it's underlying theme of this young lady's coming of age; it fits enough of the FLM parameters that I think it would be of interest to many FLM members.

Toys Are Not for Children (1972)

Just my thoughts... :think

kev.
User avatar
Sully23
Posts: 1335
Likes:
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 7:41 pm

Re: Toys Are Not For Children

Post by Sully23 »   0 likes

kev wrote:As a child she had a VERY loving [non-sexual, but pretty damn close] relationship with her daddy-o.
I smell that off screen I 'love' her too much, that is already very pedophile. :x

kev wrote:and caused her natural love for her father to morph into an incestuous one..
A kind of stockholm syndrome, where you start to get attached to your abuser, it is known that you only have memories and in the end you realize all the damage.
User avatar
kev
Site Admin
Posts: 3632
Likes:
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:00 am

Re: Toys Are Not For Children

Post by kev »   0 likes

Sully23 wrote:
kev wrote:As a child she had a VERY loving [non-sexual, but pretty damn close] relationship with her daddy-o.
I smell that off screen I 'love' her too much, that is already very pedophile. :x

kev wrote:and caused her natural love for her father to morph into an incestuous one..
A kind of stockholm syndrome, where you start to get attached to your abuser, it is known that you only have memories and in the end you realize all the damage.
Holy crap... :shock: :shock:

Get off whatever high-horse you're riding on.. :roll:

If you REALLY watched this movie, you're obviously responding because you're pissed the sex scenes were virtually non existent in a film that was touted to be an 'Erotic' drama [the word 'exploitation' has even been used to describe it'].

Whatever you're smelling is more likely the self-righteous indignation of someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. (In relation to THIS FILM...) :evil:

My argument that the father had a 'very loving' relationship with his daughter that was 'non-sexual, but pretty damn close' is that in most 'incestuous' relationships I'm familiar with, [and I have a number of books on the subject as it's been a curiosity of mine for quite awhile], the abusing parent will STILL pursue the child long after the child has passed puberty and has even become an adult. It is the child as an adult that sometime will find the strength to break away if the sex between them and the parent has been abusive.

Quite unlike a 'pedophilic' relationship where it is the adult that loses interest in the victim after the child passes puberty. As far as THIS movie is concerned, from the visual information provided via flashbacks, maybe dad was a little too huggy-feely with Jamie; but it was a PARENTAL love and NOT sexual. ;)

(If any member has an inkling of desire to see this film, do NOT read the 'Spoiler' until after you've seen the movie....) :)
Spoiler:

I'm of the opinion [in regards to THIS movie] that IF the father truly had been sexual with Jamie as a child; after she came to him in the hotel room and they had sex [while he thought she was JUST a prostitute], when she revealed she was really his daughter he would have been excited at the prospect [even from a purely sexual standpoint] and would have reacted positively to the news.

As it turned out when he found out he had just had sex with his own daughter, he reacted with extreme disgust, ordering her to leave and never contact him again. This is NOT the reaction of a man who had knowingly had sex with his daughter as a child. Absolutely not!

Stockholm syndrome does not come into play because the father wasn not even around her. I know you said 'sort of' but her 'attachment' to her dad was due to another reason: She lived with her psychologically abusive mother and it was the abuse she suffered from mumsy that I believe warped the daughter's image of her father from that of an actual 'father figure' to that of 'lover'... And as far as their relationship was concerned she NEVER realized any 'damage'.

In the end SHE WANTED the sexual relationship with her father, HE DID NOT...
:lol: This is not a really great movie by any stretch of the imagination and this discussion is probably giving it far more attention than is warranted; but if you're going to hate it, at least do it based on fact from its actual content and NOT from some arrogant moral attitude that's off the mark.

As cheezy as it was I [as should be obvious by now] liked this movie. It was not what I expected and showed a bit of heart and desire to make a decent film on a shoestring budget from those involved in it's production.

And, yeah: It has a lot of FLM'ish moments that I think make it worthy of being here at FLM. ;)

kev.
User avatar
Sully23
Posts: 1335
Likes:
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 7:41 pm

Re: Toys Are Not For Children (1972)

Post by Sully23 »   0 likes

Holy crap :shock: :shock: :shock:

I did not expect that to be the central point, I am surprised she is the one who really has those fantasies and not her father, I do not know if I really have to think about this? :icon_roll2 ............. I hope someone else's opinion. :icon_paranoid
User avatar
kev
Site Admin
Posts: 3632
Likes:
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:00 am

Re: Toys Are Not For Children (1972)

Post by kev »   0 likes

Sully23 wrote:Holy crap :shock: :shock: :shock:

I did not expect that to be the central point, I am surprised she is the one who really has those fantasies and not her father, I do not know if I really have to think about this? :icon_roll2 ............. I hope someone else's opinion. :icon_paranoid
Not understanding your reaction, but I'm beginning to think you have NOT seen this movie.. :think

Anyway it's in the 'Off-Topic' bin, so it will be forgotten soon enough... :roll:

(But, yeah; another opinion would be nice... :) )

kev.

((Paranoid?? Me? How does that fit into all this? Do you understand what the word 'Paranoid' means? It does not mean 'crazy', if that's what you might have thought...)) :?:
User avatar
Sully23
Posts: 1335
Likes:
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 7:41 pm

Re: Toys Are Not For Children (1972)

Post by Sully23 »   0 likes

kev wrote:
Sully23 wrote:Holy crap :shock: :shock: :shock:

I did not expect that to be the central point, I am surprised she is the one who really has those fantasies and not her father, I do not know if I really have to think about this? :icon_roll2 ............. I hope someone else's opinion. :icon_paranoid
Not understanding your reaction, but I'm beginning to think you have NOT seen this movie.. :think

Anyway it's in the 'Off-Topic' bin, so it will be forgotten soon enough... :roll:

(But, yeah; another opinion would be nice... :) )

kev.

((Paranoid?? Me? How does that fit into all this? Do you understand what the word 'Paranoid' means? It does not mean 'crazy', if that's what you might have thought...)) :?:
I will explain my reactions to you, surprised, crazy (in truth, there is a lack of more faces, that seemed appropriate) and from 'I can't believe it' 'it can't be' missing Kevin Mccallister scared. :o

It seemed incredible to me she was never abused by her father (I follow my theory a little more step off screen) she always tried to figure out when the cases of abuse involve Father-daughter, Father-Son, actually if I saw the movie only starting the final part in the bathtub (I thought there was something but I discarded it) when I sang the song to her before going to sleep I kissed her several times (too many kisses, it even seemed to give them mouth-to-mouth) too loving, it already made me think about suspicious behaviors.
[Image]

I and some viewers are very superficial and we only judge by what we see and your Kev you have the view from another perspective for me it is not easy to see from your point of view and those scenes that you mentioned only made me misunderstand. :roll:
Post Reply